Visit One News Page for China news from around the world, aggregated from leading sources including newswires, newspapers and broadcast media. Search millions of archived news headlines. This feed provides the China news headlines. http://www.onenewspage.com/topic/China.htm (c) copyright One News Page. All headlines and description content (c) by the accredited news source - see http://www.onenewspage.com/tc.php#accreditation for further details. 15 webmaster@onenewspage.com (One News Page Webmaster) Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:26:53 +0000 http://static.onenewspage.com/ONPglobe100.png http://www.onenewspage.com/topic/China.htm en-us Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Cigna Corp., the U.S. health insurer with the best-performing shares, said it will seek to expand in China and elsewhere abroad while facing the “seismic shocks” of a recession and health-care overhaul at home. Reported by Bloomberg 5 minutes ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/US/20091121/6038393/Cigna-Seeks-Chinese-Expansion-Expects-2010-Earnings-to.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:21:55 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/US/20091121/6038393/Cigna-Seeks-Chinese-Expansion-Expects-2010-Earnings-to.htm Tanzania and Zambia have proposed they be allowed to sell ivory of African elephants, whose international deals are prohibited under the Washington Convention, just one time to Japan and China, sources close to the issue said Saturday. While the proposal will be discussed at the conference of the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora next March, the argument will be heated as six African countries, including Kenya and Ghana, have sought the suspension of the ivory deals until 2028. Reported by Kyodo 6 minutes ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Science/20091121/6038316/Tanzania-Zambia-seek-one-time-ivory-distribution-to.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:21:10 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Science/20091121/6038316/Tanzania-Zambia-seek-one-time-ivory-distribution-to.htm Melbourne and Brisbane will play an AFL exhibition game in Shanghai next year, the first professional Australian Rules match to be played in China. Reported by ABC News 6 minutes ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Sports/20091121/6038245/Lions-Demons-to-play-in-China.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:21:10 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Sports/20091121/6038245/Lions-Demons-to-play-in-China.htm The Chinese government has held an American oil geologist on suspicion of stealing state secrets for nearly two years, prompting President Obama to raise the issue during his visit to Beijing. Reported by NYTimes.com 6 minutes ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Asia-Pacific/20091121/6038175/Presses-China-in-Case-of-Geologist.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:21:10 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Asia-Pacific/20091121/6038175/Presses-China-in-Case-of-Geologist.htm Reported by Xinhua 2 minutes ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Front+Page/20091121/6038151/Gas-explosion-traps-dozens-of-coal-miners-in.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:25:02 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Front+Page/20091121/6038151/Gas-explosion-traps-dozens-of-coal-miners-in.htm Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Cigna Corp., the U.S. health insurer with the best-performing shares, said it will seek to expand in China and elsewhere abroad while facing the “seismic shocks” of a recession and health-care overhaul at home. Reported by Bloomberg 24 minutes ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Business/20091121/6038057/Cigna-Seeks-Growth-in-China-Other-Non.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:02:37 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Business/20091121/6038057/Cigna-Seeks-Growth-in-China-Other-Non.htm By Kennix Chim HONG KONG, Nov 21 (Reuters) - Sands China Ltd raised US$2.5 billion when it priced its Hong Kong initial public offering at the bottom ... Reported by FinanzNachrichten.de 24 minutes ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Markets/20091121/6038016/UPDATE-Sands-China-raises-bln.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:02:37 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Markets/20091121/6038016/UPDATE-Sands-China-raises-bln.htm Sands China and its parent, the casino company controlled by billionaire Sheldon Adelson, raised $HK19.4b in a Hong Kong share sale conducted at the low end of its forecast range. Reported by The Age 26 minutes ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Business/20091121/6037965/Sands-China-shifts-8b-in-Hong-Kong.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:01:06 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Business/20091121/6037965/Sands-China-shifts-8b-in-Hong-Kong.htm This one will surely make Indians proud. At the 14 th International Astronomy Olympiad held from November 8 to 16 in China, where a total of 17 teams from 16 countries participated, India topped the medal tally with five gold and one silver medal. Reported by Indian Express 26 minutes ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Asia-Pacific/20091121/6037881/Small-Talk.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:01:06 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Asia-Pacific/20091121/6037881/Small-Talk.htm India has declared that it has no objection if Hurriyat leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq goes to China but only on the condiction stapled visas on passports would not be valid for travel abroad. Reported by IndiaTimes 26 minutes ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Asia-Pacific/20091121/6037873/Visa-rider-on-Mirwaiz-China-visit.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:01:06 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Asia-Pacific/20091121/6037873/Visa-rider-on-Mirwaiz-China-visit.htm HONG KONG, Nov 21 (Reuters) - Las Vegas Sands Corp, the world's most valuable casino company, has priced the initial public offering for Sands China Ltd ... Reported by FinanzNachrichten.de 46 minutes ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Markets/20091121/6037629/Sands-China-IPO-priced-at-HK-10-38.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:41:06 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Markets/20091121/6037629/Sands-China-IPO-priced-at-HK-10-38.htm Wine, classic cars and art investments offered mixed returns throughout the noughties. Jill Papworth and Patrick Collinson round up the returnsWineFine wine was the best investment of the decade, with the top French vintages earning returns that far oustripped equities, gold and property. The average price of a fine bordeaux red jumped 138% in the noughties, equal to a gain of 11% a year, with the most sought-after labels, such as Lafite Rothschild, up almost 10-fold.The Liv-ex Fine Wine Investables Index, which tracks the price of notable bordeaux reds from 24 leading chateaux found that between 31 December 1999 and 31 October 2009 there was a 138% return on investments across this range. The best performer was Lafite Rothschild 1982, which cost £2,613 for a case of 12 bottles at the beginning of 2000 and sold at the end of last month for £25,500, a return of 876%.Behind the price surge is a limited supply and an influx of new-money buyers from China and the rest of Asia. Specialists reckon that, as China continues to industrialise, prices for fine wine will continue to soar.Liv-ex director James Miles says: "The economic case for investing in wine is compelling: supply is static; quality conscious producers have even cut production in recent years. More-over, fine wine cannot be replenished. Every time a bottle of Lafite Rothschild 1982 is opened, there is one less for the world to enjoy. Add to this rising demand from new markets, such as Asia, and the case for rising prices is a powerful one. Wine has also been a useful tool for portfolio diversification with a history of high returns, low volatility and negligible correlation to mainstream assets."But would-be investors should not simply buy the first gluggable case that takes their fancy: not all well-known wines are suitable for investment.To be regarded as a fine wine, it must have the potential to improve