News | Ripple's Web

Editor’s note: Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a director at the New America Foundation and the author of “Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden — From 9/11 to Abbottabad,” the basis for the HBO documentary “Manhunt” that will be shown on CNN on May 24. Jennifer Rowland is a research associate at the New America Foundation.

(CNN) — On Thursday, President Barack Obama is scheduled to deliver a major speech in Washington about his administration’s counterterrorism policies, focusing on the rationale and legal framework for the controversial CIA drone program and his plans to wind down the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

So we thought it might be useful to examine some common myths about the drone program and the prison population at Guantanamo.

1. Drone strikes largely target the leaders of terrorist groups that threaten the United States.

In fact, of the thousands who have been killed in CIA drone strikes in Pakistan, only 37 were leaders of al Qaeda or affiliated organizations, according to a tally by the New America Foundation. And even if we add to that list the leaders of the Taliban who have been killed in drone strikes, only 2% of the victims of the CIA strikes in Pakistan have been militant leaders.

The drone program, which began more than a decade ago as a tool to kill leaders of terrorist groups, has evolved today into a counterinsurgency air force whose principal victims in Pakistan are lower-level members of the Taliban.

Drones, by the numbers

2. Drone strikes target specific terrorists who pose some kind of imminent threat to the U.S.

Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser and now CIA Director John Brennan said in a speech last year that “in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States and to save American lives — the United States government conducts targeted strikes against specific al Qaeda terrorists.”

That’s only partly true, because the CIA has also has occasionally conducted “signature strikes” against groups of men who display a particular behavioral “signature” that indicates they may be militants. In these cases, the targeter does not know the identity of the persons in the drone cross hairs.

3. Drone strikes kill a lot of civilians.

That was certainly once the case. Under President George W. Bush, the proportion of those killed by drones in Pakistan who were identified in reliable news reports as civilians or “unknowns” — people who were not identified definitively as either civilians or militants — was around 40%, according to data assembled by the New America Foundation.

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is home to the U.S. naval base that has held terror suspects since January 2002. Early in the war on terror, the Bush administration argued these detainees were “enemy combatants” who didn’t have the protections accorded to prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Click through for a look inside the controversial facility. Pictured: A detainee stands at an interior fence at Guantanamo Bay in October 2009.

A Navy sailor surveys the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay in October 2009. Shortly after his first term began, President Barack Obama signed an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay within a year, but the move do so has stalled. Congress passed legislation preventing detainees from being transferred into the United States. However, the administration says Obama remains committed to closing the facility, also known as Gitmo.

U.S. military guards move a detainee inside the detention center in September 2010. At its peak, the detainee population reportedly exceeded 750 men at Guantanamo.

Muslim detainees kneel during early morning prayers in October 2009. Cells are marked with an arrow pointing in the direction of Mecca, regarded as Islam’s holy city.

A soldier stands near a placard on the fence line of the detention facility in January 2012.

A Quran sits among a display of items isssued to detainees in September 2010. The suspects are given a prayer mat and a copy of the Muslim holy book as well as a toothbrush, soap, shampoo and clothing.

A U.S. military guard walks out of the maximum security section of the detention center in September 2010.

A German shepherd police dog undergoes training exercises in October 2009 at Guantanamo Bay.

A camp librarian views artwork painted by detainees in September 2010.

A detainee rubs his face while attending a “life skills” class inside the Camp 6 high-security detention facility in April 2009.

A seat and shackle await a detainee in the DVD room of the maximum security Camp 5 detention center in March 2010.

U.S. Marines join in martial arts training at the U.S. naval base in September 2010.

Members of the military walk the hallway of Cell Block C in the Camp 5 detention facility in January 2012.

Guards move a detainee from his cell in Cell Block A of the Camp 6 detention facility in January 2012.

A detainee waits for lunch in September 2010. The cost of building Guantanamo’s high-security detention facilities was reportedly about $54 million.

Marines get an early-morning workout at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay in October 2009.

A bus carries military guards from their night shift at the detention center in September 2010.

A military guard puts on gloves before moving a detainee within the detention center in September 2010.

Members of the U.S. Navy move down the hallway of Cell Block C in the Camp 5 detention facility in January 2012.

A U.S. military guard holds shackles before preparing to move a detainee in September 2010.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Photos: Inside Guantanamo Bay

Gitmo prisoners being force-fed

CNN Explains: Drones

But the civilian and “unknown” casualty rate from drone strikes has fallen steadily over the life of the program. Under Obama that number has fallen to 16%. And in 2012 it was around 11%.

In 2012, 2% of the drones’ victims were characterized as civilians in news reports and 9% were described in a manner that made it ambiguous whether they were militants or civilians.

And in 2013, civilian casualties are at their lowest ever. That is partly the result of a sharply reduced number of drone strikes in Pakistan — 12 so far in 2013, compared with a record 122 in 2010 — and also more precise targeting. According to data collected by the New America Foundation, three to five “unknown” individuals have been killed so far in drone strikes in 2013. Two other organizations that track the CIA drone program in Pakistan, the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the Long War Journal, report zero to four civilian deaths and 11 civilian deaths respectively.

4. The United States has no reason to worry about the legal framework governing drone strikes because it is so dominant in drone technology.

Only three countries currently are confirmed to possess armed drones — Israel, the United Kingdom and the U.S. But some 80 countries have drones, according to a count by the New America Foundation, and a number of them may already be able to arm them.

In February, a Chinese state-run newspaper reported that the Chinese government had contemplated deploying an armed drone in a remote, mountainous area to kill a drug lord, but decided instead to capture him.

Iran unveiled what it claimed was its first armed drone in 2010.

During a speech last week at the New America Foundation, the U.N. special rapporteur for counterterrorism and human rights, Ben Emmerson, estimated that “within a matter of certainly a year or two, other states will be deploying the technology, and within five years or so we will see a number of states and possibly nonstate actors deploying similar types of combat technology.”

Emmerson also pointed out that the rapid proliferation of drone technology means whatever legal framework the United States puts together to justify its targeted killing campaign “has to be a framework that we can live with if it is being used by Iran when it is deploying drones against Iranian dissidents hiding inside the territory of Syria or Turkey or Iraq.” A sobering and instructive thought.

5. The Pakistani government gives a wink and a nod to the drone program, providing tacit approval for its continuation.

It is true that Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf quietly agreed to allow the CIA’s targeted killing campaign to begin in 2004. But the program has become deeply controversial and unpopular in Pakistan because of the perception that it kills many civilians and that it erodes Pakistan’s national sovereignty.

In April 2012, the Pakistani parliament voted unanimously to rescind any previous permission that had been granted by the government for the CIA to conduct the targeted killing program.

During Ben Emmerson’s visit to Pakistan in March to discuss the CIA drone program with top officials, the point made to him “consistently, right across government, at the highest level and throughout, was that there is no continuing consent to the use of drones on Pakistani territory.”

The next Pakistani prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, who was elected on May 11 with a clear mandate, has urged an end to the drone strikes, telling reporters, “Drones indeed are challenging our sovereignty. Of course we have taken this matter up very seriously. I think this is a very serious issue, and our concern must be understood properly.”

6. Obama is soft on terrorists.

The CIA has conducted 355 drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal regions since the targeted killing program began there in 2004. The vast majority of these — 307 to be precise — were carried out under Obama.

Even if you take the most conservative estimate of the numbers of people the Obama administration has killed in drone strikes in Pakistan, 1,600, that is around twice the total number of prisoners that Bush sent to Guantanamo.

7. Many of the Guantanamo detainees who have been released return to the battlefield.

The U.S. government claims that 27% of those released from Guantanamo are suspected or confirmed to have taken up arms. For security reasons the government hasn’t released the names of these men since 2009, but a review of the public record suggests that number is quite inflated.

