2020 Expo - the candidates

27 November 2013

The winner of the bidding to host the 2020 World Expo will be announced today.

This is the timetable for today's events at the BIE General Assembly in Paris (based upon UAE time - GMT +4)

1.30pm: Final 20-minute presentations begin with five-minute breaks for setting up. First up is Dubai, followed by Sao Paulo, Yekaterinburg, then Izmir.
3.30pm: Break for lunch
5.30pm: Voting begins with three rounds anticipated. The lowest scoring bid drops out of each round.
8.30pm: Announcement on which city will host World Expo 2020

The results of each round and final result will be announced by the president of the BIE general assembly, Ferdinand Nagy.

If Dubai is successful it will be the first world fair in the Middle East. The same holds true for Izmir.

It would also be the first world fair for Russia if Yekaterinburg is selected, and the first in South America if Sao Paulo is chosen.

Dubai – whose theme is Connecting Minds, Creating the Future – is competing against Turkey’s universal health campaign, Brazil’s diversity and harmony projects, and Russia’s globalisation pitch.

Since its inception in London in 1851, more than a billion people have visited a world fair. The last one, Expo 2010, was held in Shanghai, China. The 2015 event will be in Milan.

Here are the competing candidates and their themes:

Dubai, UAE

Theme: Connecting Minds, Creating the Future

Dubai’s project is aiming to find solutions to three global issues – mobility, sustainability and opportunity.

The Expo Live programme is an important part of the bid. The initiative aims to find and fund innovative projects, such as clean drinking water and solar-powered lights, in needy communities worldwide.

The initiative will connect innovators with experts and the projects will be presented during the expo in pavilions dedicated to innovation.

Expo 2020 would also coincide with the 50th anniversary of the formation of the UAE.

The bid has a target of 25 million visitors and will build Dubai and the UAE’s status as a world hub.

The expo site would be converted into the Dubai Trade Centre Jebel Ali. The main site would be across 438 hectares, next to the new Al Maktoum International Airport; which will still be a building site in 2020!

The site would be divided into three areas dedicated to each sub theme and these zones would lead to Al Wasl, the main plaza.

Countries can set up their pavilion in areas that correspond to their development strategy. Sustainability is at the heart of the project, so the site will include solar panels to generate electricity in the building facade and for street lighting, and to recycle waste water. There will be extensive use of public transport.

Local plants will be part of the landscape design and treated sewage effluent will be used for district cooling and irrigation. The site will be largely car-free with bus and Metro connectivity along with a cable car to transport visitors within the site. After the fair, the expo site will be reused for research centres and a university.

Sao Paulo, Brazil

Theme: Power of Diversity, Harmony for Growth

Brazil is already hosting the World Cup next year and the Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro in 2016 .

The city’s economic and cultural strength prompted the idea for its theme, which aims to show how diversity can be used to foster development. It will focus on diversity of thought, culture, skill and enable innovation.

The project notes that since diversity could also lead to conflict and discrimination, the bid will also address these issues by examining public policies, the importance of cross-cultural dialogue and the idea of prosperity.

A 500-hectare site chosen for Expo 2020 is in the region of Pirituba, in the north-east of Sao Paulo.

The area – covered by rainforest, lakes and rivers – aims to welcome 30 million visitors. The open areas are designed as public parks so visitors can walk from pavilions into nature. Sustainability is part of the project, which will include waste-limitation initiatives.

The highly populated region of Pirituba is not well connected to the centre of Sao Paulo and lacks job opportunities. The expo would boost plans to create a hub for business, tourism and education with research and learning centres and new housing areas. It would also help projects such as the creation of a new metro line connecting Pirituba to the city centre and the building of Sao Paulo’s biggest conference centre.

Yekaterinburg, Russia

Theme: The Global Mind

Yekaterinburg is aiming to connect ideas and projects from across the world to achieve sustainable globalisation. The city is attempting to answer a worldwide question – what can we do to make sure globalisation benefits everyone?

A world fair focused on this subject will allow all countries to showcase their best practices in varied fields. As part of Yekaterinburg’s bid, a group of students from the city are travelling around the world to bring connectivity to remote areas.

The team has introduced children in Mongolia, Indonesia, Panama, Namibia, Kenya and Sri Lanka to advanced technologies and helped equip their schools with internet access.

Yekaterinburg’s proposed 500-hectare site, 5km from the city centre, aims to cater to 12 million visitors.

Part of the site will be dedicated to the expo, while the remaining area will include housing, commercial centres and leisure space along with parks and car parks.

A world fair would help improve the city’s transportation, infrastructure and logistical resources.

Since the economic and tourist focus is on Russia’s western regions and in cities such as Moscow and Saint Petersburg, the Expo 2020 bid aims to develop the Ural region and transform it into an international hub for innovation and technology.

Izmir, Turkey

Theme: New Routes to a Better World/Health for All

At the heart of Turkey’s bid is the belief that health is at the centre of development and human progress because a healthy population can work, think and communicate better than a population weakened by illness.