in bottle and appreciate in value, and be actively sought after by merchants. To satisfy this requirement, a wine must have a long track record, often centuries rather than decades, and have received strong critical acclaim. Investors use the Parker score on a fine wine before buying, a classification scale of up to 100 credited to US journalist Robert Parker Jnr, probably the most influential person in the fine wine market.Miles says: "In practice, this is a narrow group of wines and includes the very top wines of Bordeaux and a smattering of wines from Burgundy, the Rhone, Italy, Champagne and the New World. Most professionally managed investment portfolios have between 80% and 90% by value invested in just eight brands – the five first growths, plus Cheval Blanc, Pétrus and Ausone. These brands have so far accounted for 64% of Liv-ex's turnover in 2009."But beware, this is a market in which naive investors can easily lose out to scam operators. Only buy from an established, reputable merchant. See The Bunch for a list of Britain's top independent fine wine merchants. Jill PapworthWhich wine will be the best investment for the next 10 years? I strongly believe it will be Asia-focused and entirely red wine. The increased demand we have seen, particularly from Hong Kong, over the past 18 months is likely to spread to China's major cities, putting enormous supply pressure on certain Bordeaux chateaux. Bordeaux has an almost infinite market for a very small, finite product. To give you a feeling of size, the great Chateau Mouton Rothschild 20 years ago was producing twice as much as it does now as it, and all its peers strive for perfection by making a more concentrated, and therefore smaller, grand vin. In 2008 it made approximately 13,000 cases. Even at £2,760 a case this doesn't go anywhere – apart from more expensive – in such a potentially enormous market as China. I see the first growths Lafite Rothschild, Mouton Rothschild and Latour leading the pack over the next year or so with Haut Brion and Margaux following close behind.My tips are: 2008 Ch. Mouton Rothschild at £3,000 per case; 2008 Ch. Lafite Rothschild at £4,960 per case; 2008 Ch. Latour at £3,600 per case; 2006 Ch. Lafite Rothschild at £4,000 per case; 2005 Ch Lafite Rothschild at £8,000 per case. Simon Staples, Berry Bros & RuddClassic carsClassic cars enjoyed a huge boom in prices in the 1980s, followed by a painful crash in the early 1990s. But despite a decade renowned for City bonuses, relatively little of it has poured into classic Ferraris, Mercedes and Aston Martins.Coys, the UK's leading auctioneer of classic cars – which also holds sales in Monaco, Italy and Germany, says that while the most sought-after cars have accelerated in price by 200% or more, the majority have stayed in the middle lane, enjoying rises of between 10% and 50% over the past decade.Although prices have softened over the past year on certain cars – for example, a Ferrari Daytona sold 18 months ago for £190,000 and is now worth £160,000 – classics have generally steadily risen since the 1990s crash, Coys' negotiator Will Smith says.He cites examples from a Monaco auction in 2000 – a 1972 Ferrari 246 Dino which sold for £35,000, would now fetch £90,000; a 1957 Mercedes Benz 300SL Gullwing, sold for £100,000, now it is valued at £300,000; and a Porsche Carrera 2.7 RS, which sold for £30,000 in 2000, would now be worth £120,000.But while 90% of the cars in the Coys 2000 catalogue have gone up, some have not. A Jaguar XJ220, technically a classic because of its extreme rarity and desirability, sold in 2000 for £120,000 but is worth no more today.Mr Smith says values depend "primarily on popularity and rarity with, arguably, open-top sports cars currently the most desirable". Jill PapworthWhat will be the best-buy classic car for the next decade? The existing popular classics are relatively undervalued. They are not going to treble in value in the next five years, but they represent sound investment potential, as their prices have been steadily creeping up and we see no reason why they will not continue to do so.A perfect example is the Jaguar XK120 Roadster, a simply stunning British sports car that nostalgically hints at the world-beating lines British car designers were producing in the 1950s. Prices currently start at £35,000, and go all the way up to £100,000-plus, but we see them steadily increasing due to their already established cult status.My other recommendation is 1970s and 1980s supercars, such as the Lamborghini Countach and Maserati Bora. They were on every schoolboy's bedroom wall when they were first released in the 1970s. The very same schoolboys that are now in a position in which to fulfil their dream car ambitions and, as such, values in such 1970s Italian exotica have started to increase rapidly. For example, five years ago a nice Lamborghini Countach QV500 could be yours for £40,000. Today, the same car would cost at least £60,000. Will Smith, Coys classic car auctionsArtIt is almost impossible to accurately measure the return on art over the past decade. Auction prices are only of limited help as they don't take account of the large amount of art sold privately for undisclosed prices. It's also hard to measure the decade's increase in value unless the same works of art came up for sale both in 2000 and 2009 – and not many have.A few facts, however, may shed light on the decade's price trends, at the top end of the market at least. First, total sales of all art worldwide at Christie's auctions came to £1.5bn in 2000, compared with £2.8bn in 2008. That's an increase of 87%.Second, this year saw the sale of Claude Monet's Au Parc Monceau at Christie's Impressionist and Modern auction. Back in June 2001 it went to auction, and fetched £3.7m. This year the same painting sold for £6.3m, a rise of 71% over (almost) a decade. It suggests that while great art has not kept pace with fine wine or gold, it has been a safer place to invest than shares.More and more private client advisers regard art as a serious investment. Iain Tait of London & Capital, which manages £2bn, says: "There is a willingness to look at alternatives. There is a lot of cash on the sidelines waiting to be employed. Art offers a relatively attractive return with low volatility."Last week saw the launch of the "Emotional Assets" fund, which invests in collectables such as art, photography, vintage watches, rare manuscripts and ceramics. Its manager, Bernard Duffy, reckons he can make 15% a year for investors. But the minimum investment is high at £100,000.Railpen, the old British Rail pension fund, invested in paintings in the 1970s, and earned around 10% annualised returns on its portfolio. But the fact it eventually chose to sell up and invest in other assets says something about art as a long-term investment.Art is not like an investment trust or unit trust; there are no regulators to safeguard investors' interests. It is always difficult to value – and may be impossible to sell in a hurry.Earlier this year it also looked as if the art market was taking a pounding from the credit crunch. In New York, the world's biggest art market, more than 60 galleries have shut, although the downturn has been much less severe in London.But the auction houses are confident that emerging markets will keep the market buoyant. Harvey Cammell of Bonhams says: "One of the strongest markets during the recession has been Chinese art. We have just had one of our strongest Chinese sales with items of jade and imperial works of art selling far, far in excess of expectations." Patrick Collinson and Jill PapworthWhat will be hot in the next decade? Everyone's looking for trends, and there are some. Whereas the last decade was about territories – China, India, Asia, Iraq, Iran – the next will be about formats and mediums (new and old); not so much painting, photography and sculpture but more textiles and tapestries, digital art, gardening art, eco art, all things cosmic, woodcuts and even wax. But where should you look to speculate, appreciate, and accumulate?Tapestries and textiles are not quite in contemporary galleries yet, but they will be, courtesy of practitioners such as Kara Walker and Grayson Perry (ceramic pictured above right), and Selwyn Image and enthusiasts like Alistair McAlpine."Outsider" art – which is easy to find, cheap to buy and fun to own – can only go up, so get some now, along with your salvage, stained glass, vintage bricks and mirrors.But what of the newer than new? There will always be painters like Ansel Krut, who is as good if not better than Peter Doig and still more or less undiscovered, and text-based colourist and Saatchi favourite Peter Davies. Londoner Francesca Lowe makes philosophical sci-fi fantasias, while digital guru John Maeda turns nature's ponds and oceans into beautiful kaleidoscopic tundra. All of these artists' prices have doubled or tripled in the past five years. Tot Taylor, director of Riflemaker Gallery Reported by guardian.co.uk 46 minutes ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Money/20091121/6037475/Alternative-investments-since-2000.