|
|
ADVERTISEMENT
Buy Your own advertising
spaces!
.
Download Adobe Acrobat Reader to open [PDF] files.
Recent Visitors
Defending the USA Pavilion
2010. 3 April
And no, the Shanghai World Expo is not just a trade show
Contrary
to what reporter Adam Minter wrote recently in his article, "A Sorry Spectacle:
The Uninspiring Saga of the United States'
World Expo Pavilion in Shanghai,"
the design and execution of the USA Pavilion has been not only impressive but
inspiring.
by Jose H. Villarreal
(foreignpolicy.com)
The
USA Pavilion, which will open its doors on May 1 as part of the first-ever
World's Fair hosted in China,
will showcase American values, ideas, and culture to an international audience
eager for knowledge about the United States and the world.
An estimated 70 million people are expected to attend what is officially known as Expo 2010 Shanghai, where more than 240 countries and international organizations will be represented. According to a recent poll conducted by Millward Brown ACSR and Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, the USA Pavilion, currently in the final construction phase, is likely to be among the most popular foreign exhibits for Chinese Expo-goers.
This pavilion's anticipated success is a testament to the leadership of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a group of citizens who think that the world's top economic power and democratic beacon must take every opportunity to nurture the ever-important U.S.-China relationship.
World's Fairs are about forging the ties that bind. The Shanghai event will knit a stronger relationship between the United States and China, and better relations in turn will help two proud countries cooperatively address vital global issues, from trade to climate change to security.
Thanks in large part to Clinton's Office for the Global Partnership Initiative, we've managed to raise virtually all the funds necessary to build the pavilion, drawing support from a cross section of U.S. companies, municipalities, and states that recognize the value in reaching out to one of the United States' most important trading partners and to the world.
The Office for the Global Partnership Initiative is focused on coordinating with like-minded countries and organizations on issues of common interest.
In particular, the pavilion's planning and construction is an example of the Obama administration's pursuit of more public-private partnerships -- in which government works in tandem with the private sector in pursuit of mutually beneficial goals, such as increasing mutual understanding between the American and Chinese peoples, underscoring support for environmental protection, and boosting interest in American products and services that can help both citizens and government officials envision and build a "Better City, Better Life" -- the overarching theme of the Expo.
This USA Pavilion will give the American people a public presence at the Expo, while raising the profile of American corporations and organizations in the Chinese market.
Moreover, the pavilion will feature a diverse array of American musicians performing on stages throughout the massive Expo site -- introducing international audiences to musical styles ranging from bluegrass to hip-hop to jazz. American jazz legend Herbie Hancock is just one of the Grammy Award-winning performers who is scheduled to perform.
I am particularly proud that Chinese and foreign guests will be greeted by 160 Mandarin-speaking American college students working as "Pavilion Student Ambassadors." Drawn from across the United States, from schools small and large, they will add a friendly human touch to America's representation at the Expo. I am also proud of our efforts to highlight the achievements of the Chinese in the United States and through their experience to celebrate America's immigrant heritage and commitment to diversity.
Chevron, Citigroup, Disney, General Electric, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, and Johnson & Johnson, all of whom have donated or provided in-kind assistance to the pavilion effort, see their involvement as linked to their own corporate social responsibility missions. Other major U.S. companies donating or providing in-kind assistance include: Amway, American Airlines, Boeing, Dell, Deloitte, Dow Chemical, DuPont, FedEx, Harman International, Honeywell, Intel, Marriott, Mars, Microsoft, Panasonic Integrated Systems, Qualcomm, Visa, Yum! Brands, and Wal-Mart.
Yet, it would be a disservice to characterize the Expo as a mere trade show. Far from it. The USA Pavilion is an opportunity to project American ideals onto a grand stage. Toward that end, the pavilion will include displays about the freedoms and values that play such an important role in the lives of Americans.
A highlight for many of our guests will be the feature film in the pavilion's main theater. The story is simple and compelling. The Garden tells an inspirational story of a little girl who dreams that a vacant urban lot visible from her window can become a garden; she wants to make her corner of the city a better place. A strong sense of optimism, community spirit, and perseverance in the face of challenge runs through this story -- traits that run deep within the American character. Through its ethnically diverse cast of Americans, the presentation can be seen as a universal story reflective of how different countries must work together to achieve common goals, collectively forging a better world.