Izmir’s bid conceives health as a basic human right that must be promoted through international cooperation and public policies.

The city has identified four challenges to be tackled during the expo, including education and public health, innovation, care and collaboration, and healthy living.

The bid committee has partnered with a rural health project developed by Elon University in North Carolina to create a new health training facility in Jamkhed, one of India’s poorest regions.

The site is planning to focus on universal health since Izmir portrays itself as the birthplace of western medicine.

Turkey hopes to boost its international role in the health sector by creating a global health hub in Izmir. The expo aims to welcome 39 million visitors to a 600-hectare site. After the expo, a large part of this would be dedicated to health campuses, universities, research centres, hospitals and rehabilitation facilities.

The site would be around a natural lagoon that is home to birds, including flamingos. At the centre would be a road to be used as a main boulevard connecting all areas. The project aims to improve quality of life by focusing on sustainability and ecology through the production of solar and geothermal energy to handle requirements on site.

Izmir lost to Milan in the bidding for the 2015 Expo.

Dubai has some high profile support including the British and Canadians. My guess is that Brazil has enough to manage with the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics so that rules out Sao Paulo. The Russians are ruled out by the mess that is Sochi 2014. That leaves Izmir and Dubai to battle it out in the final vote.

The Man Who Leads Bangkok’s Mobs

27 November 2013 Written by Pavin Chachavalpongpun Asia Sentinel

Suthep Thaugsuban, Thailand’s current mob leader, has reinvented himself from villain to national hero, at least in the eyes of his supporters, because he has dared to challenge what is characterized as the evil regime of the Yingluck government, backed by the long-ousted former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The entire planet must know who Thaksin is: Thailand’s most popular prime minister since the abolition of absolute monarchy in 1932. But for Suthep, he has earned the title of villain. Suthep was serving as deputy prime minister in the Abhisit Vejjajiva administration in charge of launching deadly crackdowns on red-shirt demonstrators in 2010, leading to more than 90 people being killed, most of them protesters, and more than 2,000 injured.

Today Suthep is leading anti-government forces to bring down the elected Pheu Thai government, just as his party—the Democrats—helped the yellow-shirted People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) remove the Thaksin government from power in 2006. Starting off with a protest against the government-initiated amnesty bill which could potentially free Thaksin from his corruption charges and more importantly and ironically pardon those behind the May 10, 2010 killings of the Red Shirts at the Rachaprasong area of Bangkok, Suthep’s determination to topple the Yingluck regime is unwavering.

But the legitimacy behind Suthep’s street mobs evaporated following the government’s forced willingness to put the controversial bill back on the shelf. Suddenly, Suthep lacked valid reasons that could be used against the government. The reinterpretation of the 1962 International Court of Justice verdict on the Preah Vihear Temple dispute failed to ignite nationalist sentiment. Without any credible motivation, Suthep returned to the old tricks, exploiting the ghosts of Thai politics in defying the government.

One is to continue to condemn the “Thaksin regime” as the sole source of today’s political crisis. In painting a picture of Thaksin as the enemy of the state, it provides Suthep with justification for his street protests which can now be perceived as necessary and moral.

The other is to drag the monarchy into the political mess once again. Fighting against the Yingluck government and Thaksin together is now equated with the protection of the royal institution. This kind of political game, which draws the political fault line at the monarchy, is dangerous. The massacre at Thammasat University in the 1970s, in which as many as 100 students were murdered and others were beaten and brutalized, demonstrated how the manipulation of the monarchy ended up in political violence.

Now, let’s analyze why Suthep has been so desperate to topple the government. Certainly the Democrat Party has been unable to compete with Thaksin in the game of electoral politics as shown in its failure to win a majority since 1992. Thus extra-parliamentary tactics are preferred. Also, Suthep’s desperate action unveils his personal problem. Suthep has successfully highlighted the issue of amnesty in order to obscure his own alleged crime behind the deaths of the Red Shirts, downplaying the charges brought against him while re-injecting what is known as “Thaksinophobia” among the Thai middle and upper classes in Bangkok. The transformation from killer into a national hero has begun; and in this process, Suthep has risen to become the new face of “moral protector” in Thai politics. Again and again, Thais are witnessing the deep irony within the domain of Thai politics when immoral politicians themselves enjoy preaching about morality.

With no sign that the government has been weakened by the protests, Suthep has intensified the pressure and at the same time worked closely with his Democrat Party. With Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva filing a no-confidence motion against Yingluck in the parliament, Suthep has upgraded his protests, in the past few days ordering his anti-Thaksin supporters to occupy a number of key government offices including the Ministry of Finance, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the National Budget Bureau in order to disrupt the functionality of the government and surely to create the situation of ungovernability so as to invite intervention by the military and possibly the Thai court.

Yingluck declared a state of emergency and handed greater authority to the police to control the situation. She also vowed not to use force against demonstrators, acknowledging that such use could destroy her party’s standing, given the condemnation of political violence in 2010 at the hands of the Democrat government.