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:40:28 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Money/20091121/6037475/Alternative-investments-since-2000.htm Gold was a lousy investment in the 90s … how times change. The humble savings account, meanwhile, more than held its ownGoldIt has been one of the best investments of the past decade, and this week it was hitting new highs. But 10 years ago nobody wanted to know. Gold was trading at just $281.50 (£171.93) an ounce in January 2000, and investors were in despair. The price of bullion was limping along at a 20-year low, and trading volumes on London's battered gold market were falling, month on month. There was much talk of a "gold rush" ... but that was investors piling into internet stocks.Between December 1999 to January 2000, there was only one newspaper headline that mentioned gold. And that was obliquely; it warned readers that the stampede into tech stocks was "fool's gold". How right they were. More weirdly, an "astro economist" warned of huge upheaval in the stockmarket in the year ahead (there was), and said investors should seek safety in gold (and, indeed, they should have).The Times ran a review of the worst funds of the previous decade, just as we are doing today. And in the "dog fund" list was M&G Gold, down 38%. The Daily Mail told its readers that "gold has been a lousy investment over the years". In 1980, it had hit a high of $850, but its decline since then had been persistent. "It is still hard to see the old lustre being restored," wrote its then city editor. The Guardian was no different. In May 1999, we wrote: "If you want to buy gold, the best option is to stick to watches, rings and other trinkets. In investment terms, all that is gold does not necessarily glister."Even the fund managers whose job it was to manage gold investments were throwing in the towel. In the middle of 1999, with gold touching new lows, Gartmore decided to close its Gold & International Resources fund. At the time, fund manager Brian O'Neil said: "It's the type of fund that people should buy once in a blue moon, see if they can make any money and then sell and buy something else." It would not be appropriate to hold it as a long-term bet, he added.Central banks across the world were hefty sellers. In May 1999, Gordon Brown announced that the Bank of England would start selling its reserves, and over the following months, 125 tonnes went under the hammer. The first auction, on 6 July 1999, achieved $261.20. It would be worth four times that today.Once central banks stopped selling, the price began to firm, while demand from emerging markets such as India and China exploded. Meanwhile, supplies from traditional locations, such as South Africa, began to dwindle. The rest is investment history. Patrick CollinsonCan gold continue to outperform other assets? 2000 was the very worst time to plunge into the then fashionable investment, tech shares. Today, gold is perhaps the most fashionable recommendation from financial advisers convinced that it's the best inflation hedge for the next decade. Will they be as wrong today as 10 years ago?The gold bugs say the weak dollar, falling supply, and, funnily enough, a decision by central banks to start buying again, will provide a solid bedrock for prices to keep moving ahead. Demand from India, the world's biggest buyer, can only grow.But this week, John Greenwood, chief economist at asset management group Invesco Perpetual, urged caution. "I'm hesitant about making any further commitment to gold. The underlying assumption is that it is an insurance against catastrophe. I don't think we are going to have that catastrophe – we will see a process of gradual recovery. People will also be continually surprised over how low inflation is, and, over time, that will erode or undermine the gold price."But Aram Shishmanian of the World Gold Council says: "The diverse and robust nature of the market underpins the price. Early signs of economic recovery and improving consumer confidence have seen jewellery and industrial demand rise relative to last quarter, and the profit-taking witnessed earlier has markedly decreased."Absolute levels of demand are likely to remain well-supported by continued economic and currency uncertainty, inflation concerns and the search for diversification." CashSavings rates went on a rollercoaster ride during the noughties, and we seem to be experiencing one mighty down cycle at the moment. Millions of savers are enduring some of the lowest rates ever; according to Moneyfacts, almost a quarter of all variable-rate savings accounts pay 0.1% or less. Most accounts aren't paying enough interest to fight off inflation.Assuming £1,000 was invested in the average easy-access account on 1 January 2000, the value today would be £1,209 (£1,210 at the end of the year), says Michelle Slade at Moneyfacts. At the start of the decade, the typical easy-access rate was around 2.71%. It later sank below 1.5% in early 2003 before climbing to a peak of just over 4.2% in late 2007, and then falling off a cliff as the Bank of England slashed interest rates. The decade's low was 0.64% in April-May this year. This month the average stood at 0.81%.It was announced this week that the key Consumer Prices Index (CPI) measure of inflation rose to 1.5% last month, with analysts predicting it could hit 3% in the coming months. The new figure means a basic-rate taxpayer needs to secure a rate of at least 1.875% gross to maintain the spending power of their savings pot, while a higher-rate taxpayer will need a gross rate of at least 2.5%, says Andrew Hagger at Moneynet.co.uk.He adds: "The message is clear: don't let your savings languish in a sub-standard account – you may have to move your emergency or rainy-day fund to an account offering a 12-month bonus and then switch away when the bonus falls away. For example, Citibank is paying 3.25% gross on its instant access flexible saver, but this includes a bonus element of 2.25% for the first 12 months only."To get a real return on the bulk of your savings, it's important to make full use of your Isa allowance and then take advantage of the better rates on offer in the fixed-rate bond market."If you fix now, you can get 3.95% for one year from National Savings & Investments, 4.35% from the AA for two years, right through to 5.35% from Skipton Building Society if you're happy to commit for a five-year term."The latter end of the decade also saw long queues outside Northern Rock branches and the collapse of several savings providers. As a result, many savers are now a lot more cautious about where they stash their cash, which has provided a boost to "safe" institutions such as National Savings.The challenge ahead for savers is likely to be how they beat the combination of rising inflation and rock-bottom interest rates, which look set to stay at record lows for a little while yet. Rupert Jones Reported by guardian.co.uk 46 minutes ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Money/20091121/6037478/How-have-gold-and-cash-investments-fared-in.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:40:28 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Money/20091121/6037478/How-have-gold-and-cash-investments-fared-in.htm Reported by Xinhua 41 minutes ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Front+Page/20091121/6037402/China-clinches-women-singles-title-in-advance.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:46:22 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Front+Page/20091121/6037402/China-clinches-women-singles-title-in-advance.htm Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Sands China Ltd. and its parent, the casino company controlled by billionaire Sheldon Adelson, raised HK$19.4 billion ($2.5 billion) in a Hong Kong share sale conducted at the low end of its forecast range. Reported by Bloomberg 57 minutes ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Asia-Pacific/20091121/6037333/Sands-China-Raises-Billion-in-Hong.