The USA Pavilion will open its doors despite the well-documented obstacles that have stood in its way, such as legislative limitations prohibiting the use of appropriated funding for an American presence at World's Fairs unless expressly authorized by Congress. Practically speaking, this means that the money had to be raised from private donations. In good economic times, this provision presents formidable challenges, but during the Great Recession, this had the blocking force of the Hoover Dam.
In the end, however, we overcame the odds. The result: In Shanghai the United States. will have a world-class presence at the largest ever World's Fair. The USA Pavilion, with its stirring design, cultural performances, student ambassadors, and memorable theater experiences, will draw millions of people eager for a glimpse of what makes America great. They'll be inspired.
Amway
Amway has ripped off millions of people for several decades, to the tune of 10s of billions of dollars.
Amway is a scam, and here's why: Amway pays out as little money as they can get away with, so they support the higher level IBOs ripping off their downline via the tool scam.
As a result, about 99% of IBOs operate at a net loss, while the top 1% make several TIMES more from their Amway tool scam than from the Amway products. This was made illegal in the UK in 2008, but our FTC is unable to pull their heads out of their butts to stop it here.
Read about it on this website: http://thenetprofitgroup.yolasite.com and forward the information to everyone you know, so they don't get scammed.
AMSTED
10:05 PM ET
April 2, 2010
This is a rebuttal?
How can this be characterized as a rebuttal of Minter's piece? It's a list of talking points in favor of the pavilion.
Nowhere in this piece does Villarreal address the allegations made in Minter's piece, including serious charges of nepotism in the awarding of the pavilion, potential violations of law by State Department personnel, potential contracting fraud, loans received by the USA pavilion by the Chinese government, etc etc etc.
Are we to take it, then, that in Villarreal's opinion all of those allegations are true?
AMERICANINSHANGHAI
12:00 AM ET
April 3, 2010
Missing the Point
It seems to me that there are people who continue to focus on the wrong elements of this Expo project, the goal of which is to create goodwill among nations and people. What on earth does ranting about Amway have to do with the article above? As a diplomat, Villarreal is to focus on the role of the US Pavilion in the greater Expo context. Addressing allegations that are completely misinformed and and misguided (and ill-natured) would only perpetuate a poisonous conversation that does not add any value to a fruitful dialogue about the the true spirit of the World's Fair and the US's involvement in this monumental event.
I am an American expat living in Shanghai for several years now and I am genuinely looking forward to visiting the US pavilion along with many other nation's pavilions. I can honestly say that my very international group of friends here feel the same way. One can feel the excitement and buzz surrounding the Expo building as the inauguration day approaches.
Brava to the USA pavilion team for putting together what is sure to be a great US pavilion under incredibly difficult circumstances.
BOB JACOBSON
2:14 AM ET
April 3, 2010
Yes, Jose, but....
Your "defense" is a mark of your loyalty to the cause and to the US having a good presence at the Shanghai Expo. All Americans would applaud your dedication as Commissioner General.
However, I do not see in your article any rebuttals to Adam Minter's piece, particularly his fact-based recounting of the problematic fashion in which the US Pavilion was awarded to the current team or the quality of the work that has subsequently ensued. It disturbs me that you, as Commissioner General, choose to ignore these facts and outcomes because it is the role of Commissioner General, as I understand it, not to be a cheerleader for the US Pavilion but rather its overseer in the name of the American people. Anything less could be construed as a conflict of interest.
As the first Commissioner General of a serious US Pavilion effort in 20 years, your standards must be the highest. Your evaluation of how the US is represented at the Shanghai Expo and the factors that led to the issues Adam so well addressed will determine the success or failure of US Pavilion efforts at Yeosu, Korea, in 2012 and at the 2015 Milan's Universal Expo -- on a par with Shanghai, but much closer to home and critical to US public diplomacy,
Two of your statements, taken together, are especially confusing and troubling. You first state,
"Chevron, Citigroup, Disney, General Electric, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, and Johnson & Johnson, all of whom have donated or provided in-kind assistance to the pavilion effort, see their involvement as linked to their own corporate social responsibility missions. Other major U.S. companies donating or providing in-kind assistance include: Amway, American Airlines, Boeing, Dell, Deloitte, Dow Chemical, DuPont, FedEx, Harman International, Honeywell, Intel, Marriott, Mars, Microsoft, Panasonic Integrated Systems, Qualcomm, Visa, Yum! Brands, and Wal-Mart."