Also, use of force would inevitably bring in the military into the conflict—something that the government will be reluctant to do so.

So far, the military has remained silent regarding the current round of political provocations. This could be explained in two contexts. First, the military must fully realize that intervention this time is not tenable. The 2006 coup produced a series of unfavorable effects on the part of the military and its position in politics. It also gave birth to the Red Shirts whose key agenda has been to reject a coup.

The fact that a large number of Red Shirts are now gathering inside a Bangkok stadium seems to send out a strong signal that they are willing to protect the government from any intervention from the army.

Second and crucially, the military has never worked alone in the maintenance of its interests in politics. It has worked intimately through the so-called network monarchy, in creating a particular kind of politics whereby civilian governments must be kept vulnerable or otherwise they could be toppled. But since the monarchy has been weakened by its long years of self-politicisation and the ill health of the King, the military may find that making no move to be the best option for its survival.

Lastly, it is all about the monarchy too. The Thai crisis has partly echoed the anxiety of the Bangkok elite as Thais are approaching the sunset of the Bhumibol reign. This shift of political landscape will cause an impact on their wealth and social status. The anxiety has served as a driving force behind the hatred campaign against Thaksin, seen as an adversary of the monarchy.

Many in Thailand wonder why the King, often intervening in the crises in the past, has also remained silent. This might be because the monarchy has never been above politics or neutral, and has actively engaged in conflict. Whatever the King will say now may not be taken seriously by many in the Thaksin camp.

Recently, Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, heir to the throne, conveyed a message through a Thaksin proxy, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Pol Lt-Gen Kamronvit Thoopkracharng, about his concern over the escalating political situation and urged all sides to talk to each other.

Vajiralonglorn’s choice of messenger is interesting—someone so close to Thaksin thus confirms the rumor of a sort of relationship between the Crown Prince and the former prime minister. It remains to be seen if his concern will be responded positively by Suthep’s side whose members also identify themselves as another kind of royalist—loyal to the King but ambivalent about his son.

Another important point is that the Crown Prince has become increasingly vocal in politics. This also signifies that the process of royal transition within the walls of the palace has already begun. His active role will answer a question of whether he will be enthroned after the King passes from the scene. Surely, the faction identified with the more popular Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn would rather not want to hear such an answer.

(Pavin Chachavalpongpun is an associate professor at Kyoto University’s Centre for Southeast Asian Studies and regular contributor to Asia Sentinel.)

Bubbling over

26 November 2013 - The Economist

Thailand's political battles, slow-burning for years, are raging again. On November 25th tens of thousands of demonstrators linked to the main opposition Democrat Party marched on key government institutions, including army headquarters and television stations. They stormed ministries. Pictures of protesters armed with whistles and brandishing the Thai flag, gathered around a conference table in the finance ministry, were splashed over the front pages of the morning papers. By the afternoon of November 26th, they had moved on to protest outside the ministry of interior (now firmly guarded against intrusions). That afternoon, the country's criminal court approved a warrant for the arrest of the protest leader, Suthep Thaugsuban, a former deputy prime minister, for storming the finance ministry.

It leaves some pondering whether Thailand is in essence ungovernable. The government of Yingluck Shinawatra, the prime minister, has been watching silently, but has extended the use of internal securities laws to the entire capital and a neighbouring province. As night fell, a portable diesel-run floodlight was brought in to illuminate the protesters’ trophy. Hundreds entered the building to inspect a government institution from the inside. Two hundred yards down the road mobile toilets were brought into position, as though to make the point that if efforts to topple the government failed, it would not be due to logistical details. Outside the budget bureau of the finance ministry, protesters chanted “Yingluck, get out, Yingluck, get out”.

The mass protests, the biggest since 2010, are the latest round in an escalating battle between the BangkoThe Economistk-centred establishment and the family clan of Thaksin Shinawatra, a billionaire former prime minister, and his sister Yingluck, the current prime minister. A no-confidence debate began in parliament on November 26th—an almost certainly futile bid by the opposition to oust Ms Yingluck’s Pheu Thai government, which has a thumping majority in parliament. To opposition Democrats and their royalist supporters, Mr Thaksin is a totally unacceptable figure. Among the paraphernalia on sale at the Democracy Monument, where anti-Thaksin supporters have been gathering for weeks, are red foot mats with pictures of the Shinawatra siblings. Mr Suthep resigned his seat, along with a bunch of Democrat MPs, to lead a campaign of “civil disobedience”. The Democrat Party itself, stuffed with politicians prone to lecture about the rule of law, is unsure to what extent it wants to be associated with an uprising that appears almost designed to provoke casualties.

The opposition has dealt two damaging blows to Ms Yingluck’s efforts to reset the country’s democracy to its state prior to 2006, when a coup removed Ms Yingluck’s brother from power. A fortnight ago the opposition effectively killed a controversial amnesty bill that would have paved the return of Mr Thaksin from self-imposed exile in Dubai. It would also have granted amnesty to everybody else caught up in the political conflicts since 2004, including politicians and security forces. The bill infuriated Mr Thaksin’s red-shirted supporters because it would have absolved those who ordered an army crackdown in 2010 that killed 90 of them.