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:29:28 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Asia-Pacific/20091121/6037333/Sands-China-Raises-Billion-in-Hong.htm All big companies have their critics. But what's interesting about Apple's detractors is universal surprise. Their disappointment often stems from finding out that Apple isn't the company they thought it was. So I'm going to do all you would-be critics a favor, and explain some fundamental aspects of Apple's culture. Next time, you won't be blindsided and confused. Here are four things that Apple believes that explain the unexplainable: 1. Everything Apple sells is an Apple product Developer Paul Graham wrote an impassioned post this week called "Apple's Mistake," where he expressed his shock and disappointment at Apple's heavy hand with iPhone developers. Graham said the "App Store approval process is broken." Apple doesn't "understand software." "They treat iPhone apps the way they treat the music they sell through iTunes," he wrote. That last statement is truer than Graham realizes. Everything Apple offers on iTunes is viewed by Apple in the same way they view music: They're all Apple products. When you drop 99 cents for Lady Gaga's newish single, "Paparazzi," you're buying an Apple product, according to Apple. In fact, Ms. Gaga's only function in life is to make a marginal contribution to the overall Apple experience. Graham thinks his product is his, and that Apple simply makes the hardware and software it runs on. But Apple views all of it as part of the Apple experience. If you want to sell an iPhone app, Apple will dictate the shape, size and look and feel of the buttons, windows, typeface, and how most of the user settings will appear. They will reject and ban it if it competes with another of their products, or even with possible product directions. If it offends Apple in some way -- either because of sex, politics or religion or some other banned topic -- Apple will simply deny it. And they'll take their sweet time deciding, too. As a developer, you have two options: love it or leave it. This would make no sense if your assumption is that Apple is just another hardware and software maker cultivating an applications ecosystem. But it makes perfect sense if you realize that Apple views app developers as employees or contractors who have been allowed to work for Apple as long as they follow the rules. Another bit of evidence for Apple's world view emerged this week. Long story short: A software company called The Little App Factory was put on notice by Apple's legal department to change the name of their product, iPodRip, because it contained the word "iPod." The owner wrote an impassioned letter to Jobs practically begging him to intervene and allow the product to keep its name. The man professed his undying loyalty to Apple, and pointed out how he even dropped out of school to devote his life to creating software for Apple products. He said he has 6 million customers, and the product has been recommended by Apple itself. Jobs' reply was simply, "Change your apps name. Not that big of a deal. Steve" This peon wasn't even worth the hassle of an apostrophe. You see the disparity in how each party views the relationship? The developer's attitude was: "Hey, I've devoted my life to your brand, and I have good reasons why I should be given special consideration as a loyal partner and friend of the company. We can work this out." Apple's attitude is: Get in line or you're fired." This isn't now how CEOs talk to software partners. This is how CEOs talk to low-level employees or unimportant contractors. There's a great scene in the upcoming movie, "Me and Orson Welles," in which Welles responds to a fellow actor's complaint that "he is an arrogant, selfish..." with the line: "I am Orson Welles, and every single one of you stands here as an adjunct to my vision. [If] you don't like the way I work here, there's the door." That, in a nutshell, is Jobs' view of the relationship between Apple and its developer community. 2. Apple products are disposable Apple makes high-quality, durable gadgets. I've dropped my iPhone many times, and it hasn't got a scratch on it. But don't let that fool you into thinking Apple wants those products to enjoy years and years of use. Apple expects you to dump your old product and buy the new one just as soon as it comes out. And they don't expect you to sell the old one to someone else. There's no such thing as an old Apple product. There is only the current Apple product, and trash. Phones similar in size to the iPhone, for example, typically have a removable battery. A battery that can be replaced is just common sense, given that batteries rapidly lose their ability to hold a charge after a few hundred charges. But iPhones are not designed to last. They're designed to be used until the new one comes out, then discarded. The same goes for iPods. iPhone and iPod batteries don't make sense, unless you understand that these are disposable products. They look like fine china, but they're sold like paper plates. 3. Nothing exists unless Apple sells it Steve Jobs famously said that "People don't read anymore." This comment (which you're reading, by the way), was made in response to a question about the Amazon Kindle. In Steve Jobs' world view, nothing exists outside the Appleverse. People don't read because Apple doesn't sell a reader. Mark my words, when Apple ships its tablet or some other device that can be used for the serious reading of books, people will read again. 4. Apple doesn't want to be a successful business Tech watchers love the horse race aspect of technology industry competition. Apple competes with Microsoft. Apple competes with Google. Apple competes with companies like HP. But Apple doesn't see it that way. Industry titans like Microsoft, Google and HP instinctively "fill out" their product lines to dominate huge areas of technology. Microsoft, for example, wants Microsoft software running on wristwatches, supercomputers and everything in between. Google wants to offer every conceivable service that can be squeezed through an internet connection. HP's massive product line runs the gamut from consumer digital cameras sold at Best Buy to entire data centers filled with enterprise systems. Apple doesn't want to dominate like this. It has no interest in this kind of imperialist expansion. Apple is interested only in surgical strikes into this business or that product category, where they can solve design problems others have failed to solve. Understanding this about Apple helps explain otherwise inexplicable decisions, such as why Apple got into the mobile phone handset business, and why the company is so ambivalent about business products. To Apple, the mobile phone industry proved clueless at how to offer a compelling user experience with a phone, with its history of cramped buttons and claustrophobic user interfaces. They believed, correctly it turns out, that their designers could drop a game-changing phone into the market and "change the world" again. But when Apple casts its gaze at the enterprise space, it doesn't see sufficiently compelling design problems that will emotionally affect users. So why bother? Apple's choices in markets it gets into make no sense, unless you understand that they don't want to dominate industries, or even maximize revenues. They just want to design and sell better products that will affect user experience in markets where that's an achievable goal. Of course, business success is great. But Apple sees that as only a means to the end of shipping thrilling designs. Steve Jobs was recently named CEO of the Decade by Fortune Magazine. I'm sure Jobs' ego was pleased by the designation. But ultimately, he doesn't care about this sort of thing as much as you might expect. Jobs doesn't want to be viewed by history as a Lee Iacocca or a Henry Ford. He wants posterity to look at him as a Mozart or a Da Vinci. He wants to be seen as a builder of beautiful things, not a builder of business empires. Next time Apple does something that infuriates you, or makes you go "huh?" remember that Apple has its own unique world view. And only by understanding that perspective can you understand why Apple does what it does. Reported by Industry Standard 1 hour ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Computer+Industry/20091121/6037005/Four-things-you-need-to-know-about-Apple.