You then state,
"Yet, it would be a disservice to characterize the Expo as a mere trade show. Far from it. The USA Pavilion is an opportunity to project American ideals onto a grand stage. Toward that end, the pavilion will include displays about the freedoms and values that play such an important role in the lives of Americans."
That seems to be a contradiction on the face of it, because nowhere do you indicate there was or will be any involvement of the American people in the US Pavilion's operation. Or did I miss something?
As for AmericaninShanghai's comment: it's meaningless. This anonymous person states,
"Addressing allegations that are completely misinformed and and misguided (and ill-natured) would only perpetuate a poisonous conversation that does not add any value to a fruitful dialogue about the the true spirit of the World's Fair and the US's involvement in this monumental event."
Which allegations are you speaking of? Adam Minter's? No other journalist has invested as much time or energy in trying to understand why there are so many misgivings about the US Pavilion effort, not just among Americans (including the majority of informed expats in Shangha) but behind the scene, also among the Expo hosts. Adam came to his conclusions -- I know, because he interviewed me most critically -- without preconceptions about the effort or its outcomes. He is one of the most even-handed, conscientious journalists I've met in the course of my own three-year involvement with the Expo. AmericaninShanghai's criticism of Adam is unwarranted, ignorant, and defensive, pointless boosterism.
Jose Villarreal's job as Commissioner General correctly is "to focus on the role of the US Pavilion in the greater Expo context." That does not mean being its chief cheerleader. It means to inform the President, the Secretary of State, the Congress, and above all the American people how best they can be represented in Shanghai and even more at future Expos and to counsel in Shanghai how this can be done. This article is unfortunate in that context.
PORNO IZLE
10:25 AM ET
April 3, 2010
www.pornoizletsene.com
Erotik Videolar porno izle Ünlülerin Porno Videolari
Diziler filmler dev site dizi izle Kurtlar vadisi ulvi cevo
TECHMAN
10:52 AM ET
April 3, 2010
Jose Villarreal's job
Mr Jacobson seems to have a different idea of Commissioner General Villarreal's mission and purpose than everybody else. Villarreal was appointed to raise the money to build the USA Pavilion. It was essentially an emergency appointment because the prior administration's people whiffed. According to the State Dept website Mr Villarreal is responsible for oversight of the U.S. Pavilion and serves as the official U.S. government representative to the Government of China on issues relating to World Expo Shanghai 2010.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/july/125540.htm
I'd say he has done his job rather well!
I cannot wait for my trip to Shanghai! It is going to be fun.
BOB JACOBSON
12:05 PM ET
April 3, 2010
Wrong on all counts.
Again, "oversight" -- the term used by the State Dept. and you -- does not mean cheerleading. Here's what the law says about the Commissioner General:
US CODE: TITLE 22,2452B. INTERNATIONAL EXPOSITIONS
The Commissioner General of a United States pavilion or other major exhibit at any international exposition or world’s fair registered by the Bureau of International Expositions shall submit to the Secretary of State and the appropriate congressional committees a report concerning activities relating to such pavilion or exhibit every 180 days while serving as Commissioner General and shall submit a final report summarizing all such activities not later than 1 year after the closure of the pavilion or exhibit.
Mr. Villarreal is the public's overseer, not the pavilion producers' spokesperson or defender. Note that the law requires a report to be filed every 180 days. Mr. Villarreal was appointed on July 1, 2009. Therefore, one report is overdue and another is due in a few months. What will they contain? More puffery?
You are correct that the prior Administration should have appointed a Commissioner General when it issued its RFP, but it made this a condition of funds being on the table by a successful applicant -- an impossibility, since no applicant could fulfill the requirement. (This necessitated the private, out of public sight outsourcing of the US Pavilion to Shanghai Expo 2010, Inc., in March 2008.)