Then, on November 20th, Thailand’s constitutional court declared unlawful Ms Yingluck’s plans to make the Senate (the upper house of parliament) a fully elected body instead of partially appointed, as decreed by the military following the coup. The ruling was a major victory for the opposition—a fully elected Senate would have given her party sweeping powers through control of both houses of parliament. The court's decision to veto the will of a democratically elected parliament infuriated the government, which sees the verdict as further evidence that the court is acting on behalf of a conservative elite that believes it is entitled to rule the country.

The king’s 86th birthday is on December 5th, and both sides of the political divide claim legitimacy bestowed by loyalty to the monarchy. The opposition has threatened to use lèse-majesté laws to bring down Yingluck and her government—the idea being that by submitting an unlawful bill to the king she violated the (unwritten) principle that the king must never be put in a compromising position. Ms Yingluck’s courtiers have retorted that the judges of the constitutional court violated lèse-majesté laws by ruling on the legality of a bill that was awaiting signature by the palace.

Moving between the protest sites of the anti-Thaksin protesters, in the west of the city, and the base of red-shirted supporters of the Shinawatras at Rajamangala stadium 15 kilometres to the east, an observer may not even have noticed the ongoing battle for control of Thailand’s democratic institutions.

The red-shirt leaders say they will push for a new constitutional amendment, which would allow the formation of a drafting committee to rewrite the entire constitution. The move to amend the constitution is a test of the judiciary’s power. After the 2006 coup, the court ruled against two pro-Thaksin administrations, effectively toppling them from power. The Democrat Party has moved to have 300-odd MPs who voted for the amnesty bill impeached by the National Anti-Corruption Commission. At this point, impeachment of enough MPs to trigger dissolution of the house appears improbable. In any event, that would probably enable another pro-Thaksin party to come to power, and begin the process all over again.

The Rajamangla Sports Stadium is a fitting setting for the red-shirts who have come from the provinces to Bangkok. So far, they have largely remained spectators in the “People’s Revolution” called for by the establishment. The sale of red paraphernalia is swift—wall clocks with smiling faces of Mr Thaksin and Ms Yingluck are a favourite. The mood is upbeat. Some supporters are sporting shirts saying “We love the crown prince”. They confirm the worst inner fears of politicians and protesters at the other end of the city: that the palace—the institution that remains such an important part of the ongoing political manoeuvring but which cannot even be mentioned—may not share their utter distaste for Mr Thaksin forever.

Another doomed Thai start-up

25 November 2013

Here we go with another presumable doomed Thai aviation start-up.

The latest is New Gen Airways which is the trade name of Sabaidee Airways Co., Ltd.

I have bleated about this before but the lack of effective regulation in Thailand has allowed so many under-capitalised airlines to start and fail over the last decade.

The focus is on tourists from China who it appears to assume would prefer to fly on an unknown airline with a single 737-400 (ex US Airways) rather than a known scheduled Chinese or Thai airline.

Thailand's political farce

24 November 2013

Well it would be a farce if it did not matter so much to this proud South East Asian Nation. What a mess.

Regular readers will see that I have largely given up writing about or commenting on what is happening in Thailand.

But the summary is something like this:

Thaksin and his various political parties have won every election since 2001.

The Democrats cannot win an election. And if an election was called today they would not win.

But the Democrats have previously succeeded in using the judicial sytem to overthrow the government. They have also supported and taken advantage of the 2007 constitution written by the post coup military government that ensured non elected appointees to the Senate and limited the authority of the elected government.

The Peau Thai government through its ham-fisted attempts to use an amnesty bill to bring Thaksin back to Thailand managed to alienate both yellow and red shirts. Their are many red shirts that believe there are Democrats and Army officers that need to be brought to justice after the killings at the red camp in 2010. Meanwhile the yellows simply want to remove Thaksin and all around him, at any cost.

The amnesty bill has seen a coming together of the forces opposed to Thaksin and they are gathered this weekend around Democracy monument. With no sense of irony Suthep, the protest leader and ex Democrat deputy PM called for return of absolute monarchy from the monument that was built precisely to celebrate the passage to a constitutional one. With an uncertain succession likely any time in the next few years this is either madness or part of a much larger scheme.

Last week the Constitutional Court ruled 5-4 that the elected government could not change the constitution (as it sought to move to an all elected senate). The court essentially ruled that changing a basic law that came from an illegal act (the 2006 coup) is out of the question. Bizarre.

By way of background, the 2007 constitution resulted from an illegal action by a military junta that overthrew an elected government and a widely-accepted constitution. It replaced it with a constitution drawn up by the junta’s hand-picked committee that was tutored by the junta and its unelected government. One of the reversions to type in that junta constitution was creating a Senate that could be controlled by palace-associated conservatives. That control came through appointed members and meant that opposition plus senators were likely to prevent popular change to law and the elite’s state.