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:21:31 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Computer+Industry/20091121/6037005/Four-things-you-need-to-know-about-Apple.htm Commodities soared and emerging markets took off, but the average small investor missed out, says Patrick CollinsonIt invests in goldmines – and it became a goldmine. Every £1,000 invested in BlackRock Gold & General at the beginning of the decade was worth £7,846 10 years later, closely followed by another gold-invested fund, JPMorgan Natural Resources, according to analysis by data suppliers Morningstar.But only a lucky few benefited from the soaraway funds. The vast majority of small investors are in UK funds, and these performed abysmally over the decade. There are 154 in the "UK All Companies" sector, and over 10 years they gave an average return of just 13% – and that's not including the initial charge, which could knock 5% off that figure. On an annual basis, the returns limp in at just over 1% a year, or much below inflation and less than if the money had sat in a building society.Even that may be flattering the returns. There is an inherent "survivor bias" in the unit trust figures. When a fund underperforms over the medium-term, the asset management group "merges" it with another fund, handily disguising the past underperformance. So the "average" figures are always better than the average gain achieved.The walking-wounded are the slew of technology funds launched at the peak of the "technology, media and telecom" (TMT) bubble but which then turned into the worst investment disaster of the decade (see panel). Ten years on, the average surviving fund is still nursing losses of 63%.Ten years ago, it was Japan funds that sat at the bottom of the table; 10 years on they remain at the bottom, just above the tech funds, with an average fall over the decade of 47%. It was in sharp contrast to the "Asia Pacific ex Japan" sector, which enjoyed an average gain of 106% over the decade. Investment trusts, on average, outperformed unit trusts/open-ended investment companies (Oeics), perhaps reflecting the relatively larger number of higher-risk single-country trusts.The top-performing investment trust of the decade was JP Morgan Russian Securities, which earned a gain of 976%, followed by BlackRock World Mining, run by the same team managing Gold & General, with 498%.Perhaps the most heroic performance was Jupiter Financial Opportunities. Managed by Philip Gibbs, it finished the decade in fifth place out of 771 funds, rising 336%. What makes it so astonishing is that it invests in banks. Almost alone among fund managers, Gibbs saw the credit crunch coming and shifted the fund's holdings into cash-like instruments to avoid the crash.What's the best investment for the next decade?Mark Dampier, Hargreaves Lansdown You would never have guessed bonds were going to perform so well but, looking forward, if you believe inflation will rise they will be among the worst investments. I'm relaxed about inflation right now, but in two to three years bonds won't be the place to be. The transition to inflation will hit all asset classes. Over the longer term, China is too obvious; I'd prefer India or Vietnam, which have much better demographics than China, where the population is ageing fast. But maybe we get too het up about asset allocation, and should instead back the individuals you can trust for the long term, such as Philip Gibbs (Jupiter), William Littlewood (Artemis), Crispin Odey (Odey Asset Management) and Neil Woodford (Invesco Perpetual).Edward Bonham Carter, Jupiter Asset Management Economic growth in the west is likely to remain anaemic for several years, due in large part to the vast accumulation of debt by consumers and governments. Inflation and interest rates are likely to stay lower for longer as a result, which provides a positive backdrop for equities and bonds over the medium term.I would expect markets to trade within a broad range, with strong rallies and setbacks in between. Returns are likely to come from dividends and the growth in dividends.Growth investors may prefer to look to emerging markets. Many, particularly China and India, are in a relatively strong position, but investors must be prepared to tolerate volatile returns.'I bought the worst fund of the decade'I went to the launch briefing for the Framlington NetNet in April 1999, and was smitten with the concept of investing in a fund that could "capture the potential of the internet". I barely understood what the internet was, but it sounded good to me.Unfortunately, technology stocks were already looking more frothy than a full fat cappuccino, so when writing up the fund I said: "Investors should note that shares in internet companies have increased dramatically and the price bubble could burst."Ignoring my own advice (of course!), I started investing £75 a month, and then increased the amount to £100.The fund did very well to start with: the Techmark index, which measures telecoms and technology stocks trebled between mid-October and March 2000. When I started investing units were selling for 44.29p each but by the early spring of 2000 they were selling for more than £1.Then the bubble burst: my NetNet units plummeted but then staged a small recovery in line with the market. The units were selling for 78.27p that summer, and I couldn't bear to sell up – surely the fund would recover?What a mistake – I should have taken the money and run right then. The market continued to trickle down, then the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre sparked another massive market slump. By January 2002 NetNet units were selling for 22.8p, and by 2003, just 11.64p – about one tenth of its peak value. My investment, worth about £1,500 in the spring of 2000, was now valued at £150.Still I hung on, thinking the fund must recover – after all, internet based companies like Google and Amazon were thriving. Framlington was taken over by Axa, and the fund renamed Axa Framlington Global Technology. But it didn't make that much difference to the performance.This summer, more than 10 years after I first started investing, I realised my original units were still only worth about £390 and decided enough was enough. I sold up and stuck the money in my bank account.So there is one thing that I am now confident in predicting: the technology sector is about to stage a rally – get your money in while prices are low. Jill Insley Reported by guardian.co.uk 1 hour ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Money/20091121/6036890/Investment-funds-mixed-bag-for-noughties-investors.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:21:31 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Money/20091121/6036890/Investment-funds-mixed-bag-for-noughties-investors.htm The FTSE 100 fell and the banks collapsed. But as Patrick Collinson reports, the only shares that didn't go up in smoke were tobacco companiesIn a decade dominated by the rise of China, the expansion of the internet and the proliferation of mobile phones, the best stockmarket investment was – cigarettes.Analysis of the companies in the FTSE 100 in January 2000, prepared for Guardian Money by stockbrokers Charles Stanley, reveals that cigarette makers British American Tobacco (its brands include Dunhill, Kent, Lucky Strike and Pall Mall) was the best performer, rising 454%. Imperial Tobacco was not far behind; the maker of Davidoff, West, Gauloises Blondes and Rizla saw its shares jump 400% over the 10 years.Yet this was the decade that saw smoking banned in workplaces, pubs and restaurants, and large numbers of smokers stubbing out their habit. How did cigarettes make so much money? The reality is that the tobacco companies more than made up for declines in the west with fast-growing sales in countries such as Nigeria and Pakistan.Back in January 2000, BAT had a stockmarket capitalisation of £7.2bn, a fraction of British Telecom's £92.5bn price tag in the halcyon days of the TMT boom. Today BAT is valued at £39.4bn, almost four times that of a shrivelled BT, which sold off its £17bn mobile phone subsidiary and is now worth just £11.4bn.After cigarettes, it was food, drink and commodity companies that made the most money over the decade.Resource stocks BHP Billiton, BG, Rio Tinto and Anglo American all