However, the Obama Administration too didn't appoint a Commissioner General when it should have, with the appointment of the Secretary of State in February 2009. The out of control situation in China was related to all members of the State Department leadership as soon as it took office. Instead, the Secretary waited until after she had conducted the majority of her fundraising in behalf of Shanghai Expo 2010, Inc., the pavilion producers.
That puts the Commissioner General in an awkward position, having to evaluate the actions of two prior Secretaries of State -- one who appointed him -- and still maintain an objective point of view. Obviously, it's difficult to do.
Let's get to the nub of this: an institution endowed with the public imprimatur has been given over to a tax-exempt nonprofit corporation, unaccountable to anyone but its officers, to sell them space in the US Pavilion that the Chinese earlier located -- as an act of honor, not a commercial lease -- at the crossroads of an Expo that 70 million Chinese will attend. 42 corporations, mostly large and many in conflict in one way or another with the Expo's theme of sustainability and good living, buy into the US Pavilion and set up shop. The US Pavilion has become a total corporate trade show garnished with a few token expressions of "American" culture -- treacly stuff, hardly the genuine American experience -- but its producers haven't the integrity to say so.
In return, the corporations that in effect "own" the US Pavilion are granted tax deductions, probably future political favors, and in many cases, the opportunity to make a lot of money via their retail operations in and around the US Pavilion. A hundred odd students are employed as guides; some VIPs, chosen exclusively by the Shanghai Expo 2010, Inc., come to give lectures and some perform music. Otherwise, there is no other public participation.
Private control and funding of a US Pavilion is totally at odds with the entire history of US Pavilions at International Expositions. If the US was still a member of the Bureau of International Expositions that manages Expos by treaty, the US would, like all other signatories (i.e., every major nation in the world), publicly fund its pavilion. Because we are not (a legacy of the Clinton Administration), we can play cowboys and do it the Wild West way: put it up for sale! The Bushies tried this in 2005 at the Aichi Expo and it was a thematic and experiential disappointment. It is, however, the model for what we have now. Good luck.
A deserving US Pavilion would have been fundable by Congressional appropriation -- every one in the past was -- and completed last year, well in time for the Expo and with many more features to boot. The American public could have been involved in a dozen ways: kids in schools; small businesses via local chambers of commerce; speeches, lectures, and seminars at home; and participation in the real thing. As it is, hardly anyone in the US even knows the Expo is happening, let alone has budgeted or made plans to visit.
That neither the Bush nor the Obama Administrations saw fit to do so, to request a few tens of millions of dollars from the Congress to represent us honorably before our major trading partner and the world assembled, while asking Congress for trillions to fight wars and bail out banks, is an embarrassment. No sugar-coating is going to make the mutant outcome of this failed policy look better than it is.
AMSTED
11:15 AM ET
April 3, 2010
Jose Villarreal's Two Step
Techman is right about two things: a) Villarreal was appointed to raise the money to build the pavilion, and b) the prior administration's appointees whiffed. Actually, "whiffed" is too kind. They totally blew it. Villarreal and Clinton raised 95% of this thing.
What Techman doesn't say, and what Villarreal doesn't say, is that Mr. Villarreal and the State Department are both doing all they can to distance themselves from the prior administration's appointees (Ellen Eliasoph and Nicholas Winslow) out of sincere hope that their misconduct and the prior administration's mis-conduct don't tarnish them and the pavilion. Good luck with that. By law, the non-profit formed by the prior administration's appointees actually own the pavilion and State rents it from them. Yes, that's right. Villarreal has been raising money for a pavilion owned by people given what looks like an illicit appointment by State. This is only going to get worse.
BOB JACOBSON
4:54 PM ET
April 3, 2010
Is the US Pavilion a gift?
If the policy stated in the 2006 State Department RFP still holds,
"The U.S. Pavilion shall be considered on loan to the U.S. Government, and the successful applicant shall be solely responsible for the disposition of the U.S. Pavilion at the conclusion of the World Expo 2010 Shanghai China. The aforementioned loan shall be treated as a gift to the U.S. Government."
It depends on whether the engagement was awarded based on the RFP, which went dormant without having selected a pavilion producer, or under new and special rules. As there is no public record how this took place, we can only speculate.