To add to the chaos Sondhi Limthongkul, former leader of the ultra-nationalist yellow shirts, aka the PAD, called on his followers to join the protests after the anti-government protest groups have joined their forces together during the weekend.

"Democracy" for these Thai protesters boils down to this: Isaan peasants don't deserve a vote per head and should learn their place in society. If you are not with us you are against us. The irony is that the "elite" are using southern mobs for their mass protests. The mobs are not Bangkok's white collar elite. They are rented thugs.

So what does the government do now. Sit it out and wait for the storm to pass over.

The storm seems to involve lots of whistle blowing - literally. As always the question in Thailand is - and then what? Forward-thinking was never a Thai strength.

It is also worth remembering that although the protests are large - they are still a minority. Who are dictating to the majority that they do not deserve the vote or any say in how they are governed.

The irony is that if Thailand held an election next week/month/year the Democrats would not win - once again the Dems only route to power is through the courts.

Tuesday will see a censure debate in parliament. The Democrats will accuse the government of corruption. It is a smokescreen. This is all about removing Thaksin and his sister. This government is no worse than past administrations, including Abhisit's, and is more competent than most.

What we have is a 2008-style bid to create chaos and the illusion that the government has lost legitimacy. Then there will be a judicial coup. 2008 revisited.

You can follow today's protests here.

If you look at pictures of the protestors we have long moved on from office workers popping out in their lunch break to blow whistles on Silom. We have the same rent-a-crowd that was brought in to occupy the airports in 2008. Mainly southern, male, poor and spoiling for a fight.

I am glad I do not read Thai but what has been translated for me is crude, offensive and threatening. Some of the nastiest slogans are aimed at Priminister Yingluk, who deserves better.

That the Democrats should support and condone such abuse is shameful.

Thailand's war of attrition

24 November 2013 Foreign Policy

With his sister in office, a majority in the lower house, and billions in the bank, Thailand's self-exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had every reason to feel confident he might soon return home. But an attempt by the ruling Pheu Thai party to ram a sweeping political amnesty through parliament has backfired. As the government he influences from overseas fights for survival, Thailand's latest political crisis threatens longer-term damage to Thaksin's support base. And it leaves him a long way from home.

Portrayed by the Shinawatras as an attempt to draw a line under nearly a decade of bruising political encounters, the amnesty bill would have cleared Thaksin of a two-year prison term for graft in absentia after his ouster by coup in 2006. Murder charges against Abhisit Vejjajiva, leader of the opposition Democrat Party, over his role in crushing Bangkok street protests by Thaksin supporters, known as "Red Shirts," when he was prime minister in 2010 would also have been quashed.

"Should we reset and move on or should we continue to fight?" Thaksin said in a last-ditch attempt at convincing his opponents that the bill could lead to political reconciliation during an interview published in Thai and English on Oct. 24.

Eight days later, the Pheu Thai-dominated lower house unanimously passed the bill amid an opposition walkout. By the time it reached the upper house on Nov. 12, however, the bill had become so toxic that senators had little choice but to reject it 141-0.

As it reached the Senate, almost every corner of Thai society was livid. Office workers in the central Silom district of Bangkok left their desks and poured into the street blowing whistles; university staff and students marched together on campuses, and opposition supporters set up tents around the capital's Democracy Monument near the seat of government.

A bill that was designed to "reset" the country's long-running political feud by clearing everyone's name thereby -- in theory, keeping everyone happy -- had achieved the opposite. For Thaksin supporters, many of whom were killed and injured at the hands of the military in 2010, the amnesty would clear main opposition Democrat Party leader Abhisit, a man they commonly refer to as "the murderer." For his opponents, the bill is seen as a cynical attempt by the government to sweep graft under the carpet and smooth the return of a hated and divisive figure. There are also fears that Thaksin's assets worth $1.47 billion could be unfrozen.

Following a coup in September 2006, Thailand's political divide has widened in a cyclical series of political crises typified by protests and clashes involving the "Yellow Shirts," self-proclaimed defenders of the monarchy, and the Red Shirts, opponents of the coup. As a result, chaos has become a regular feature of life in the Thai capital: In November 2008, Yellow Shirts seized both Bangkok airports to protest a new government deemed a proxy of Thaksin; less than two years later, parts of Bangkok were turned into free-fire zones as the army clashed with encamped Red Shirts. Amid the battles, the Reds have aimed to overturn the constitutional legacy of the coup in the name of greater democratic reform. For the Yellows, the goal remains the end of Thaksin's influence, a man deemed a threat to the monarchy, an enduring symbol of graft and greed.

"Corruption is the No. 1 problem with the government," says Chao Chaonarich, a real-estate agent from Bangkok. One of the thousands of Yellow Shirt protesters who continue to rally in Bangkok as the opposition aims to topple Yingluck, Chao complained the government's record was far from stellar even before the amnesty bill.