According to a review by the New America Foundation of news articles, Pentagon reports, and other relevant documents, of the 603 detainees who have been released from the prison, only 17 individuals (2.8%) are confirmed to have engaged in terrorist or insurgent activities against the United States or its citizens, while 21 individuals (3.5%) are suspected of engaging in such activities.

8. The detainees still held at Guantanamo are too dangerous to release.

Some undoubtedly are, such as the operational commander of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But contrary to the fulminations of officials such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina — who said last year that Guantanamo detainees are “crazy bastards that want to kill us all” — half of the men still held at the prison camp were cleared for release three years ago by a task force of Department of Justice and Pentagon officials.

To be exact, 86 of the 166 men still imprisoned at Guantanamo were either found to be guilty of nothing, or were low-level fighters who could be repatriated subject to some continued monitoring by their home country’s government.

9. There are no benefits for the U.S. to release additional prisoners from Guantanamo.

Obama correctly said of Guantanamo in April, “It is expensive. It is inefficient. It hurts us in terms of our international standing. It lessens cooperation with our allies on counterterrorism efforts. It is a recruitment tool for extremists. It needs to be closed.”

The cost per year to keep one prisoner at Guantanamo is estimated to be $800,000, more than 30 times the cost of keeping a prisoner in a jail in the United States. And the Pentagon is asking Congress to approve a $200 million renovation plan for the prison.

The prisoners at Guantanamo have also featured frequently in jihadist propaganda, making it a recruitment tool for would-be al Qaeda members.

There is also a way forward through Guantanamo to obtaining some kind of peace deal with the Taliban. As a “confidence-building measure” for peace negotiations, theTaliban have agreed to release the only U.S. prisoner of war, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, in exchange for a handful of senior Taliban figures being held at Guantanamo, who would then be held under some form of house arrest in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar. This deal is a precondition for continuing serious peace talks with the Taliban.

The 27-year-old soldier has been in captivity since the Taliban seized him on June 30, 2009.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

Article source: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/22/opinion/bergen-nine-myths-drones-gitmo/index.html?eref=edition

Johannesburg (CNN) — “This shouldn’t be happening” — these were the words of a visibly nervous and frustrated sheriff of the court as he rang the outside bell and knocked at the gate belonging to a woman still considered by many in South Africa as the “mother of the nation.”

Joe Maluleke and two other officials arrived at Winnie Mandela’s house in Soweto on Tuesday to execute a court order granting a Johannesburg school permission to auction her belongings and pay an old debt. Among the goods meant to go under the hammer were 50 paintings, a round table, chairs and a silver tea set.

The problems started when the ex-wife of Nelson Mandela, the country’s first black president and an international icon, registered her great niece, Nobantu Vutela, as a boarding student at Abbotts College in Northcliff, Johannesburg, according to court papers filed in 2008.

The accommodation fees for the year were 40,000 South African rand — the equivalent of about $4,000 today. Winnie Mandela, 76, who earns an annual salary of around $90,000, as a member of parliament, was given six months to pay the full amount. It’s unclear why she and not the girl’s own parents enrolled her into the private school.

Despite the documents stipulating that R10,000 ($1000) be paid up front, lawyers representing the school say Mrs Mandela never paid a cent. They started instituting proceedings against her in October 2008. The case dragged on for five years. A lawyer acting on behalf of the school told CNN Mrs Mandela made her first payment last year but that she still owes nearly $5,000 with interest included. Mrs Mandela’s lawyer is disputing the interest amount.

With dozens of journalists surrounding him, not a single bidder in sight, and Mrs Mandela’s bodyguards stationed on the other side of the wall, Sheriff Maluleke knocked in vain. People could be seen moving around inside and outside the house, but nobody came out to let the sheriff in. At one point a car sped out of the premises using a side entrance. It is unclear who was in the car.

Maluleke was instructed by lawyers to get a locksmith and force his way into Mandela’s house, but he was understandably reluctant. At one point a spectator shouted, “Why don’t you climb over the wall?” The sheriff’s irritated retort: “And get shot at?”

The tense standoff lasted for about two hours. Maluleke left Winnie Mandela’s property empty-handed and dejected. He later admitted that the task he was expected to carry out was a difficult one. “Is it because she is the mother of the nation?” he was asked. “Exactly,” he responded.

Read this: How South Africa avoided ‘bloody racial war’

Outrage at pictures of ailing Mandela

2012: Nelson Mandela’s early years

Nelson Mandela’s family wine venture

Celebrating Mandela at 94

On Monday night Winnie Mandela’s lawyer Yandisa Dudula had been frantically trying to stop the auction from going ahead.

“Mrs. Mandela has given me a check for R16,000 ($1,696), and another R4,000 ($212) has been given to the sheriff,” he told CNN. “The auction is not necessary.”

The school’s lawyers insisted on getting the money in cash, failing which, they said the sale of her goods would go ahead as planned.

Confused neighbors looked on as the spectacle at Mandela’s property unfolded.

“We thought she had money, it is very surprising that her goods are now having to be auctioned in order to recoup funds for a debt,” one of them told CNN.

When asked what it is like to live next door “the mother of the nation,” the neighbor said, “We never see her. When the old man (Nelson Mandela) lived in Soweto he would walk around, shake people’s hands, greet and talk to them, he even invited us into his home.”

“Winnie keeps to herself, but we still call her ‘mother of the nation’ and no-one wants to see her humiliated,” the neighbor said.

Commentators say Winnie Mandela has become increasingly isolated, not only by her political family, the ruling African National Congress, but seemingly by her biological family as well.

“Internal tensions within the family could have played a role in no one coming to Mrs Mandela’s aid,” political analyst Somadoda Fikeni told CNN. “The family is fragmented and recent squabbles over money have further emphasized these divisions.”

Two of Nelson Mandela’s daughters — Makaziwe Mandela and Zenani Dlamini — are currently embroiled in a legal battle over the former political prisoner’s money. They have filed court papers in an attempt to remove Mandela’s longtime lawyer and friend, 84-year-old George Bizos, and others as directors of companies owned by the Mandela Trust.

The children’s legal battle over their iconic father’s monies has come under heavy criticism in South Africa. Bizos told local media the lawsuit is “a ploy to resuscitate the sale of Mandela’s artworks” whose proceeds go to the companies at the center of the dispute.

Andrew Mlangeni, who was incarcerated on Robben Island with Mr Mandela, told CNN: “This is a matter that should have been resolved internally within the family.”

Makaziwe recently rebutted accusations that her intentions are motivated by greed, telling the New York Times: “This issue that we are greedy, that we are wanting this money before my dad passes away is all nonsense.”

The feud over Nelson Mandela’s millions and now the threat of an auction at his former wife’s residence underscore the contradictions and complexities in what many consider South Africa’s political “royal family.”

Read this: Big brands target South Africa’s middle class

This is by no means Winnie Mandela’s first brush with the law, although for years many saw her as untouchable.

The former freedom fighter was implicated in the 1980s murder of 14-year-old anti-apartheid activist Stompie Seipei. Her then-husband, Nelson Mandela, stood by her, despite a mountain of damning evidence. In 1991 she was convicted of kidnapping Seipei and for being an accessory to assault, but her six-year jail term was reduced on appeal to a fine and a suspended sentence.

In 2003 Mrs Mandela was convicted for theft and fraud in connection with an elaborate bank loan scheme where the ANC party letterhead was used to obtain loans for bogus employees including her youngest daughter Zinzi. The conviction carried a jail term, but that sentence too was suspended.

A few months ago police confirmed that they have reopened the murder case of two more former freedom fighters, allegedly last seen at her house more than 20 years ago. Their bodies were exhumed in March.

Musical tribute to Nelson Mandela

Securing the release of Nelson Mandela

Securing the release of Nelson Mandela

From prison number to fashion line

In recent years, “the mother of the nation’s” influence in the country and within the ruling party has waned, and the protection she once enjoyed along with it. Last year she was voted second-last in the party’s national executive committee. She had been top of the list at the previous ANC conference in 2007.