In practical terms, Amsted, you're right: it appears that the terms of the RFP have been turned on its head and the US Pavilion ultimately became a gift of the U.S. Government to the pavilion producers and sponsors.
TECHMAN
11:37 AM ET
April 3, 2010
The Present
We can agree that Mr Villarreal should examine the process and recommend improvements but for now I would urge all Americans to focus on making America proud. The Pavilion opens soon!
NORMS
12:22 PM ET
April 3, 2010
US Pavilion Architect
Not mentioned very often is that the US Pavilion was designed by a Canadian architect...nothing against Canada or Clive Grout (both honorable parties)..
It is a travesty that the organizers did not understand that with unemployment in the US architecture field approaching astronomical levels how misguided it was to not utilize US talent...
I am surprised that the AIA has not been more vocal about it...
BOB JACOBSON
5:06 PM ET
April 3, 2010
Design policy discussions elsewhere on the web
William Bostwick published an article and slideshow, "Exporting Architecture: The Rise and Fall of U.S. World Expo Pavilions," on FAST COMPANY, Feb 24, 2010:
http://www.fastcompany.com/pics/exporting-architecture-rise-and-fall-us-world-expo-pavilions#0
The well-regarded online journal ARCHINECT features a lively and lengthy discussion that began on Jan 3, 2010, regarding the strange odyssey of the US Pavilion's design, construction, and programming:
http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=94929_0_24_0_C
One hopes that the $61 million reportedly being raised provides for the deconstruction of the US Pavilion including recycling its components as well as for building the shell and producing the filmic content. As I noted earlier, there are no reports available to the public.
SAM FROM CALIFORNIA
6:49 PM ET
April 3, 2010
The firms supporting this:
"Chevron, Citigroup, Disney, General Electric, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, and Johnson & Johnson, ... Amway, American Airlines, Boeing, Dell, Deloitte, Dow Chemical, DuPont, FedEx, Harman International, Honeywell, Intel, Marriott, Mars, Microsoft, Panasonic Integrated Systems, Qualcomm, Visa, Yum! Brands, and Wal-Mart."
There are any number of firms there that people from around the world have no positive association with whatsoever, and rightfully so. For instance, Dow Chemical manufactured Napalm which maimed Vietnamese civilians. Citigroup just helped to bring down the world economy. Microsoft, while a pioneer in new technologies, has also engaged in any number of monopolistic practices. Chevron left a bitter, oily taste in the mouth of Ecuador. Wal-mart is infamous for labour rights violations and so on. Are these really the companies we should bring with us to a foreign country?
If we want our pavilion to represent freedom and the highest aspirations of capitalist innovation, there are better firms to bring with us than the ones that represent everything WRONG with American capitalism. Why not bring Berkshire Hathaway, Ford, and other companies with good ethical standards for a business?
BBISHOP
12:05 AM ET
April 4, 2010
where are the companies that represent the best of US in 21st C?
Each country pavilion at the World Expo should show off what is great about that country. What better message could the USA send to the world than to have the three standard bearers of 21st century American innovation, creativity and opportunity–Google, Facebook and Twitter–as prime sponsors of America’s presence in Shanghai?
http://digicha.com/?p=60
My understanding the the organizers pissed off some of the major US tech companies. Why I don't know, but probably because of their incompetence. The US should be showing a much better face to China and the World.
BOB JACOBSON
8:20 AM ET
April 4, 2010
Adam Minter's Rebuttal to Jose Villarreal's Rebuttal
Google reports that Adam Minter has posted a rebuttal to Jose Villarreal on his Shanghai Scrap blog:
http://shanghaiscrap.com/?p=4760 "An Even Sorrier Spectacle: 'Defending' the USA Pavilion," Shanghai Scrap blog, April 4, 2010
At some point the wagons have to be uncircled and the authorities -- if there are any -- will have to address the issues Adam (and others) have raised. There's just no getting around it lest these become political issues which is the last thing that the US pavilion and Expo processes need.
Or are they already?
SENTIENT
2:45 PM ET
April 4, 2010
abaut abd
i think, the usa had better defend to himself. iran danger is bigging and sex izle