gave investors a return of 150% or more over the decade. Meanwhile, Associated British Food, Tesco, Diageo and Whitbread all more than doubled in value. But the losers far outnumbered the winners.On the last trading day of 1999, in a moment of tech-driven millennial madness, the FTSE 100 touched a record high of 7000. It promptly fell 800 points over the next month and, 10 years on, remains substantially below its peak.BP has fallen by 5% over the decade, despite the phenomenal rise in petrol prices. Vodafone is down 55%, Lloyds has dived 85% and RBS is 87% lower. Yet in December 1999 the major investment banks were predicting that 2000 would see the FTSE rush up even further, to 7500 and beyond.CSFB's annual study of equity returns celebrated 130 years of stockmarket growth and predicted "history shows that equities can remain above trend for reasonably long periods of time".Today, only 66 of the companies in the FTSE 100 on 1 January 2000 even survive. Mergers and acquisitions saw NatWest, Abbey, Reuters and Hanson move out, but most notable is the massive shrinkage of the buzzy net and telecom stocks at the time, such as Colt, Misys and Logica.When the 1980s Japan property bubble burst, we wondered how we could ever have believed that the gardens of the Imperial Palace in Tokyo were worth more than nearly all of California. At the end of the 1990s, Microsoft was valued at more than the entire GDP of Canada.What is today's bubble? Some point to commodities, gold and China. Maybe the biggest lesson we have all learned is that markets are more prone to madness than rationality.The best shares for the next 10 years?Jeremy Batstone, Charles Stanley "Who's to say that tobacco won't be at the top again in another 10 years? Possibly a miner, given strong demand for commodities, or maybe an oil stock on concerns regarding resource depletion, and possibly a sharp spike in oil prices (although the relationship between oil shares and the oil price is not exactly linear)."Dean Turner, Barclays Wealth "The key to picking stocks for the next 10 years is to look at companies that have a strong competitive position over their rivals, including strong brands, leading market positions and growing markets. In addition, a good dividend yield and potential for growth are key selection criteria. With this in mind, I would pick natural monopolies such as oil or telecom companies, including BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Vodafone. In addition, global leaders such as BAT in tobacco, Diageo in the drinks industry or Tesco in retailing are likely to continue dominating their respective industries. Nevertheless, the caveat is that competitive advantages tend to erode over time, so picking stocks so far in the future is inherently risky." Reported by guardian.co.uk 1 hour ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Money/20091121/6036889/Shares-not-always-fair-since-2000.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:21:31 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Money/20091121/6036889/Shares-not-always-fair-since-2000.htm Are Herman van Rompuy and Cathy Ashton the best of all available choices as the European Union council president and the high representative on foreign policy respectively? Undoubtedly not. Yet they are competent people and they are the choices that the EU has now made. Were Mr van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton chosen in the most persuasive way to win confidence across Europe and to impress the rest of the world? Certainly not that either. But in a Europe that recoils from the superstatism that direct election to such posts involves, they were chosen by the only process that existed.No doubt about it, this has been an underwhelming 48 hours for Europe, but it could have played out worse and could also have been very much more disruptive. What took place in Brussels on Thursday was a compromise deal between big member states and small ones, left and right, north and south. But the provisions of the Lisbon treaty have now been fulfilled. The new council president and the new high representative are nominated. We are where we are, rather than where we, or others, might like to be. So where does the new European Union created by the Lisbon treaty now go?The first thing to say is that this new post-Lisbon EU has a lot of growing to do. But the most important thing to say is that there is nothing in these arrangements that can plausibly be caricatured as a federalist superstate. That does not mean such caricatures will not continue to be made, especially in this country. Nevertheless the appointments represent a clear victory, at least for now, of the intergovernmental approach to the EU rather than of any federalist challenge to it. In this EU, nation states will call the shots. To prove himself worthy of his hire Mr van Rompuy will be expected to curb his federalist instincts.The choice of two low-profile leaders means that there are two immediate political winners from the process. The first is the European commission, under its renominated president José Manuel Barroso, who has emerged as at least the first among equals in the new Brussels lineup. The other winners are the large member states. France and Germany set the terms for the two appointments. Angela Merkel, with her preference for an inward-looking Europe, is the godmother of these arrangements. But Britain was a winner too, handed the opportunity to shape EU foreign policy and, crucially, to build the new external action service (EAS), the EU's new diplomatic corps.Baroness Ashton's priority should be to ensure that this EAS allows her to punch her weight alongside national foreign ministers and in global arenas. She should demand the secondment of the brightest and the best from member states to enable her to do this. Our own Foreign Office should show the way, whichever party is in power. She should recognise that the member states will always be jealous of their access to the big global powers, such as the US, China and India. She will have to work with the member states there. But she might be smart to give particular focus to building a really effective presence in high-profile or important small or medium-sized countries where the EU collectively can make a difference that the member states cannot match – places like Belarus, Ukraine, Morocco, Burma and Thailand.Today's Europe is a graduate of the school of hard knocks. Its idealism has been tempered by experience. It is and always will be an imperfect union, and the new post-Lisbon arrangements will take some getting used to. But this is the union we have got and it is a union that we need. The benefits are worth it, the processes matter, and it is hugely in Britain's interests, whether under a Labour or a Conservative government, to make it work as well as possible. Europe has immense common interests and a big role to play in the world. Now it needs to deliver. You wouldn't, if you could choose, start from here, but it is time to get on with the job. Reported by guardian.co.uk 1 hour ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Politics/20091121/6036864/European-Union-Now-to-make-it-work.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:21:31 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Politics/20091121/6036864/European-Union-Now-to-make-it-work.htm Unless they end in promises, and a treaty within months, Ed Miliband believes the Copenhagen talks will be a disaster. But can the British energy secretary, in Denmark for a frantic round of pre-summit diplomacy, win the argument?It's breakfast time in the biggest of Copenhagen's Scandic hotels. Over the obligatory croissants and coffee – and, for those who want it, an off-beam version of the English breakfast – 42 international delegations are preparing to go into a second day of talks. Phones tweet; hushed conversations within teams of negotiators form a low conversational hum.Look closely, and some of the outlines of modern geopolitics are clear. This morning, the Chinese and Indian delegations are seated together, and locked in conversation. Elsewhere in the hotel, the UK's representatives are doing their thing at an early "EU co-ordination" meeting. In a corner of the restaurant, meanwhile, the US special envoy on climate change – an elusive, austere-looking man named Todd Stern – sits completely alone.From 7-18 December, the Danish capital will fill up with an extra 20,000 people, there to play their