Still, respected columnist and journalist Justice Malala says he is astonished Winnie Mandela couldn’t get help from a single one of her former comrades.

Malala told CNN: “It’s great that she was paying for her great niece’s school fees but I’m surprised that firstly she didn’t feel she could raise the money from her own salary and secondly that no-one in the ANC was willing to help her. She could have also approached the Mandela Trust. Mandela has given money to president Jacob Zuma before when he was in trouble.”

Perhaps the most astonishing part of the tale is why her children and grandchildren appear to have stood by and watched as threats of an auction became more serious.

Two of her grandchildren, Zaziwe and Swati Dlamini have recently launched a reality show in the U.S. called “Being Mandela.” They also have a clothing line named “Long Walk to Freedom” after their grandfather’s autobiography. Their mother Zenani Dlamini, Winnie’s eldest daughter, is South Africa’s ambassador to Argentina.

Despite the family’s many ventures and connections, Winnie’s lawyer says money isn’t always readily available.

Winnie Mandela has often courted controversy, but she is still adored by many in South Africa.

She endured years of torture, torment, banishment and imprisonment by the apartheid regime while fighting resolutely for racial equality in the country.

And despite her legal and financial troubles over the years, very few South Africans are celebrating her downfall. Many of them took to Twitter to express their solidarity. “We cannot forget Winnie Mandela who stood tall for three decades” wrote one person.

Article source: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/24/world/africa/winnie-mandela-sheriff-auction/index.html?eref=edition

Editor’s note: Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a director at the New America Foundation and the author of “Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden — From 9/11 to Abbottabad,” the basis for the HBO documentary “Manhunt” that will be shown on CNN at 9 p.m. today.

Washington (CNN) — In the past few weeks, we’ve seen a British soldier hacked to death with a meat cleaver on the streets of London and bombers blowing up spectators at the Boston Marathon.

On the surface, terrorism is alive and well.

So how should the United States react to these continuing threats?

For the first time on Thursday, President Obama laid out the full scope of his proposed counterterrorism strategy, and it boiled down to this: George W. Bush’s endless war on terror is over.

And that’s appropriate, since the enemy Bush went to war with after September 11 has largely been defeated.

Obama’s speech at the National Defense University in Washington was designed to lay the political groundwork to wind down America’s longest war, the war that began when al Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center and a wing of the Pentagon 12 years ago.

Thursday’s speech was the first time Obama had delivered an overarching framework for how to conceptualize the conflict that has defined U.S. national security policy since 9/11.

Obama defends secret drone program

King: Obama’s tone was wrong

President Obama interrupted by heckler

CNN Explains: Drones

Other speeches by Obama have focused on aspects of that conflict, such as Guantanamo and the Afghan war. But no speech has made such an expansive examination of the war against al Qaeda and its allies in all its manifestations, from drone strikes to detention policies to a clear-eyed assessment of the scope of the threats posed by al Qaeda and its affiliates, as well as by those “homegrown” extremists who attacked the Boston Marathon in April.

Much of the coverage of the speech has centered on the measures the president outlined to impose greater constraints on CIA drone strikes and to try to hasten the eventual closing of Guantanamo.

But the most significant aspect of the speech was the president’s case that the “perpetual wartime footing” and “boundless war on terror” that has permeated so much of American life since 9/11 should come to an end.

Obama argued that the time has come to redefine the kind of conflict that the United States is engaged in: “We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us.”

This is why the president focused part of his speech on a discussion of the seemingly arcane Authorization for the Use of Military Force that Congress passed days after 9/11 and that gave Bush the authority to go to war in Afghanistan against al Qaeda and its Taliban allies.

Few, if any, in Congress who voted for the authorization understood at the time that they were voting for a virtual blank check that has provided the legal basis for more than a decade of war. It is a war that has expanded in recent years to other countries in the Middle East and Africa, such as Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has engaged in covert military operations against al Qaeda-affiliated groups.

Theoretically, when U.S. combat troops finally withdraw from Afghanistan in December 2014, the authorization should simply expire, and the nation will no longer be at war. After all, once combat operations are over in Afghanistan, why would you want to keep in place an authorization for a permanent war?

However, there are now some in Congress who would like to expand the scope of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force beyond its present parameters to include military operations against terrorist groups that were not involved in the 9/11 attacks, which could prolong America’s wars indefinitely and add additional terrorist groups to the United States’ list of enemies it is at war with.

U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, ranking member of the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for instance, last month called for an expansion of the scope of the authorization.

Obama made it quite clear in his Thursday speech that he would oppose such an expansion, saying he hopes instead to “ultimately repeal the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further.”

In short, Obama intends to end a seemingly endless war.

That’s because, according to Obama, “the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on the path to defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us.”

On Thursday, Obama asserted (in my view, correctly) that what remains of the terrorist threat, while significant and persistent, is nothing on the scale of the al Qaeda organization that launched the 9/11 operation and instead consists of “less capable al Qaeda affiliates, threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad, homegrown extremists.”

These threats, the president further asserted, can be managed by carefully targeted drone strikes overseas and efforts to counter extremist ideology at home and do not require some kind of broader war.

Obama is also looking to his legacy and the presidents who will follow him and is trying to begin to create the public consensus and legal framework that will help to ensure that the United States isn’t “drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.”

Obama clearly hopes to leave office in 2016 as the commander in chief who finally ended America’s longest war.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion

Article source: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/24/opinion/bergen-end-of-terror-war/index.html?eref=edition

(CNN) — “For the workers at Ford and their families absorbing this difficult news today, we will make sure that you are not left behind.”

So tweeted the Australian premier Julia Gillard, as Ford Australia, the local subsidiary of the U.S. giant, this week confirmed the worst kept secret in Australian manufacturing.

More than 1,000 workers will lose their jobs when Ford closes two production facilities in the state of Victoria by October 2016.

The decision came after Ford Australia declared a A$141 million [$135.4 million] tax loss for the year 2012/13. The company has lost around A$600 million [$575 million] over the last five years, making it unviable, it says, to continue producing cars in Australia.

The decision is a blow not only to those who will lose their jobs. It’s also bad news for the ruling Labor government, about to face an election it’s tipped to lose.

It also comes amid concerns that while Australia’s mining boom appears to have peaked, the country’s manufacturing base is in decline.

Ford Australia president and chief executive Bob Graziano said the company had failed to “make the numbers work” when it modeled a number of different scenarios in an attempt to maintain its Australian production base.

A small and fragmented Australian market and uncompetitive cost structures are to blame, according to Graziano.

“There’s been a significant change in terms of the total number of vehicles sold in the large car segment,” he told a media conference. He added “costs are double that of Europe and nearly four times Ford in Asia.”

The news, which will also impact the vehicle manufacturing supply chain across the country, comes despite attempts by the Australian government to prop up the industry.

In the past decade the Australian government has given the auto industry A$12 billion [$11.5 billion] in subsidies — with Ford itself the beneficiary of A$2.5 billion of those subsidies.

But the automaker’s decision to close manufacturing completely by 2016 is likely to add to the growing concerns that Australia is too reliant on its mining industry and resource exports to China in particular, whilst its manufacturing base has been in steady decline over more than four decades.

In the 1960s, manufacturing accounted for close to 30% of GDP. In 2012, it accounted 7.2%.

The Australian Industry Group, an employers organization, said manufacturers were doing it tough in a “high cost economy” while opposition leader Tony Abbott lamented a “black day for manufacturing in Australia.”

But respected commentator Bernard Keane said the news was long overdue and unrepresentative of the state of Australian manufacturing.

“These aren’t the numbers of a company suffering increased competition from a stronger currency, but a company that can’t convince consumers to buy its flagship product any more, a company that has lost touch with consumers, as so often happens with protected industries,” he wrote in news outlet Crikey.

