Oh dear, it looks like Adam Minter at Shanghai Scrap is writing about important issues again. Really, as a poor benighted outsider how can he have the temerity to address public matters like the cockup surrounding the US Pavilion at Expo 2010. He acts like he’s a journalist with articles published in the The Atlantic or something. Shame on you Adam!
Thank God we have the insights of a former government insider to set us straight. Whereas Adam is ignorant of the “legal, bureaucratic, and policy complexities,” Mr. Insider has been in the belly of the beast, and more importantly, he is the friend of several members of the non-profit entity working to raise funding for the Pavilion. He is, therefore, by definition the unbiased, go-to man for the facts on this story.
Having reached dizzying heights of arrogance in his treatment of Adam, you would certainly hope our insider would have the evidence to back up his opinions. What pray tell did Adam get wrong? The strangest thing about his post, however, is that it attacks conclusions Adam never drew.
We are told that “the real problem” with respect to the US Pavilion fiasco “lies in the bowels of the State Dept. where working level lawyers and some public diplomacy officers over the last couple of years have thrown up obstacle after obstacle to the US Pavilion effort. It is as if some involved at the working level were pursuing their own foreign policy.” Adam, of course, would know nothing of these machinations (being a mere dilettante), so it is astounding that he reached essentially the same conclusion in his Atlantic article, “The Pavilion Wars,” where he notes that the question of U.S. participation in the Expo is “tied up in behind-the-scenes maneuverings and State Department incompetence.”
The personal attack on Adam is justified by a chivalric call to defend the individuals who comprise Shanghai Expo 2010, Inc. All Adam has done with respect to this group is point out two instances where Shanghai Expo 2010, Inc. members have made what appear to be inconsistent statements. The facts underlying these inconsistencies are not refuted by our insider, and he tacitly admits them by noting that perhaps the group has not “done everything perfectly.”
Adam concludes that the disarray exhibited by the apparent inability of some group members to keep a story straight has “alienated at least one potential major donor to the US pavilion effort (I have it on record) - and likely many, many more.” This conclusion is a far cry from singling out this group as the sole “culprit” in the sad US Pavilion affair.
Moreover, Adam’s conclusion is absolutely true. I think it is probably the “many, many more” part of Adam’s sentence that concerns our knight errant. One doesn’t have to be an “insider” in Shanghai’s US corporate expat community to have heard tales of the alienating actions of some members of the Shanghai Expo 2010, Inc. team. It may be this wider backlash that is bound to be unleashed when the effort is pronounced dead that Mr. Insider is trying to forestall. That is certainly his right. If he believes Adam got the facts wrong or reached an insupportable conclusion, give us the opposing set of facts, but don’t use ad hominem attacks and condescension to attempt to dismiss the valid and well-researched articles of one of the most professional members of China’s expat blogging community. Such behavior is, well, alienating.
9 responses so far ↓
1 Hank Levine // May 12, 2009 at 3:41 am
Charlie: I am “the Insider”. Can’t help but respond here: My post was not an ad hominem attack on Adam, just an effort to get the facts right. Enjoy your hairsplitting, but you know as well as I that Adam’s most recent piece and previous reporting goes far beyond just noting some “inconsistencies” in statements by Frank and Ellen (which among us after all has never erred in this way). He is placing the blame for problems with the US Pavilion on the alleged incompetence of the approved organizers. Adam may be a great journalist, but in this case the spin he is putting on events is wrong.
I particularly like your mocking tone re the outrageous idea that a Washington insider might have a better understanding of this (DC-centric policy and legal issue) than a journalist in Shanghai. Reminds me of the last Administration. Really don’t want the experts to mess up our beliefs with their informed views.
By the way: what drives you to include a long piece on this in a “China Environmental Law Blog”? I’ve been upfront re my relationships on this. How about you? Friend of Adam? Of others competing for approval on the Pavilion? Providing legal advice? Just curious.
Finally: given your flip tone re my background, suggest you check out my credibility on these issues with senior members of Shanghai Amcham, senior members of Shanghai government (including Expo organizers), and senior trade and China policy officials in the current administration.
Is this the thoroughness with which you practice law?