Government critics argue that a populist rice-pledging scheme which guarantees farmers a fixed price per kilo is costing the country dear, guaranteeing prices above market rates while sapping overseas demand. The Shinawatras have pursued an election-winning strategy of "Thaksinomics," playing to the rural poor -- the majority -- by providing subsidies on everything from health insurance to energy in recent years, with mixed results. The rice-pledging scheme left taxpayers with a bill for 136 billion baht ($4.3 billion) during Yingluck's first year in office and an estimated $9.6 billion in the 18 months since. The government has refused to disclose recent losses but the state budget is hemorrhaging funds by most accounts: In recent weeks, some farmers have been told they must wait months before they will receive payment with debt as percentage of GDP climbing to 44.3 percent.

To add further damage to the Pheu Thai government, the International Monetary Fund called for the rice policy to be scrapped on Nov. 11. That was the same day the Senate shot down the amnesty bill and the International Court of Justice in The Hague mostly sided with Cambodia in a ruling on a territorial dispute over land around Preah Vihear, a 1,000-year-old Hindu temple.

If policies like the rice scheme were supposed to lock-in voters for Yingluck and Thaksin in Thailand's agricultural heartland in the north, the amnesty debacle has mobilized opponents, particularly in Bangkok, while turning off rural supporters.

A Bangkok University poll conducted a few days before the Senate killed the bill put opposition leader Abhisit ahead of Yingluck for the first time since she easily defeated him in June 2011 elections. Her approval rating has slumped to 26.7 percent against 37.2 percent for Abhisit -- in June of this year, Yingluck was nearly nine percentage points clear according to the same pollsters.

Her policies have remained strictly Thaksin-centric: Economically with the rice policy and a first-time car-buyers financing scheme, and politically in attempting to nullify constitutional changes made following the coup against her exiled brother.

Thida Thavornseth, chairman of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), a core Red Shirt group, estimated the government had lost "at least 10 percent" of its support in the past few weeks. Key supporters who want to see rule of law, democratic reform, and Abhisit on trial for murder are "angry" she says.

Thida was among four key Red Shirt leaders were removed from a scheduled appearance on Asia Update, a television channel financially backed by Thaksin's son Panthongtae, a week before the crucial Senate vote. Their message wasn't what Thaksin wanted people to hear, she said: All were against the bill. In response, the UDD is set to launch its own TV channel next month.

Other former Thaksin supporters have spoken of more drastic moves away from him, and his sister. Among the Red Shirt protests against the amnesty bill, some leaders of the movement spoke of setting up a political party to rival the Shinawatras.

"Many people don't feel the same about Yingluck and Thaksin anymore," says Thida.

An increasingly fractured group, the Red Shirts represent a number of factions who all share one thing in common: Since his first election victory in 2001, most have jumped on the Thaksin bandwagon. In a country where King Bhumibol Adulyadej has reigned from behind closely guarded palace gates since 1946 (the longest-serving monarch in the world), the Red Shirts have considered Thaksin a breath of fresh, democratic air to mix up the old elite. To his detractors, the telecoms billionaire-cum-politician has instead been viewed as nouveau-riche, a young upstart prepared to upset the regal status quo to his own end.

He hinted at reforming what is known as Article 112, Thailand's draconian lese majeste law; so too did his sister when she took office. But with an escalating number of Red Shirts behind bars in recent years, "Pheu Thai has been singularly unresponsive in the effort to bring up this issue," says David Streckfuss, a leading academic on lese majeste. The controversial amnesty bill was described as a "blanket amnesty" by most news media for everyone from Thaksin down to the lowest-ranking Red Shirt behind bars. But the only Thais who wouldn't get a clean slate under the proposed law were those behind bars on lese majeste convictions, says Streckfuss.

With antagonism running high and the number of cases rising to about 150 every year, Article 112 is for the time being too politically explosive for the government to handle in the current political climate, adds Streckfuss.

In a country where this draconian law makes free political discussion impossible, Thailand's latest political quagmire has raised even more questions than usual as the impasse rumbles on. Why did Thaksin risk such a disastrous political move? And where does it leave supporters who have for the first time openly protested in the streets against him?

Mutterings of a back-room deal between Thaksin, the military, and even the "network monarchy" (the royals and their associated offices including the Privy Council) provide a plausible explanation as to why Thaksin felt confident enough to push the amnesty bill so hard from exile through his supporters. But we don't know what's happening behind the scenes, says Duncan McCargo, author of The Thaksinization of Thailand.

"The amnesty issue relates to what the state of play is over a deal between the two sides," he says. "It's not simply about what Thaksin is doing."

Audio tapes of a supposed conversation appeared on YouTube in which Thaksin discussed a military reshuffle and his possible return to Thailand with Deputy Defense Minister Yuthasak Sasiprapha emerged in July fueling conspiracy theories over a backroom deal. Yuthasak's roles in previous Thaksin administrations added an appearance of authenticity.

But those close to the billionaire tycoon in recent years -- including exiled UDD founding member Jakrapob Penkair -- remain adamant that he was not party to any discussions with the military, opposition or any other senior establishment figure in the lead up to the amnesty bill.

