Comments on: US State Department Inspector General Refers Complaint Against USA Pavilion at Expo 2010 to Secretary of State’s Executive Director.

By: TheExpoGhost

TheExpoGhost — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:03:57 +0000

1.Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs bungles the RFP.
2.Constructive positive diplomacy on the far back burner.
3.Conflict of Interest(family ties to Government officials).
4.No-bid Contract Award(for delivery of the USA Pavilion).
5.Inspector General shirking duties.
Sounds like a typical day in the Bush Administration. Anyone surprised since that is where/when all this began? It is a good thing that we have a new administration that has taken it seriously. Do you think the pavilion would have made it this far without Clinton? No.

By: Jay

Jay — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:24:01 +0000

Disenchanted Expat – I don’t care what the scuttlebutt says – scuttlebutt is as often wrong as it is right. I’m not here to defend USA Pavilion. Much of this picture I don’t know but one thing I do know is that there were two fund-raising parts of Shanghai Expo that were competing with each other and were not coordinating with each other. One was going after the big sponsors and the other after country pavilions – and while the Americans won’t say so (because they don’t want to offend the Chinese) the Shanghai Expo unnecessarily complicated the US Pavilion fund raising effort. Much of the US CSR money had already been sucked up by one part of Shanghai Expo. And yes, US corporations most certainly were muscled by the Chinese – I was witness. Beijing had to step in to straighten things out within Shanghai Expo.

As for the Kasoffs, I think you will see that these conspiracy theories are as valid as most conspiracy theories.

Adam, you are right about why the USA Pavilion reps didn’t blame the Shanghai Expo people – would have been self-defeating as well as unseemly. The date when commitments to sponsor were made were much earlier than when those commitments were actually made public or placed on a website. There are a number of US corporations that have made commitments below the at-large sponsor level and are thus not listed as such. Some US corporations have made stand-alone exhibit or in-kind commitments – all money not available to go into the US Pavilion. Look beyond the website. My point is you are looking for the real story in the wrong place.

As for Scott, that just doesn’t make any sense. I have said Adam was looking in the wrong place and perhaps didn’t understand the inner-workings of government – I didn’t accuse him of impropriety. I have a lot of respect for Adam’s work on other matters.

By: Disenchanted Expat

Disenchanted Expat — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:16:46 +0000

Jay, you’re wrong about the Kasoffs — according to the scuttlebutt, they were at the center of the alleged inside dealing (conspiracy?) to award USA Pavilion the job. Plus, you must remember: Ellen’s law firm, Covington & Burling, was the largest corporate donor to Clinton’s Presidential race. C&B is commonly referred to as “the State Department’s HR office.” Do you think that might have had something to do with Clinton jumping on her fundraising horse in their behalf?

You’re right about US multinationals preferring to throw their weight behind the Expo and not the US Pavilion per se. But US corporations weren’t muscled by the Chinese into making this decision. The US Pavilion as themed by the USA Pavilion team has no appeal for the global community at large. Why shouldn’t American corporations be global in their outreach?

The corporations were right to support the Expo, however. It will be a global gathering worth noting, whatever the Chinese want to make of it. Too bad the US presence will only be a movie theater with a fast-food court.

Maybe that’s fitting given the US’ continuing decline in every social aspect except for its ability to self-promote.

One more thing. Adam, your headline says that the OIG isn’t going to investigate the situation, that it’s tossed this hot potato back to the Secretary of State’s Executive Office — i.e., back to Clinton herself. Isn’t that putting the fox in charge of the hen house? Disappointingly, this is becoming a trademark of the Obama Administration.

By: Adam

Adam — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:36:11 +0000

Jay -

In Spring of 2009 I conducted hour-long interviews with Ellen Eliasoph, Nick Winslow (twice), and Frank Lavin. Each of them offered similar excuses for why they couldn’t raise money – the Olympics, the 2008 election, the recession – but not one of them offered the one that you’ve just raised. Why? Two reasons, I think. First, I think they’d be reluctant to “blame China” for their fund-raising woes, even if China could be blamed (and it can’t). But the second and more compelling reason is that only FOUR US corporations signed on to be Expo sponsors at large. How do I know this? Well, the official Expo site has a page listing those at-large sponsors. Unless I’m missing somebody, they are:

1. Coca Cola [Global partner]
2. General Motors [Global partner]
3. Cisco [Senior sponsor]
4. IBM [Senior sponsor]

If there’s somebody I’ve missed, please let me know. But if not, I think it’s safe to say that – contrary to your suggestion – four corporations do not represent most of the money available to be raised for a US pavilion, much less the total membership of the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, of which very few members can be counted as pavilion donors.

By: ScottLoar

ScottLoar — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:48:04 +0000

Say, Jay, I’m not sure what your problem is with Adam Minter but I hope that if and when the results conclude that he did nothing wrong you will apologize to him for claiming (not alleged) inaccurate reporting and unethical behavior by him.

Apologies for the grammar.

By: jay

jay — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 05:16:35 +0000

I’m not sure what your problem is with the Kasoffs but I hope that if and when this whole sideshow concludes that they did nothing wrong you will apologize to them for claiming (not alleged) improper behavior by them.

You’re missing the big story here. You are completely ignoring the story about how the US corporations were directly recruited by the Chinese Expo marketers to become sponsors of the Expo at large instead of supporting the US Pavilion. And the fact that the US corporations prefer to position themselves as multinational corporations rather than tying themselves specifically to their homeland. By the time the US fund-raising effort got underway most of the US money had already been committed to the Expo at large. What does that say about Corporate America? What does that say about the US expat community in Shanghai?

By: Ditto

Ditto — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:01:25 +0000

I don’t get the comments about Uyghers above. But I second the comment about Kenneth Jarrett. He should know better than anybody the rules for federal contracting and it’s really sad that he’s decided to ignore them and go along for the ride with Eliasoph. Same goes for the career folks in ECA. If they think they did everyone a favor by expediting the choice of a pavilion team even though they did it in a way that’s possibly illegal well then they might all be in for a surprise when OIG starts digging into this. Agree too with the architects saying the building is garbage. It looks like a fancy Burger King to me.

By: nanheyangrouchuan

nanheyangrouchuan — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:37:02 +0000

The fact that a Freedom of Information Act had to be filled just to get the action plan of the USA Pavilion team. No, it hasn’t been fulfilled yet. Why so secretive about a frickin’ pavilion, guys?

It would be made from the bodies of Tibetan and Uyghur freedom fighters and using FLG slave labor. It would be staffed by Dick from Peking Duck would be handing out blueprints to the F22 and metallurgical samples while lesser panda lickers would organize CCP recruitment drives and convince visitors from the US west coast and Hawaii that their lives would be so much better with the blood flag of the PRC flying over their homes.

By: Harris

Harris — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:01:13 +0000

I linked to your site from the US pavilion discussion happening over at archinect. I don’t know much about diplomacy but I know something about building good architecture and you need to have a good selection process to ensure that you get a good building. Thanks to you I know understand why the US will have one of the most bland pavilions that I’ve ever seen at an Expo. Compared to some of the other pavilions like the creative and witty Dutch pavilion it looks like a shopping mall. The amazing thing is that it cost $61 million! Do you realize how many great young American architects could have done something really special for tha kind of money? if you’re interested in seeing what the architecture community thinks about this abortion of a pavilion, go to the archinect discussion at

http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=94929_0_24_0_C

When the world’s architects start visiting Shanghai they’re going to crucify us for this POS.

By: ScottLoar

ScottLoar — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:43:00 +0000

Adults who should know better remain dumb, either for expediency of the project or misplaced loyalty to the administration and Hillary Clinton.