Hank Levine
2 Dan // May 12, 2009 at 9:37 am
Where I come from, men back up their disagreements with reasoned argument (”Adam incorrectly asserted that Eliasoph was rebuked by the Chinese government based upon X,Y, Z), and not “look upon my credentials, tremble, and believe what I say.” I can’t believe this chickenshit was the US Consul General at one point.
3 Bob Jacobson // May 12, 2009 at 10:37 am
I agree with Hank in one regard: the organizers may be less than competent, but in this they are far outweighed by the State Department as run by the “insiders” while Bush ruled the roost. Almost every problem we are now encountering can be laid at the feet of the policymakers — not juniors, but senior officials — who encountered the Expo for the first time in 2006 and immediately decided it would not be publicly funded. This behavior has been replicated at all levels, although I am an optimist and believe that Hillary Clinton’s letters in support of the authorized group were written by lobbyists and signed without full awareness of their import. I believe that on reviewing the facts, she will not wish to be party to a failed Bush Administration policy and its infernal consequences.
The authorized group’s story is more tragic than anything. They bought into the private-funding-strategy foolishness that history had many times before proven fruitless. Then they stuck with it, refusing all offers of help. Now their PR firm celebrates them having three sponsors when they should have a dozen or two, and the government besides. But unless they sell the store — give up control of the pavilion for a few dollars more in sponsorships — they and we (Americans) are in for a hard ride the next six weeks. Then the deal will come down.
I had lunch with Nick Winslow and found him a nice, decent human being, too silent of late despite being a co-founder of his and Ellen Eliasoph’s effort. He had a more winning style than his fellows. Maybe they’re all that way close up. It’s too bad that Hank’s analysis is so flawed, based as it is on half-truths and impressions. If he was a little more open, maybe he’d get that there’s a reason for the debacle. It just could be that the institution he so highly values as a former insider really did screw up. Knowing that, he might have a different point of view and advise a different, winning course of action.
Tragic.
4 cmcelwee // May 12, 2009 at 10:58 am
@Hank
Am I a friend of Adam? I met Adam “virtually” through his blog about two years ago. I have been a loyal reader and fan of that blog and Adam’s articles in other venues since that time. We have corresponded by email on several occasions, primarily about topics of professional interest, and I have met him in person once. So yes, I consider myself a friend of Adam.
Is that why I posted this piece? No. I posted this piece because I thought your attacks on Adam were unfair and outside the bounds of the code of conduct that governs the China-focused expat blogging community. That community has been characterized by mutual support and civility. We may have our disagreements on issues, but they are never expressed as personal attacks in our respective on-line vehicles. When you transgress these norms, all bets are off, and in my opinion, you crossed the line.
I read your post (in my RSS feed) and it made me very, very angry. Had it been a straight forward defense of the individuals who run Expo 2010, Inc. I would have read it, shut the preview pane, and moved on. Indeed, I would have been inclined to dismiss some of the nastier rumors I have heard concerning the actions of Expo 2010, Inc.
But it wasn’t a straight forward defense of that group. It began and concluded with attacks on Adam Minter. He is accused of opining on issues he does not understand. He is said to have decided “mistakenly, that he understands the challenges of putting together a US pavilion for the Shanghai 2010 Expo well enough to have identified the culprits.” He is portrayed as someone naive enough to “suggest that a different approach or set of actors could magically get the US Pavilion up and running.”
When I point out that, in fact, Adam’s reporting bears similarities to your own analysis, and does not identify the Expo 2010 Inc. group as the main culprits or “suggest” that a different approach or set of actors would have worked, I am accused of “hairsplitting.” In my book when one ceases to be concerned with the factual premises, but rather with the qualities of the person who asserted the facts, one has ventured into ad hominen territory.
Oh but it’s Adam’s “spin” we should be concerned with. I am said to know as well as you that Adam is “placing the blame for problems with the US Pavilion on the alleged incompetence of the approved organizers.” I know no such thing. Adam’s reporting has been a model of restraint, tethered always to the verifiable facts.
To sate your curiosity, I don’t have a dog in the Expo fight. I don’t know any of the people involved in Expo 2010, Inc. or any of the other people or groups competing for approval on the Pavilion. Neither I nor my firm has provided any legal advice on these issues. I expressed no opinion in my post (and I offer none here) on the actions of any of these people or groups. Personally I think you have done your friends a disservice by the way in which you have chosen to defend them, but I will not hold your actions against them.