“Nor is the closure representative of Australian manufacturing. For all the stories about high-profile manufacturers struggling, in the year to February the total manufacturing workforce fell by just 3,000, or a third of 1%, to 954,000 in trend terms — the lowest fall in years.”

But manufacturing, once Australia’s largest employer, has seen its share of total employment eclipsed by the health, retail and construction sectors. Contrary to popular belief, the mining industry upon which Australia remains reliant is not the countries biggest employer, according to analysis published on Crikey.

George Megalogenis, economic commentator and author of “The Australian Moment,” a book that tracks Australia’s economic development said “all first world economies have roughly similar stories to tell on manufacturing.

“Manufacturing was the single biggest employer through till the 90s in some countries. But its share of employment and of GDP is declining. And it’s quite a smooth line, which started in the 60s,” he told CNN.

“But now we are at that point where societies are starting to ask themselves whether they let the trend continue to the point where they actually lose the know-how to make things.”

He added: “China will see the same decline in 20 or 30 years time. They will replicate first world trends but with a lag.”

Though it employs fewer Australians, and despite the boom appearing to have peaked, Australia’s mining industry remains the headline act.

Profitable, it provides a significant percentage of company tax revenue to government, even if the tax on super profits imposed by the Gillard government has been a disappointment; the government’s projections of a A$2 billion windfall delivered only A$127 million because the tax is structured to allow the miners to offset the value of their mines against the tax.

Former finance minister Lindsay Tanner has warned in the past that Australia needs to reduce its reliance on mining and focus its efforts on other export industries.

“Minerals are always going to be critical for Australia. There’s no question about that,” he told ABC radio.

However, the diversification of Australian exports had stagnated in the 90s, with growth in tourism, education and specialized manufacturing moving into reverse, he said.

“So it’s not so much that there’s one country that we’re dependent on. It’s that we have I think to some extent too many eggs in that basket,” said Tanner.

For Megalogenis, Australia’s economic reliance on mining would be more acceptable if it had the future firmly in sight.

“When mining crowds everything out and the economy makes room for that, to service China, knowing that it’s a highly volatile global cycle, it becomes a question of what Australia does with the spoils,” he told CNN. “Because there will be a bust,” he added.

Megalogenis says historically, Australia has wisely invested the spoils. “We built Melbourne out of the gold boom,” he said. “But we haven’t really taken the cash from this mining boom and reinvested it in expanding the capacity of the rest of the economy.”

The Gillard government has anticipated a second mining boom, he says, and allocated spending in anticipation.

“But the second chance has been denied us by Europe and the global financial crisis. We had a second crisis and Europe is still in recession. “

Even so, though mining profits are down because of lower commodity prices, profit margins remain high.

According to the Minerals Council of Australia, last year the industry paid in excess of $20 billion in company tax and royalties combined — a four-fold increase on the $4 billion to $5 billion paid at the start of the boom.

What future exists for manufacturing in Australia when the countries finite resources are depleted is a question that no doubt will have to wait until after the September 14 poll.

Article source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/edition_business/~3/CxUoqmLKmaw/index.html

(CNN) — “For the workers at Ford and their families absorbing this difficult news today, we will make sure that you are not left behind.”

So tweeted the Australian premier Julia Gillard, as Ford Australia, the local subsidiary of the U.S. giant, this week confirmed the worst kept secret in Australian manufacturing.

More than 1,000 workers will lose their jobs when Ford closes two production facilities in the state of Victoria by October 2016.

The decision came after Ford Australia declared a A$141 million [$135.4 million] tax loss for the year 2012/13. The company has lost around A$600 million [$575 million] over the last five years, making it unviable, it says, to continue producing cars in Australia.

The decision is a blow not only to those who will lose their jobs. It’s also bad news for the ruling Labor government, about to face an election it’s tipped to lose.

It also comes amid concerns that while Australia’s mining boom appears to have peaked, the country’s manufacturing base is in decline.

Ford Australia president and chief executive Bob Graziano said the company had failed to “make the numbers work” when it modeled a number of different scenarios in an attempt to maintain its Australian production base.

A small and fragmented Australian market and uncompetitive cost structures are to blame, according to Graziano.

“There’s been a significant change in terms of the total number of vehicles sold in the large car segment,” he told a media conference. He added “costs are double that of Europe and nearly four times Ford in Asia.”

The news, which will also impact the vehicle manufacturing supply chain across the country, comes despite attempts by the Australian government to prop up the industry.

In the past decade the Australian government has given the auto industry A$12 billion [$11.5 billion] in subsidies — with Ford itself the beneficiary of A$2.5 billion of those subsidies.

But the automaker’s decision to close manufacturing completely by 2016 is likely to add to the growing concerns that Australia is too reliant on its mining industry and resource exports to China in particular, whilst its manufacturing base has been in steady decline over more than four decades.

In the 1960s, manufacturing accounted for close to 30% of GDP. In 2012, it accounted 7.2%.

The Australian Industry Group, an employers organization, said manufacturers were doing it tough in a “high cost economy” while opposition leader Tony Abbott lamented a “black day for manufacturing in Australia.”

But respected commentator Bernard Keane said the news was long overdue and unrepresentative of the state of Australian manufacturing.

“These aren’t the numbers of a company suffering increased competition from a stronger currency, but a company that can’t convince consumers to buy its flagship product any more, a company that has lost touch with consumers, as so often happens with protected industries,” he wrote in news outlet Crikey.

“Nor is the closure representative of Australian manufacturing. For all the stories about high-profile manufacturers struggling, in the year to February the total manufacturing workforce fell by just 3,000, or a third of 1%, to 954,000 in trend terms — the lowest fall in years.”

But manufacturing, once Australia’s largest employer, has seen its share of total employment eclipsed by the health, retail and construction sectors. Contrary to popular belief, the mining industry upon which Australia remains reliant is not the countries biggest employer, according to analysis published on Crikey.

George Megalogenis, economic commentator and author of “The Australian Moment,” a book that tracks Australia’s economic development said “all first world economies have roughly similar stories to tell on manufacturing.

“Manufacturing was the single biggest employer through till the 90s in some countries. But its share of employment and of GDP is declining. And it’s quite a smooth line, which started in the 60s,” he told CNN.

“But now we are at that point where societies are starting to ask themselves whether they let the trend continue to the point where they actually lose the know-how to make things.”

He added: “China will see the same decline in 20 or 30 years time. They will replicate first world trends but with a lag.”

Though it employs fewer Australians, and despite the boom appearing to have peaked, Australia’s mining industry remains the headline act.

Profitable, it provides a significant percentage of company tax revenue to government, even if the tax on super profits imposed by the Gillard government has been a disappointment; the government’s projections of a A$2 billion windfall delivered only A$127 million because the tax is structured to allow the miners to offset the value of their mines against the tax.

Former finance minister Lindsay Tanner has warned in the past that Australia needs to reduce its reliance on mining and focus its efforts on other export industries.

“Minerals are always going to be critical for Australia. There’s no question about that,” he told ABC radio.

However, the diversification of Australian exports had stagnated in the 90s, with growth in tourism, education and specialized manufacturing moving into reverse, he said.

“So it’s not so much that there’s one country that we’re dependent on. It’s that we have I think to some extent too many eggs in that basket,” said Tanner.

For Megalogenis, Australia’s economic reliance on mining would be more acceptable if it had the future firmly in sight.

“When mining crowds everything out and the economy makes room for that, to service China, knowing that it’s a highly volatile global cycle, it becomes a question of what Australia does with the spoils,” he told CNN. “Because there will be a bust,” he added.

Megalogenis says historically, Australia has wisely invested the spoils. “We built Melbourne out of the gold boom,” he said. “But we haven’t really taken the cash from this mining boom and reinvested it in expanding the capacity of the rest of the economy.”

The Gillard government has anticipated a second mining boom, he says, and allocated spending in anticipation.

