How many Americans and other G20 attendees know about the Shanghai 2010 World Expo? Americans don't even have a U.S. pavilion approved. This omission is a great problem for the U.S. and shows how potentially out of touch we appear to other G20 countries. So, here are some facts to inform the Huff Post readers.
The world expo is scheduled to start May 1 2010 and will last 6 months. If you are interested in reaching the middle class/wealthy Chinese who can afford American products, this is the place you need to be. Estimates show that the Host city expects 80 million visitors, 70 million of whom will be Chinese. You can't miss the blue mascot and energy around this expo in China. The last World Expo was in 2005 and held in Aichi, Japan. 24 million participants came. The US subsidiary of Toyota sponsored the pavilion. Apparently, ever since the World Exposition in Seville, US legislatures created a rule saying no U.S. government funds can be used to build a pavilion. They wanted to avoid the leakage of money to government officials and potential bribery scandals. Good intention, but this means corporate sponsors or individuals must foot the bill.
You will want to be part of this Expo if you care about the environment, the climate or doing business in China. The theme is Better City, Better Life. The pavilions are under construction for many countries. The themes for some countries include the French, who are emphasizing the focus on senses and will be promoting their food and beverage and perfume businesses. The Canadian's are building a Cirque de Soleil building with the theme of culture and Fun. The Germans emphasize their design and engineering, promoting autos and machines. Where are the Americans? Do we just promote the military invasion and armaments?
I thought world expos were obsolete. But, for many countries, it is a chance to show your global citizenship. This is a critical part of shaking the globe. And, so far another 30 million must be raised by US companies to even get started. The only anchor supporter who committed funds is 3M. If a company from Minneapolis sees the benefits for their business and presence in China, why can't other companies see the obvious benefits and "guanxi" (relationships) that the expo will create. Any comments from your perspective?
First, US law does NOT prohibit funding of the US presence at Expos or in Shanghai in particular. In fact, it's just the opposite. It makes provision for Congressional funding of Expos and leadership of the federal effort by the Commerce Secretary. It does impose limitations on the State Department, which is essentially an agent of the other federal agencies. The Bush Administration used this ruse to cover for its intention, decided in 2006, not to fund the US participation in the Expo. (The Clinton Administration did the same in 2000, when the US didn't participate in the important Hanover Expo.)
As of last week, there were three contending teams hoping to create the US Pavilion, including a team of Shanghai based business people and another composed of Expo veteran designers, developers, and technologists. The team many considered least qualified, however, held a letter of intent -- an official authorization to raise private funds for the purpose -- from the Bush Administration. The letter was awarded without competition following a competitive RFP process that ended inconclusively. The group has been unsuccessful at raising private funds for over a year, which is not unexpected: US Pavilions have never been privately funded.
It has been rumored that one solution anticipated is to seek funding or support from the Chinese Expo hosts. One can imagine the political consequences of such an action. In a sense, it might be indicative of a larger reversal of fortunes between the US and China, reducing the former to a supplicant of the latter.
One hopes that the Obama Administration as a whole, including the new Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, will see fit to review the situation and prevent a diplomatic debacle. It's not too late. But it is getting too late: the deadline for the US to sign a formal participation agreement is April 15, 2009 -- one week from today. It would be a shame for the US not to have a splendid pavilion in Shanghai next year, or one that was in effect mainly Chinese in its origins and operations -- not a good outcome for any of the parties involved.
Unfortunately, you have hit the nail on the head. One of our biggest "exports" is the Dalai Lama and his followers attempts to seperate Tibet from China. Another problem is arms sales, especaiolly to Taiwan, so they can ostensively "defend themselves from China" and so we can have jobs in Mississippi.
Right now I cannot think of anything we make in the US that the world might ne interested in except trains. From Lionel model trains to GE's new electric locomotives.
So, what happened?
First, the fairs held in the US after the 60’s were of a smaller scale. Visitors to San Antonio ‘68, Spokane ‘74, Knoxville ‘82 and New Orleans ‘84 were disappointed: their expectations had been set by the great Fairs of the past.
Second, US participation in Expos was controversial after the 90’s: a cancelled Expo in Chicago in ‘92, an underfunded Pavilion in Seville ’92, a financial scandal in Lisbon ‘98, and a last minute no-show in Hannover 2000.
All that played a role in the decision by the US Congress, but it’s important to clarify that the US Congress banned Federal funds, not all public funds. In fact, the US Pavilion in Japan 2005 was funded in part by Texas, Kentucky and 14 other state and city governments.
Fortunately winds are changing. There is renewed interest in World Expos. In fact, I’m leading a team in Houston working to host a World’s Fair in the year 2020 (http://www.expo2020.us).
While it is going to be a long uphill battle, we believe that our country needs to reengage with the world. It’s critical for our future and the future of our children. We just need to make it happen.
Manuel Delgado
Chairman, Houston 2020
The US Pavilion at Aichi 2005 represented the activities of the various local governments, but the overwhelming bulk of its funding came from Japan.
The misinformation about the funding situation and the Aichi debacle were both the result of a Bush Administration "action plan" to avoid public funding of Expo activities. It doesn't mean that such funding is banned. Exactly the opposite.
Private fundraising for Expos has never been successful. It's true that California carried most of the load for the US presence at Vancouver, but that was then and this is now and no local agency has the means today. The answer: the Obama Administration renounces the Bush policy and puts some money behind the Expo. Will it happen? It's anyone's guess.