"There's no such deal. But I admit that there might be some deal among those in high places in Thailand that our side is not involved in," says Jarapob, alluding to a deal among other power factions.

As leaders of the opposition Democrat party appeared on stage in front of thousands of supporters in Bangkok during a final push to topple the government this week, Yingluck has called for talks with the opposition. It's the first public mention of dialogue since Thailand's latest political battle began.

The "unpalatable" opposition is resurgent but cannot expect to win an election anytime soon, says McCargo. With Thaksin recoiled and no closer to a return, his position has weakened. And although Yingluck remains vulnerable in the short term and far from in full control, she is likely to emerge further distanced from her divisive older brother and therefore stronger, adds McCargo.

Thailand, though, remains no closer to a settlement, much less in possession of a leader to help end the cycle of mutually assured political destruction.

"For Thai people, you don't have any other choice," says Thida of the UDD. "If you don't choose Pheu Thai, but you support democracy, who do you choose now?"

Launching Etihad regional

18 November 2013

In maybe the the most interesting announcement of the first day of the Dubai airshow Abu Dhabi airline Etihad announced it will launch a new subsidiary, Etihad Regional, with the acquisition of a one-third stake in Swiss regional airline Darwin Airline.

The groundbreaking model will see Darwin's fleet rebranded as Etihad Regional, but they will continue to be operated by Darwin airline and carry the Swiss flag.

Twenty new routes will be added, with 16 new destinations to be launched by mid-2014, the Abu Dhabi carrier confirmed.

Darwin Airline, which began services in 2003 and now has 10 50-seated Saab aircraft and flies to 21 regional European destinations, will be Etihad's seventh equity partner

Etihad CEO James Hogan said the new model was a game-changer in global aviation.

"It will add to the Etihad airline alliances in a smarter way, bringing secondary European cities into our world network," he said.

"The object is all about network. How do we take our brand into markets that we don't reach in our own right? We're talking about second and third tier markets where we will not see Etihad Airways wide bodies. (Etihad Regional) gives us the ability to target those cities and help position and build a regional business."

Hogan said there were no plans as yet to invest in new aircraft for Etihad Regional.

The UAE national carrier will look to expand Etihad Regional by tying up with other regional airlines operating from Etihad's hubs in Zurich and Berlin.

The airlines would not disclose the value of the deal.

Thailand’s Latest Troubles

18 November 2013 By The New York Times Editorial Board

Thailand is again on the verge of political turmoil. An ill-conceived amnesty bill pushed through the lower house of Parliament by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra earlier this month brought many  thousands of demonstrators for and against the government into the streets of Bangkok, putting tthe country’s fragile democracy in peril.

The amnesty bill proposes to pardon almost anyone facing almost any charge arising from the period of political crisis from 2004 to 2010 — ranging from those charged with ordering the killings of demonstrators by the army and police in 2010 to some 25,000 people charged with graft and tax evasion. The bill would allow former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Ms. Yingluck’s brother, to return to Thailand from self-exile, grant him amnesty from a corruption verdict and restore part of his confiscated fortune.

Mr. Thaksin, ousted in 2006 by a military coup, continues to control the ruling Pheu Thai Party. Ms. Yingluck proved herself to be a mere proxy of her exiled brother by pushing the amnesty bill. The Bangkok establishment — the military, the business community and those around the royal court — fears and loathes Mr. Thaksin, who has support in the rural areas and among the poor. Soon after the demonstrations broke out, Ms. Yingluck backed down and all parties of the coalition government have vowed not to revive the bill. But the opposition led by the Democrat Party still wants to topple the government and continues to fan the street demonstrations.

This episode falls into a pattern in Thailand, with government transitions too often a result of mass demonstrations escalating into violence, then leading to a military coup. Since the founding of the Thai constitutional monarchy in 1932, there have been nearly 20 military coups and attempted coups; as many constitutions, charters and interim charters; and 25 amnesties, establishing a culture of political impunity where recklessness, corruption and even murder become the norm. In more recent years, the politically motivated Constitutional Court has at times moved to disband the ruling political party. The court is scheduled to make a ruling on Nov. 20, which could disband the Pheu Thai Party. Since 2006, the court has twice disbanded political parties under Mr. Thaksin’s control.

The Thai people deserve justice under law, not by amnesty. The Yingluck government, by pushing for the amnesty bill, has lost the confidence even of some supporters. The antidote to Thailand’s history of politics by coups and dubious court rulings is trust in democratic elections and reforms to strengthen the independence of the judiciary.

Gulf airlines buy big

17 November 2013

Boeing and Airbus are celebrating a raft of new orders from Gulf based airlines on the opening day of the Dubai airshow.

'Racist abuse of Yaya Touré is a smokescreen, real problem is at home'

5 November 2013 John Barnes in The Guardian

I'm not interested in what happened to Yaya Touré at CSKA Moscow – as far as I'm concerned their supporters can abuse who they want because, for me, what happened in Russia is the tip of a wider issue and, quite frankly, something of a smokescreen. For instance, how many black coaches are there in this country? Very few, yet all we're focusing on is CSKA Moscow, and the more we push for clubs like them to get banned or have their stadiums shut down the more we don't need to look at what is going on here.