“But the second chance has been denied us by Europe and the global financial crisis. We had a second crisis and Europe is still in recession. “

Even so, though mining profits are down because of lower commodity prices, profit margins remain high.

According to the Minerals Council of Australia, last year the industry paid in excess of $20 billion in company tax and royalties combined — a four-fold increase on the $4 billion to $5 billion paid at the start of the boom.

What future exists for manufacturing in Australia when the countries finite resources are depleted is a question that no doubt will have to wait until after the September 14 poll.

Article source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/edition_business/~3/CxUoqmLKmaw/index.html

Johannesburg (CNN) — “This shouldn’t be happening” — these were the words of a visibly nervous and frustrated sheriff of the court as he rang the outside bell and knocked at the gate belonging to a woman still considered by many in South Africa as the “mother of the nation.”

Joe Maluleke and two other officials arrived at Winnie Mandela’s house in Soweto on Tuesday to execute a court order granting a Johannesburg school permission to auction her belongings and pay an old debt. Among the goods meant to go under the hammer were 50 paintings, a round table, chairs and a silver tea set.

The problems started when the ex-wife of Nelson Mandela, the country’s first black president and an international icon, registered her great niece, Nobantu Vutela, as a boarding student at Abbotts College in Northcliff, Johannesburg, according to court papers filed in 2008.

The accommodation fees for the year were 40,000 South African rand — the equivalent of about $4,000 today. Winnie Mandela, 76, who earns an annual salary of around $90,000, as a member of parliament, was given six months to pay the full amount. It’s unclear why she and not the girl’s own parents enrolled her into the private school.

Despite the documents stipulating that R10,000 ($1000) be paid up front, lawyers representing the school say Mrs Mandela never paid a cent. They started instituting proceedings against her in October 2008. The case dragged on for five years. A lawyer acting on behalf of the school told CNN Mrs Mandela made her first payment last year but that she still owes nearly $5,000 with interest included. Mrs Mandela’s lawyer is disputing the interest amount.

With dozens of journalists surrounding him, not a single bidder in sight, and Mrs Mandela’s bodyguards stationed on the other side of the wall, Sheriff Maluleke knocked in vain. People could be seen moving around inside and outside the house, but nobody came out to let the sheriff in. At one point a car sped out of the premises using a side entrance. It is unclear who was in the car.

Maluleke was instructed by lawyers to get a locksmith and force his way into Mandela’s house, but he was understandably reluctant. At one point a spectator shouted, “Why don’t you climb over the wall?” The sheriff’s irritated retort: “And get shot at?”

The tense standoff lasted for about two hours. Maluleke left Winnie Mandela’s property empty-handed and dejected. He later admitted that the task he was expected to carry out was a difficult one. “Is it because she is the mother of the nation?” he was asked. “Exactly,” he responded.

Read this: How South Africa avoided ‘bloody racial war’

Outrage at pictures of ailing Mandela

2012: Nelson Mandela’s early years

Nelson Mandela’s family wine venture

Celebrating Mandela at 94

On Monday night Winnie Mandela’s lawyer Yandisa Dudula had been frantically trying to stop the auction from going ahead.

“Mrs. Mandela has given me a check for R16,000 ($1,696), and another R4,000 ($212) has been given to the sheriff,” he told CNN. “The auction is not necessary.”

The school’s lawyers insisted on getting the money in cash, failing which, they said the sale of her goods would go ahead as planned.

Confused neighbors looked on as the spectacle at Mandela’s property unfolded.

“We thought she had money, it is very surprising that her goods are now having to be auctioned in order to recoup funds for a debt,” one of them told CNN.

When asked what it is like to live next door “the mother of the nation,” the neighbor said, “We never see her. When the old man (Nelson Mandela) lived in Soweto he would walk around, shake people’s hands, greet and talk to them, he even invited us into his home.”

“Winnie keeps to herself, but we still call her ‘mother of the nation’ and no-one wants to see her humiliated,” the neighbor said.

Commentators say Winnie Mandela has become increasingly isolated, not only by her political family, the ruling African National Congress, but seemingly by her biological family as well.

“Internal tensions within the family could have played a role in no one coming to Mrs Mandela’s aid,” political analyst Somadoda Fikeni told CNN. “The family is fragmented and recent squabbles over money have further emphasized these divisions.”

Two of Nelson Mandela’s daughters — Makaziwe Mandela and Zenani Dlamini — are currently embroiled in a legal battle over the former political prisoner’s money. They have filed court papers in an attempt to remove Mandela’s longtime lawyer and friend, 84-year-old George Bizos, and others as directors of companies owned by the Mandela Trust.

The children’s legal battle over their iconic father’s monies has come under heavy criticism in South Africa. Bizos told local media the lawsuit is “a ploy to resuscitate the sale of Mandela’s artworks” whose proceeds go to the companies at the center of the dispute.

Andrew Mlangeni, who was incarcerated on Robben Island with Mr Mandela, told CNN: “This is a matter that should have been resolved internally within the family.”

Makaziwe recently rebutted accusations that her intentions are motivated by greed, telling the New York Times: “This issue that we are greedy, that we are wanting this money before my dad passes away is all nonsense.”

The feud over Nelson Mandela’s millions and now the threat of an auction at his former wife’s residence underscore the contradictions and complexities in what many consider South Africa’s political “royal family.”

Read this: Big brands target South Africa’s middle class

This is by no means Winnie Mandela’s first brush with the law, although for years many saw her as untouchable.

The former freedom fighter was implicated in the 1980s murder of 14-year-old anti-apartheid activist Stompie Seipei. Her then-husband, Nelson Mandela, stood by her, despite a mountain of damning evidence. In 1991 she was convicted of kidnapping Seipei and for being an accessory to assault, but her six-year jail term was reduced on appeal to a fine and a suspended sentence.

In 2003 Mrs Mandela was convicted for theft and fraud in connection with an elaborate bank loan scheme where the ANC party letterhead was used to obtain loans for bogus employees including her youngest daughter Zinzi. The conviction carried a jail term, but that sentence too was suspended.

A few months ago police confirmed that they have reopened the murder case of two more former freedom fighters, allegedly last seen at her house more than 20 years ago. Their bodies were exhumed in March.

Musical tribute to Nelson Mandela

Securing the release of Nelson Mandela

Securing the release of Nelson Mandela

From prison number to fashion line

In recent years, “the mother of the nation’s” influence in the country and within the ruling party has waned, and the protection she once enjoyed along with it. Last year she was voted second-last in the party’s national executive committee. She had been top of the list at the previous ANC conference in 2007.

Still, respected columnist and journalist Justice Malala says he is astonished Winnie Mandela couldn’t get help from a single one of her former comrades.

Malala told CNN: “It’s great that she was paying for her great niece’s school fees but I’m surprised that firstly she didn’t feel she could raise the money from her own salary and secondly that no-one in the ANC was willing to help her. She could have also approached the Mandela Trust. Mandela has given money to president Jacob Zuma before when he was in trouble.”

Perhaps the most astonishing part of the tale is why her children and grandchildren appear to have stood by and watched as threats of an auction became more serious.

Two of her grandchildren, Zaziwe and Swati Dlamini have recently launched a reality show in the U.S. called “Being Mandela.” They also have a clothing line named “Long Walk to Freedom” after their grandfather’s autobiography. Their mother Zenani Dlamini, Winnie’s eldest daughter, is South Africa’s ambassador to Argentina.

Despite the family’s many ventures and connections, Winnie’s lawyer says money isn’t always readily available.

Winnie Mandela has often courted controversy, but she is still adored by many in South Africa.

She endured years of torture, torment, banishment and imprisonment by the apartheid regime while fighting resolutely for racial equality in the country.

And despite her legal and financial troubles over the years, very few South Africans are celebrating her downfall. Many of them took to Twitter to express their solidarity. “We cannot forget Winnie Mandela who stood tall for three decades” wrote one person.