part in what officialspeak calls the 15th Conference of the Parties (or Cop 15), but the rest of us know as the Copenhagen summit: the great global coming-together aimed at securing a much more ambitious successor to the Kyoto treaty, and thereby marking a turning point in the human race's fight against climate change. This week's event, organised by the Danish government under the title Pre-Cop Consultations, is much more low-key, though the guest list includes a huge array of energy and climate change ministers, their aides and negotiating teams – called here to compare notes, have brief and not-so-brief "bilaterals", and somehow inject a slow-moving process with some political momentum.Among them is Britain's own Ed Miliband, who will turn 40 six days after the summit closes, and has the road-worn air of man who has been travelling far too much. In the build up to December, he has been to China, Brazil, India, Mexico, South Africa and Bangladesh, as well as Poland, Russia, and France (before anyone asks, he and his team offset their flights).On the flight from London, he underlines the gravity of Copenhagen by alluding to past summits, and describing it as "Bretton Woods plus Yalta multiplied by Reykjavik". In Scandic's restaurant, where he sits for the interview, he comes up with an even more mind-boggling analogy: "Imagine if you knew 189 people, and you got them all together and said, 'Here's how we want you to run a significant part of your lives in the next 30 or 40 years – and by the way, you have to unanimously agree that that's how you want to do it.'"Give or take sleep, and the closed-off proceedings in the main conference room, I shadow Miliband for around 40 hours. On his first morning here, I hear the stiffened small-talk at early-morning bilaterals, best illustrated by the opening exchange between him and his German counterpart Norbert Röttgen:"Congratulations on your first presentation in the parliament. I heard some reports that it was a triumph.""It was OK.""You're being hailed as a great environmentalist, which is good for your first week in the job.""Second week."What really defines my time in Copenhagen, though, is a thrice-daily ritual whereby I collar Miliband as he emerges from the formal negotiations, and try – in vain, usually – to get a firm idea of where the conversation has been going. Usually, he wears a pretty much unreadable expression, though it doesn't take any great effort to understand how much work – somewhat worryingly – has still be done. At the end of Day One, for example, I manage to extract a few brief words from 55-year-old Jairam Ramesh, India's stoic minister of state for environment and forests, who audibly sighs, and will only tell me that "there is still a long way to go".This week, the news media's understanding of what Copenhagen might achieve has pinballed between pessimism and qualified hope. On Monday, headlines confirmed what most insiders knew, when Barack Obama served notice that a legally binding agreement at Copenhagen was now beyond reach, and he was signing up to the Danish government's plan to exit 2009 with a "politically binding" deal, and follow it with a full treaty in the very near future. By Tuesday, rather more optimistic coverage greeted America and China's joint promise that December would see a "comprehensive" agreement, though plenty of voices still counselled caution and doubt: as far as one Greenpeace spokesperson was concerned, the Sino-American declaration was vague enough to suggest the possibility of both "a real ambitious climate rescue deal" and "another meaningless declaration".There are two tracks to the build-up to Copenhagen. Politicians travel, and meet, and keep their eye on the stuff that will define the summit's headlines. Meanwhile, negotiators who are devoting their entire working lives to the pre-summit process must regularly congregate in some of the world's major cities, and try to push their way through the detail. Britain's chief negotiator is Jan Thompson, an official on loan from the Foreign Office who, in red patent leather biker boots, looks like anything but. She and Pete Betts – a genial, straight-to-the-point kind of operator, who described himself as "a career bureaucrat" – are known to Miliband as "the two degrees", a reference to the rise in average global temperatures that the world has now resolved to avoid. Miliband says he has long conversations with them at least once a week; on their second night in Denmark, they are still talking animatedly well past midnight.There is, of course, no end of stuff to discuss. The negotiations' key theme is an ongoing and complex face-off between developed and developing countries (needless to say, post-imperial baggage is unavoidable). For countries already panicked by the effects of climate change – most notably, the 43-strong Alliance Of Small Island States – the prospect of a potentially indefinite delay to a legal deal is evidently causing no end of fear. Such rising powers as China, India and Brazil are watched closely, but the story regularly comes back to the US, whose uncertain stance is partly down to its cagy exit from what Miliband calls "20 wasted years", and the delicacy of America's political system: for a president to come to Europe and dish out commitments before the requisite legislation had passed the Senate would be risky, to say the least."What is the art of politics?" he wonders (like a lot of New Labour politicians of his generation, Miliband has a habit of asking himself questions). "It's to simplify, not complexify [sic]. Yes, this is complicated. But actually, in the end, it does boil down to some relatively simple things: how much you're going to cut your emissions, how much finance you're going to provide, what you're going to do about deforestation, and what you're going to about technology. I often think that when people say, 'Oh, this is so complicated,' it becomes an excuse. You get, 'Oh, this is all too complicated – it'll take another five years.'"But how does he gauge success? "Well, you go on trips, and you have a series of dreadful and depressing meetings where you think nothing is moving. And then you have a really good meeting when you can visualise a breakthrough … in Brazil, I said to the foreign minister, 'Are you going to put 2020 numbers on the table for Copenhagen?' And he said, 'Yeah'. And we all looked at each other and said, 'Well, they've never said that before.' And you come out of the meeting and think, 'That was a pretty significant moment.'"After the first day's talks, there's a dinner at the Royal Danish Playhouse, which ends with a solo ballet performance titled The Egg. But before those delights, he has to go to a Danish TV studio, do British TV and radio spots, frets about how quickly he talks, and tries to face down scepticism at home.The script he performs for Channel 4 News and BBC Radio is reiterated to me, with additions, later that night. Despite the uncertainty now hanging over any legally binding deal, Miliband says he wants a full enforceable treaty "within months" of Copenhagen, and says that even the end of 2010 is too late. As one of his advisers frantically scribbles down her version of the conversation (the departmental MiniDisc recorder is kaput), he sets out a simple version of what first has to materialise in December: "a set of commitments from developed and developing countries that can show emissions peaking by about 2020."He also talks endlessly about the importance of "numbers", by which he chiefly means pledges of specific cuts in emissions from all the major developed countries, and hardened commitments on the funding of "adaptation and mitigation" – where richer countries spending billions on poorer countries' defences against a radically altered climate, and the technology needed to curb their output of greenhouse gases.Britain, via the EU, has already committed to cutting CO² emissions by 34% by 2020 on 1990 levels. EU governments have also promised €22bn-€50bn (£20bn-£45bn) a year for the developing world as part of a proposed €110bn global package, which, relative to claims that the total annual bill may be four times that, looks deeply disappointing. But right now that is not the main point: outside Europe, even if emissions targets are starting to come in, few developed countries have yet come up with figures for financial help for poorer ones – and in the case of the US, neither have been put on the table.That fact alone makes one