The truth is that those at the top of British football do not care about getting rid of racism, they just don't want to hear it or see it. As soon as someone like Touré or Danny Rose gets abused in Eastern Europe there is shock and outrage from players, clubs and the authorities, yet no one is speaking about the people living in inner cities like Brixton who, because of their appearance and their background, have become completely disenfranchised from society. Why don't they care? Because the powers-that-be have enough wealth to not worry about these people.

Black players, in particular, should be tackling these issues because ultimately it will affect them when they retire. There are so many intelligent former black players, guys like Luther Blissett and Cyrille Regis, who never got a chance to become a top manager or a top coach because of the perception that surrounds people who look like them. They are black – which, for many, means they are good athletes but incapable of being anything above and beyond that.

To a large extent this is down to unconscious racism and probably 99% of us are guilty of that – I know I am. We all have preconceptions of people based on what we have been told about them and their race and ethnicity.

I still come across managers of a certain generation, those in their fifties and older, who say to me: "I don't see you as black", and think that is a compliment. So what, I don't walk around with my jeans down by my arse, smoking a spliff, so that means I'm not black? These are the attitudes we need to change if black people as a whole are going to progress, and the only way we can achieve that is through education.

This is what footballers have to do – they cannot directly affect society but what they can do is use their standing in this country to make a wider audience aware of the wider issues surrounding race and stress the importance of understanding that what they have been told about a certain group of people is, in the main, wrong.

That, for instance, the best occupations black people can aspire to is being a footballer, or a runner, or a singer. People look at Barack Obama and say: "See, black people can be President" – no they can't. Any black person who has been successful, particularly Obama, has been lifted out of blackness and stands as the exception.

We need to talk openly about perceptions and not be afraid of the fact that we all have different views about different people based on how they look. There is nothing racist about an open, honest dialogue and it is certainly more productive then pointing the finger at the CSKA Moscow fans, or at Luis Suárez or John Terry, and demanding they are punished.

Personally, I don't blame Suárez or Terry for what they did – they are simply products of a society and environment that allows them to think it is OK to speak about certain people in a certain way. It would be far better if instead of banning them and demonising them, the Football Association aimed to educate them and make them see that black people are undeserving of racial abuse.

The truth is that Anton Ferdinand has more in common with Terry than he does with someone from Africa. They're wealthy guys from western culture who both drive Bentleys, both drink champagne and both listen to Tinie Tempah, yet Ferdinand is told he is different, that he is part of a race open to insults? That is ridiculous and, again, is the product of historically incorrect preconceptions.

Racism is never personal – it's about someone saying the group I am part of is superior to the group you are part of. How, for instance, can a handsome, talented, beautiful black footballer be personally affected by a fat, ugly, unemployed fan calling them a black this or a black that? I used to get that when I was playing and I used to just look at the people doing it and think: 'You're abusing me? Look at you, how can you even dare abuse me?!'

That is why it is pointless, and pretty ridiculous, to be worrying about a footballer getting racially abused – in no way are they the biggest sufferers, and, quite frankly, if I was someone like Touré or Rose I'd feel embarrassed if I had to look at someone who was suffering genuine racism and take their sympathy. A millionaire getting booed in Russia is nothing compared with generations of people never getting the chance to better their lives and those of their children.

Physically we are different – east Africans, for instance, are genetically inclined to run long distances in shorter spaces of time – but intellectually and morally we all have the potential to be the same. That is the type of equality I am interested in and is the message I give when speaking at universities and other public forums. And that is what more people involved in football, black players in particular should be doing. Because unless you get rid of racism in society, you can never get rid of it in football and as things stand there will always be these one-off moments when a player is abused or booed purely because of the colour of their skin.

Everyone goes into shock because they thought racism had disappeared from the game but how can it have done when it continues to exist in every other part of society at a more deep-seated, depressing level? Just because someone keeps their mouth shut for 90 minutes doesn't mean that for the rest of the week he isn't a racist, or hold unconsciously racist views, and until that is addressed, there will always be a problem.

Tackling racism is a long and complicated process but one thing's for sure; it cannot be solved by banning a player or closing part of a stadium. The problem is wider than that and if football really cared those involved in the game, players in particular, would worry less about one-off incidents like what happened to Touré when he played for Manchester City in Moscow and more about what is going on around them. Perceptions need to change and for that to happen, education needs to be pushed as the only way forward.

John Barnes has donated his fee for this column to charity

At the 1984 FA Cup Final an Everton fan two rows behind me jumped from his seat; his face raging with anger and yelled at Watford's John Barnes - "Kill that f***ing black bastard." That was almost thirty years ago and reading John's article above makes it pretty clear that nothing has changed. He is right; the FA have never dealt effectively with racism in football because they have never tried to address it as part of racism institutionalized in society. For the FA this is simply a problem that they would like to suggest exists elsewhere; deaf to any problems under their own watch. Useless.