Article source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/edition_world/~3/FnfcWA7m3fI/index.html

Johannesburg (CNN) — “This shouldn’t be happening” — these were the words of a visibly nervous and frustrated sheriff of the court as he rang the outside bell and knocked at the gate belonging to a woman still considered by many in South Africa as the “mother of the nation.”

Joe Maluleke and two other officials arrived at Winnie Mandela’s house in Soweto on Tuesday to execute a court order granting a Johannesburg school permission to auction her belongings and pay an old debt. Among the goods meant to go under the hammer were 50 paintings, a round table, chairs and a silver tea set.

The problems started when the ex-wife of Nelson Mandela, the country’s first black president and an international icon, registered her great niece, Nobantu Vutela, as a boarding student at Abbotts College in Northcliff, Johannesburg, according to court papers filed in 2008.

The accommodation fees for the year were 40,000 South African rand — the equivalent of about $4,000 today. Winnie Mandela, 76, who earns an annual salary of around $90,000, as a member of parliament, was given six months to pay the full amount. It’s unclear why she and not the girl’s own parents enrolled her into the private school.

Despite the documents stipulating that R10,000 ($1000) be paid up front, lawyers representing the school say Mrs Mandela never paid a cent. They started instituting proceedings against her in October 2008. The case dragged on for five years. A lawyer acting on behalf of the school told CNN Mrs Mandela made her first payment last year but that she still owes nearly $5,000 with interest included. Mrs Mandela’s lawyer is disputing the interest amount.

With dozens of journalists surrounding him, not a single bidder in sight, and Mrs Mandela’s bodyguards stationed on the other side of the wall, Sheriff Maluleke knocked in vain. People could be seen moving around inside and outside the house, but nobody came out to let the sheriff in. At one point a car sped out of the premises using a side entrance. It is unclear who was in the car.

Maluleke was instructed by lawyers to get a locksmith and force his way into Mandela’s house, but he was understandably reluctant. At one point a spectator shouted, “Why don’t you climb over the wall?” The sheriff’s irritated retort: “And get shot at?”

The tense standoff lasted for about two hours. Maluleke left Winnie Mandela’s property empty-handed and dejected. He later admitted that the task he was expected to carry out was a difficult one. “Is it because she is the mother of the nation?” he was asked. “Exactly,” he responded.

Read this: How South Africa avoided ‘bloody racial war’

Outrage at pictures of ailing Mandela

2012: Nelson Mandela’s early years

Nelson Mandela’s family wine venture

Celebrating Mandela at 94

On Monday night Winnie Mandela’s lawyer Yandisa Dudula had been frantically trying to stop the auction from going ahead.

“Mrs. Mandela has given me a check for R16,000 ($1,696), and another R4,000 ($212) has been given to the sheriff,” he told CNN. “The auction is not necessary.”

The school’s lawyers insisted on getting the money in cash, failing which, they said the sale of her goods would go ahead as planned.

Confused neighbors looked on as the spectacle at Mandela’s property unfolded.

“We thought she had money, it is very surprising that her goods are now having to be auctioned in order to recoup funds for a debt,” one of them told CNN.

When asked what it is like to live next door “the mother of the nation,” the neighbor said, “We never see her. When the old man (Nelson Mandela) lived in Soweto he would walk around, shake people’s hands, greet and talk to them, he even invited us into his home.”

“Winnie keeps to herself, but we still call her ‘mother of the nation’ and no-one wants to see her humiliated,” the neighbor said.

Commentators say Winnie Mandela has become increasingly isolated, not only by her political family, the ruling African National Congress, but seemingly by her biological family as well.

“Internal tensions within the family could have played a role in no one coming to Mrs Mandela’s aid,” political analyst Somadoda Fikeni told CNN. “The family is fragmented and recent squabbles over money have further emphasized these divisions.”

Two of Nelson Mandela’s daughters — Makaziwe Mandela and Zenani Dlamini — are currently embroiled in a legal battle over the former political prisoner’s money. They have filed court papers in an attempt to remove Mandela’s longtime lawyer and friend, 84-year-old George Bizos, and others as directors of companies owned by the Mandela Trust.

The children’s legal battle over their iconic father’s monies has come under heavy criticism in South Africa. Bizos told local media the lawsuit is “a ploy to resuscitate the sale of Mandela’s artworks” whose proceeds go to the companies at the center of the dispute.

Andrew Mlangeni, who was incarcerated on Robben Island with Mr Mandela, told CNN: “This is a matter that should have been resolved internally within the family.”

Makaziwe recently rebutted accusations that her intentions are motivated by greed, telling the New York Times: “This issue that we are greedy, that we are wanting this money before my dad passes away is all nonsense.”

The feud over Nelson Mandela’s millions and now the threat of an auction at his former wife’s residence underscore the contradictions and complexities in what many consider South Africa’s political “royal family.”

Read this: Big brands target South Africa’s middle class

This is by no means Winnie Mandela’s first brush with the law, although for years many saw her as untouchable.

The former freedom fighter was implicated in the 1980s murder of 14-year-old anti-apartheid activist Stompie Seipei. Her then-husband, Nelson Mandela, stood by her, despite a mountain of damning evidence. In 1991 she was convicted of kidnapping Seipei and for being an accessory to assault, but her six-year jail term was reduced on appeal to a fine and a suspended sentence.

In 2003 Mrs Mandela was convicted for theft and fraud in connection with an elaborate bank loan scheme where the ANC party letterhead was used to obtain loans for bogus employees including her youngest daughter Zinzi. The conviction carried a jail term, but that sentence too was suspended.

A few months ago police confirmed that they have reopened the murder case of two more former freedom fighters, allegedly last seen at her house more than 20 years ago. Their bodies were exhumed in March.

Musical tribute to Nelson Mandela

Securing the release of Nelson Mandela

Securing the release of Nelson Mandela

From prison number to fashion line

In recent years, “the mother of the nation’s” influence in the country and within the ruling party has waned, and the protection she once enjoyed along with it. Last year she was voted second-last in the party’s national executive committee. She had been top of the list at the previous ANC conference in 2007.

Still, respected columnist and journalist Justice Malala says he is astonished Winnie Mandela couldn’t get help from a single one of her former comrades.

Malala told CNN: “It’s great that she was paying for her great niece’s school fees but I’m surprised that firstly she didn’t feel she could raise the money from her own salary and secondly that no-one in the ANC was willing to help her. She could have also approached the Mandela Trust. Mandela has given money to president Jacob Zuma before when he was in trouble.”

Perhaps the most astonishing part of the tale is why her children and grandchildren appear to have stood by and watched as threats of an auction became more serious.

Two of her grandchildren, Zaziwe and Swati Dlamini have recently launched a reality show in the U.S. called “Being Mandela.” They also have a clothing line named “Long Walk to Freedom” after their grandfather’s autobiography. Their mother Zenani Dlamini, Winnie’s eldest daughter, is South Africa’s ambassador to Argentina.

Despite the family’s many ventures and connections, Winnie’s lawyer says money isn’t always readily available.

Winnie Mandela has often courted controversy, but she is still adored by many in South Africa.

She endured years of torture, torment, banishment and imprisonment by the apartheid regime while fighting resolutely for racial equality in the country.

And despite her legal and financial troubles over the years, very few South Africans are celebrating her downfall. Many of them took to Twitter to express their solidarity. “We cannot forget Winnie Mandela who stood tall for three decades” wrote one person.

Article source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/edition_world/~3/FnfcWA7m3fI/index.html

.cnn_html_media_utility::before{color:red;content:’>>’;font-size:9px;line-height:12px;padding-right:1px}
.cnnstrylccimg640{margin:0 27px 14px 0}
.captionText{filter:alpha(opacity=100);opacity:1}
.cnn_html_slideshow_media_caption a,.cnn_html_slideshow_media_caption a:visited,.cnn_html_slideshow_media_caption a:link,.captionText a,.captionText a:visited,.captiontext a:link{color:outline:medium none}
.cnnVerticalGalleryPhoto{margin:0 auto;padding-right:68px;width:270px}
]]>

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(CNN) — When Germany’s two biggest soccer clubs go head-to-head in Saturday’s Champions League final, there can only be one winner: German industry.