particular element of Miliband's rhetoric remarkable. "I'm willing to say to you, if we don't get any numbers at Copenhagen, it's a failure," he says.I tell him that strikes me as a rather high-stakes position. "Yeah," he says. "But I don't think it would be successful if we haven't got numbers. What is it if we don't have numbers?"The thing is, I suggest, politicians don't often say things like that. They tend to make a point of leaving wriggle room for themselves. "No," he says, sharply. "We're not leaving wriggle room. I recognise that fact. In the end, people are smart. They know when you've succeeded, and they know when you've failed. And I've known for many months that there's no point in going out and claiming Copenhagen is a miraculous triumph if there's no numbers."There are, inevitably, aspects of the UK's policy and positioning that plenty of green voices do not like: a new enthusiasm for the uncertain technology known as "clean coal"; enthusiasm for funding half of Europe's post-Copenhagen commitment to the developing world via private-sector carbon trading; and the fact that the UK has so far only pledged £1bn a year in direct climate-related funding for poorer countries.But here is the most striking thing. On the couple of occasions that I talk to British officials it is hard to avoid the conclusion that, relative to scores of countries, the UK is on the right side of the argument, and pushing hard. They talk about Copenhagen in the kind of dramatic terms that one perhaps wouldn't expect from civil servants. "If we can make this work," says a man from the Foreign Office, "multilateralism has a future. If not, multilateralism goes pear-shaped. And that will affect all kinds of things: food security, water security, energy security."By early afternoon on the second day, a few delegations have started to peel away, and are preparing to return home. The hotel foyer is divided between an ever-increasing array of suitcases, the activities of a large number of Chinese journalists and ad hoc huddles of negotiators. Not long after 2pm, Miliband bids me goodbye and disappears into a bilateral with the Brazilians: his flight doesn't leave until six, which gives time for talks, and more talks.Hovering near the negotiations' security barrier, I grab Kevin Conrad, the climate change envoy from Papua New Guinea. Conrad, a climate change star since 2007 when at the UN climate conference in Bali, he challenged the US: "If you are not willing to lead then leave it to the rest of us, get out of the way," looks urbane, preppy, but also visibly rattled. The previous afternoon, I had heard him vent his spleen to the British team as follows: "What can we do to re-energise this thing? It just feels like it's all going backwards.""I remain frustrated," he tells me. "How do I put this? There's a calculated repositioning of aspirations, where it's being agreed that we're not going to anything that's binding, we're not gong to do anything substantive, and a lot of people blame everybody else for everything going too slow. And for a small island states like ours, that's very disconcerting." When would he like to see a legally-binding deal?"We don't know why that can't happen now. And what gives us confidence that there won't be more excuses in a year? Or a year later? We are relocating people as we speak because their islands are now inhabitable … This is growing. It's not a theoretical problem."He adds: "We want people to stick to the original objective – to come up with the substance of a global deal in Copenhagen. All the elements within the negotiations are moving forward, but we want those settled. We think politicians should come in and settle their differences, and close them off. What do we do? Do we just continue with the differences for another year?"As if to make British hearts swell, however, when I ask him about his perception of Britain's role in Copenhagen, he says :"The UK, in my view, is one of the strongest and most articulate advocates for getting something done."Having arrived back at home, I book in a call to a British official, which duly happens on Thursday afternoon, when they talk me through some of what was discussed: new moves from Brazil and South Korea, continued uncertainty about how progress on carbon emissions might be recorded, and whether Copenhagen's outcome might be a matter of one text, or "bits of text". Their closing verdict on two days in the Danish capital may be entirely innocuous, though to certain ears, they will only underline what a nervous moment this is. "No decisions," says the voice at the other end of the line. "But useful." Reported by guardian.co.uk 1 hour ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Politics/20091121/6036867/Climate-crunch.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:21:31 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Politics/20091121/6036867/Climate-crunch.htm Ineluctably, a worm is turning deep inside President Barack Obama's policy of constructive engagement. Mr Obama needs something, somewhere to go right. He has filled audiences in Berlin and Cairo with hope. He has deployed his rich family history to shine a beam on all manner of problems. But there comes a point where vision must give way to results.A change of tone was implicit this week on his Asian tour. He found a steelier voice on Iran, warning that its refusal to accept the offer of enriching its uranium overseas could trigger international sanctions "within weeks", and he claimed that his twin-track approach of negotiating while ramping up pressure was attracting extraordinary international unity. Extraordinary unity? The administration needs China and Russia to get fresh action approved by the UN, but the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, made no public mention of sanctions at all, while the Russians have been deliberately vague, and their military establishment continues to regard Iran as a good neighbour. The deep reservations of both Moscow and Beijing about sanctions are likely to make the next round symbolic – travel bans, rather than anything affecting oil and gas. There is little iron inside the velvet glove.China is more likely to stand firm on North Korea, but Mr Obama's determination to isolate a regime which lurches from firing rockets to negotiation could be scuppered by the need to deal with an approaching famine there. Towards the end of his tour, the US president showed welcome flexibility over the hated American military base on the island of Okinawa, but then triggered a great row back home with the misconstrued low bow to the Japanese emperor. China used Mr Obama's appearances like an exotic foreign film, dubbing over his critical utterances on human rights and currency misalignments and turning up the volume for the warm words. So China got what it wanted; the remaining question is whether Mr Obama got anything in return. There was no bankable pledge to revalue the yuan, only a commitment to working closely in partnership on economics, climate and Iran. This slow-burn diplomacy is valuable, but it is no substitute for cutting deals in the political-capital stakes.No one expects the waters to part when Mr Obama arrives. His difficulty in making headway reflects the miserable foreign policy legacy of George Bush. Afghanistan's continuing military stalemate continues to weaken the American hand. The pressure to show solid results is rapidly building, but Mr Obama must not allow it to force him into rash muscle-flexing, which will lead to a familiar destination of more conflict. Mr Obama needs to hold his nerve and stay true to his instincts. Reported by guardian.co.uk 1 hour ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/US/20091121/6036857/President-Obama-little-less-conversation.htm Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:21:31 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/US/20091121/6036857/President-Obama-little-less-conversation.htm Melbourne and Brisbane will play an AFL exhibition game in Shanghai next year, the first professional Australian Rules match to be played in China. Reported by Sydney Morning Herald 2 hours ago. http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Asia-Pacific/20091120/6036509/Lions-Demons-to-play-AFL-game-in-China.htm Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:42:22 +0000 http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Asia-Pacific/20091120/6036509/Lions-Demons-to-play-AFL-game-in-China.htm