I never questioned your “credibility on these issues.” You are as credible as the next friend of the Expo 2010, Inc. organizers. What I objected to was your belittling of Adam’s take on these issues, and the arrogant ex cathedra manner of your pronouncements. Our experts have told us what constitutes torture, and we don’t need any of you pampered journalists questioning us about it; is that what you were referring to when you cite the “last Administration?”
Given your invitation, however, I will certainly ask the “senior members” you identify about you. Someone with your style has no doubt left strong impressions in his wake.
Let’s see have I addressed all your comments? Ah no, there is your final one: “Is this the thoroughness with which you practice law?” Yes it is Hank, I rest my case.
5 Shanghai_Kent // May 12, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Surely Mr. Levine has been around China long enough to know that the only people who brag about their connections are the ones who don’t have any.
Charlie, an excellent rebuttal. As someone who has attended one of the US pavilion presentations (in Hong Kong), I agree with those who have serious reservations about the people running the operation. The US can and should have done better.
6 Greg // May 12, 2009 at 3:18 pm
As with most China expat run operations, the one for the expo was designed to shock and awe with flashy presentations, big arm movements, demands/pleas/threats to “get in on the ground floor before it is too late”.
But in the end it would be an operation to skim US taxpayer money and maximize profit by delivering a laughing stock of a pavilion. And that same pavilion group no doubt intends to use some of the proceeds to buy friends in Shanghai and Beijing, or at least try to.
And of course everyone doing business in China knows people.
I can’t remember how many times I heard old expats brag that they had been to the mayor’s house for receptions and shaken his hand (late 90s to early 2000s).
But the mayor just wanted to have expats kiss his butt and maybe glean some secrets and money out of them, which I’m sure happened.
I’m glad that the US gov’t is not spending my money on an expo pavilion. What does the US need one for anyway? Our movies, food, clothing, music and other cultural items cover the planet. Our expo pavilion is along most of Nanjing Road, Huaihai Road, the Pudong river front, the Gubei/Hongqiao areas and every CD/DVD pusher in town.
7 Rebecca Gould // May 12, 2009 at 4:30 pm
“I’m glad that the US gov’t is not spending my money on an expo pavilion. What does the US need one for anyway? Our movies, food, clothing, music and other cultural items cover the planet. Our expo pavilion is along most of Nanjing Road, Huaihai Road, the Pudong river front, the Gubei/Hongqiao areas and every CD/DVD pusher in town.”
I agree with Greg here. All of our (U.S.) products are already all over China. We don’t need a pavillion of any sort, government run or privately funded, to display any of our countries creations. Most of our IP (in exported goods) was stolen a long time ago.
I am a high school student.
8 Bob Jacobson // May 13, 2009 at 6:12 am
In response to the last two commentators, Expos have many purposes and nations who show up at them have their own. In general, pavilions are good investments in commercial deals, tourism, educational exchange, and setting a tone for national and global goals in the next five or 10 years.
In the case of the Shanghai Expo, the U.S. has special stakes, not the least of which is to show it is once again a member of the community of nations — all of whom are participating in the Expo — and expressing to the Host nation a partnership based on mutual dependencies. Also, the theme of this Expo — global sustainability and a higher quality of urban life — couldn’t be timelier, following on as it does the Copenhagen Climate Change meeting in December 2009.
Expos increasingly are not about glitz or sappy entertainment or selling doodads, although unfortunately, the U.S. effort started out that way and it’s proven a difficult image to shake.
For a fine piece on the value of World Expos generally and this one in particular, see “Exploring new ideas and broader horizons”, the second of three essays running May 11-13 in the Shanghai Daily.
9 cmcelwee // May 13, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I have learned a lot about the US pavilion situation. I am happy that debate is continuing on these issues-that was one of the reasons for my post. I did not want any voices to be stifled in this discussion. This blog, however, is primarily concerned about environmental and energy issues in China. To maintain that focus, I am going to close the comments on this post. I have published all comments received to date save one which was not from anyone referred to in my original post. It raised valid points, but could have lead to a call for a chance at a rebuttal . Fortunately, there are many other places where this debate can continue. Here’s hoping for as few casualties as possible when the dust finally settles on US Pavilion 2010!
Leave a Comment