The Bavarians of Bayern Munich will look to rectify last year’s heartbreak on home soil against Chelsea when they take on a formidable Borussia Dortmund side that is seeking to emulate the club’s only success in Europe’s top competition, back in 1997.

Some of the biggest talents in world football will be on show at Wembley come kickoff at 1845 GMT in London, with the likes of Arjen Robben, Franck Ribery and Robert Lewandowski set to dazzle the crowd.

But the all-Bundesliga final could just be the sideshow to a bigger German act, as billion-dollar corporates gear up for one of the major advertising opportunities in world sport.

From sportswear multinationals such as Adidas and Puma to insurance giants Allianz and Signal Iduna, Wembley stadium will be awash with the household names of German commerce — all helpfully beamed to a global television audience of potentially 150 million.

Are German teams the best in Europe?

Do Bayern Munich need Pep Guardiola?

Bayern Munich puts a hurt on Barcelona

Thousands of toxic yellow and crimson red jerseys will sport the names of Dortmund’s sponsor — chemical manufacturer Evonik — and that of Bayern — Deutsche Telekom — as Europe’s largest economy struts its industrial might on club football’s most prestigious stage.

Read: Double trouble for Bundesliga?

Germany, Europe’s manufacturing powerhouse, is considered one of the economic bright spots of a continent dogged by recession despite the country posting growth of only 0.1% in the first quarter of this year, driven mostly by consumer spending.

Despite low growth, Germans — recognized as the best savers in Europe — proved they were ready to flaunt their cash as Dortmund received a staggering half a million ticket requests for the final while Bayern received 250,000. Wembley can hold just 90,000 fans.

Football finance expert Simon Chadwick said the final will provide a “brilliant showcase” for “Brand Germany,” adding that the flair and style of the Bundesliga as well as the wide array of homegrown talent on display will enhance the brands connected with the teams.

“Existing brand associations that many people around the world have with German products — notably efficiency and quality — will no doubt be reinforced,” Chadwick told CNN.

Financial model of sustainability

The ties between German industry and football run deep.

Unlike in England, France and Spain, where clubs are backed by Arab sheikhs, Russian oligarchs and American tycoons, the German league prefers a more homely approach to club financing.

Christian Seifert, chief executive officer of the Bundesliga and a self-proclaimed Borussia Monchengladbach fan, is skeptical as to whether the final will boost the national economy, but he does believe the game will be a good advert for German football.

“Bayern and Dortmund are proof that it is possible to have good sporting performance and to have solid financial behavior,” Seifert told CNN.

Unlike other top leagues which attract more global endorsers, the Bundesliga clubs are largely sponsored by domestic brands — 15 of the 18 clubs in Gemany’s top tier for the 2012-13 season were backed by local companies ranging from multi-billion-dollar insurance firms to family chicken and dairy farmers.

“The big difference that you notice between other clubs in Europe is the degree of indigenous corporate engagement,” sports finance expert Tom Cannon told CNN.

Will Mourinho replace Ferguson?

CNN Football Club: Bayern dominate Barca

Hargreaves: Scholes is the best

Even the stadia are part of the Bundesliga’s “Brand Germany” philosophy.

While fans of Manchester United or Liverpool would scorn at the renaming of Old Trafford as the Aon Arena or Anfield as the Standard Chartered Stadium, regular rechristening is the norm for the 18 Bundesliga teams.

So the Commerzbank Arena — home to Eintracht Frankfurt and located in the country’s financial heartland — is named after one of Germany’s biggest banks. Dortmund’s Signal Iduna Park, once the Westfalenstadion, and Bayern Munich’s Allianz Arena — both tagged by insurers — serve as further examples of the close links with big business in Germany.

Chadwick believes branding stadiums reveals a consensus in football that is characteristic of German society and culture, where sponsor and fan cooperation is seen as for the club’s greater good.

“This shows both a level of commercialism and a certain betrayal of history and heritage that some fans both in Germany and in other countries find unacceptable,” said Chadwick.

Read: All-German final down to youth policy

However, there is one fundamental rule for all Bundesliga teams that ensures fans are not kept in the dark when it comes to the control of their club.

The “50 plus one” rule — a revered model of football governance whereby fans are the majority stakeholder — applies to all clubs participating in the Bundesliga, with the exception of Bayer Leverkusen and Wolfsburg.

Those teams were founded by pharmaceutical company Bayer and car manufacturer Volkswagen respectively and are 100% owned by these companies, with the stadiums — BayArena and Volkswagen Arena — named in their honor.

This is due to a rule that states if a club in Germany receives major financial backing from one party for over 20 years, that party can then take a controlling stake in the club.

The boardroom structure in the Bundesliga is unique and completely different to the big clubs in England, where a relatively small ownership group dominates the board.

“The boards of these (German) clubs are packed with corporate heavyweights,” said Cannon. “It’s a confident assertion of German industry.”

CNN FC: Moyes replaces Ferguson

CNN Football Club: Alex Ferguson special

Although Bayern is owned by the fans, both Adidas and carmaker Audi have 9% stakes in the club, with the chairmen of both companies sitting on its supervisory board.

In the case of Dortmund, 82% of the club is free-float stock and owned by the fans but the corporate board is dominated by businessmen with backgrounds in banking and shipping.

Read: Football enters space age with ‘Footbonaut’

Bundesliga boss Seifert insists he is not concerned by the intimacy between big business and football clubs in Germany because the revenue generated by the teams pales in comparison to big multinational brands’ profits.

“I don’t think they’re too close,” said Seifert. “The good thing is that the 100,000 jobs are created through the Bundesliga in Germany.

“We’re talking about global brands and they’re using football as a marketing instrument all over the globe.”

Read: Time for Premier League to give youth a chance, says Hargreaves

The strategy pursued by the German Football Federation and the Bundesliga after a poor showing at the European Championships in 2000 has paved the way for the nation’s current success at both club and international level.

“Each club that wanted to play in the top two tiers of the Bundesliga — 36 clubs — had to have a youth academy,” Seifert said.

“Today more than €100 million ($128 million) per year is invested and 5,000 players are educated in the program.”

Dave Webb, a scout for English Premier League club Southampton who spent time observing the Bayer Leverkusen setup, explained that there has been major investment by Bundesliga clubs at grassroots level — and players coming up from youth level are given more time to flourish than players in the English system.

“Bayern and Dortmund are very strong at youth level and that is behind their success,” said Webb. “Players are judged a bit later in the Bundesliga — instead of 17 or 18, players can go right through to under-21 level before they reach the first team.”

Given that co-ordinated strategy allied to long-term planning, no wonder “Fussball” is coming home — to Germany.

Article source: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/23/sport/football/german-football-business-champions-league/index.html?eref=edition

.cnn_html_media_utility::before{color:red;content:’>>’;font-size:9px;line-height:12px;padding-right:1px}
.cnnstrylccimg640{margin:0 27px 14px 0}
.captionText{filter:alpha(opacity=100);opacity:1}
.cnn_html_slideshow_media_caption a,.cnn_html_slideshow_media_caption a:visited,.cnn_html_slideshow_media_caption a:link,.captionText a,.captionText a:visited,.captiontext a:link{color:outline:medium none}
.cnnVerticalGalleryPhoto{margin:0 auto;padding-right:68px;width:270px}
]]>

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(CNN) — When Germany’s two biggest soccer clubs go head-to-head in Saturday’s Champions League final, there can only be one winner: German industry.

The Bavarians of Bayern Munich will look to rectify last year’s heartbreak on home soil against Chelsea when they take on a formidable Borussia Dortmund side that is seeking to emulate the club’s only success in Europe’s top competition, back in 1997.

Some of the biggest talents in world football will be on show at Wembley come kickoff at 1845 GMT in London, with the likes of Arjen Robben, Franck Ribery and Robert Lewandowski set to dazzle the crowd.

But the all-Bundesliga final could just be the sideshow to a bigger German act, as billion-dollar corporates gear up for one of the major advertising opportunities in world sport.

From sportswear multinationals such as Adidas and Puma to insurance giants Allianz and Signal Iduna, Wembley stadium will be awash with the household names of German commerce — all helpfully beamed to a global television audience of potentially 150 million.

Are German teams the best in Europe?

Do Bayern Munich need Pep Guardiola?

Bayern Munich puts a hurt on Barcelona

Thousands of toxic yellow and crimson red jerseys will sport the names of Dortmund’s sponsor — chemical manufacturer Evonik — and that of Bayern — Deutsche Telekom — as Europe’s largest economy struts its industrial might on club football’s most prestigious stage.

Read: Double trouble for Bundesliga?

Germany, Europe’s manufacturing powerhouse, is considered one of the economic bright spots of a continent dogged by recession despite the country posting growth of only 0.1% in the first quarter of this year, driven mostly by consumer spending.

Despite low growth, Germans — recognized as the best savers in Europe — proved they were ready to flaunt their cash as Dortmund received a staggering half a million ticket requests for the final while Bayern received 250,000. Wembley can hold just 90,000 fans.

Football finance expert Simon Chadwick said the final will provide a “brilliant showcase” for “Brand Germany,” adding that the flair and style of the Bundesliga as well as the wide array of homegrown talent on display will enhance the brands connected with the teams.

“Existing brand associations that many people around the world have with German products — notably efficiency and quality — will no doubt be reinforced,” Chadwick told CNN.

Financial model of sustainability

The ties between German industry and football run deep.

Unlike in England, France and Spain, where clubs are backed by Arab sheikhs, Russian oligarchs and American tycoons, the German league prefers a more homely approach to club financing.

Christian Seifert, chief executive officer of the Bundesliga and a self-proclaimed Borussia Monchengladbach fan, is skeptical as to whether the final will boost the national economy, but he does believe the game will be a good advert for German football.

“Bayern and Dortmund are proof that it is possible to have good sporting performance and to have solid financial behavior,” Seifert told CNN.

Unlike other top leagues which attract more global endorsers, the Bundesliga clubs are largely sponsored by domestic brands — 15 of the 18 clubs in Gemany’s top tier for the 2012-13 season were backed by local companies ranging from multi-billion-dollar insurance firms to family chicken and dairy farmers.

“The big difference that you notice between other clubs in Europe is the degree of indigenous corporate engagement,” sports finance expert Tom Cannon told CNN.

Will Mourinho replace Ferguson?

CNN Football Club: Bayern dominate Barca

Hargreaves: Scholes is the best

Even the stadia are part of the Bundesliga’s “Brand Germany” philosophy.

While fans of Manchester United or Liverpool would scorn at the renaming of Old Trafford as the Aon Arena or Anfield as the Standard Chartered Stadium, regular rechristening is the norm for the 18 Bundesliga teams.

So the Commerzbank Arena — home to Eintracht Frankfurt and located in the country’s financial heartland — is named after one of Germany’s biggest banks. Dortmund’s Signal Iduna Park, once the Westfalenstadion, and Bayern Munich’s Allianz Arena — both tagged by insurers — serve as further examples of the close links with big business in Germany.

Chadwick believes branding stadiums reveals a consensus in football that is characteristic of German society and culture, where sponsor and fan cooperation is seen as for the club’s greater good.

“This shows both a level of commercialism and a certain betrayal of history and heritage that some fans both in Germany and in other countries find unacceptable,” said Chadwick.

Read: All-German final down to youth policy

However, there is one fundamental rule for all Bundesliga teams that ensures fans are not kept in the dark when it comes to the control of their club.

The “50 plus one” rule — a revered model of football governance whereby fans are the majority stakeholder — applies to all clubs participating in the Bundesliga, with the exception of Bayer Leverkusen and Wolfsburg.

Those teams were founded by pharmaceutical company Bayer and car manufacturer Volkswagen respectively and are 100% owned by these companies, with the stadiums — BayArena and Volkswagen Arena — named in their honor.

This is due to a rule that states if a club in Germany receives major financial backing from one party for over 20 years, that party can then take a controlling stake in the club.

The boardroom structure in the Bundesliga is unique and completely different to the big clubs in England, where a relatively small ownership group dominates the board.

“The boards of these (German) clubs are packed with corporate heavyweights,” said Cannon. “It’s a confident assertion of German industry.”

CNN FC: Moyes replaces Ferguson

CNN Football Club: Alex Ferguson special

Although Bayern is owned by the fans, both Adidas and carmaker Audi have 9% stakes in the club, with the chairmen of both companies sitting on its supervisory board.

In the case of Dortmund, 82% of the club is free-float stock and owned by the fans but the corporate board is dominated by businessmen with backgrounds in banking and shipping.

Read: Football enters space age with ‘Footbonaut’

Bundesliga boss Seifert insists he is not concerned by the intimacy between big business and football clubs in Germany because the revenue generated by the teams pales in comparison to big multinational brands’ profits.

“I don’t think they’re too close,” said Seifert. “The good thing is that the 100,000 jobs are created through the Bundesliga in Germany.

“We’re talking about global brands and they’re using football as a marketing instrument all over the globe.”

Read: Time for Premier League to give youth a chance, says Hargreaves

The strategy pursued by the German Football Federation and the Bundesliga after a poor showing at the European Championships in 2000 has paved the way for the nation’s current success at both club and international level.

“Each club that wanted to play in the top two tiers of the Bundesliga — 36 clubs — had to have a youth academy,” Seifert said.

“Today more than €100 million ($128 million) per year is invested and 5,000 players are educated in the program.”

Dave Webb, a scout for English Premier League club Southampton who spent time observing the Bayer Leverkusen setup, explained that there has been major investment by Bundesliga clubs at grassroots level — and players coming up from youth level are given more time to flourish than players in the English system.

“Bayern and Dortmund are very strong at youth level and that is behind their success,” said Webb. “Players are judged a bit later in the Bundesliga — instead of 17 or 18, players can go right through to under-21 level before they reach the first team.”

Given that co-ordinated strategy allied to long-term planning, no wonder “Fussball” is coming home — to Germany.

Article source: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/23/sport/football/german-football-business-champions-league/index.html?eref=edition

(CNN) — Openly gay youths will be allowed to join scouting, a historic decision the Boy Scouts of America says will keep it unclouded by “a single, divisive, and unresolved societal issue.”

More than 60% of the group’s 1,400-member national council voted Thursday at an annual meeting in Grapevine, Texas, for the change, which takes effect Jan. 1.

“No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone,” says the resolution.

The BSA, however, will maintain its ban on gay adult leaders.

Boy Scouts of America is an organization that says it is focused on mentoring young men and helping them develop life skills. Here’s a look at BSA by the numbers. (Source: Boy Scouts of America).

102: The number of years since Boy Scouts of America was incorporated. Membership topped 20 million by 1952.

2.7 million: The number of youth members as of 2011. BSA also boasts 1.1 million adult members.

420,000: The number of youth members in units chartered by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the most of any faith-based organization. As of 2011, the United Methodist Church had the second strongest membership, followed by the Catholic Church.

181: The number of NASA astronauts that participated in Scouting. Neil Armstrong was an Eagle Scout, the highest ranking in the program.

206: Number of lawmakers in the current session of Congress that have participated in Boy Scouts. Fifteen current governors were Scouts or Scout volunteers.

18: The number of presidents that have served as honorary president of Boy Scouts of America. (That’s every president since BSA was founded).

161: The number of countries with Boy Scouts, as of 2010.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Photos: Boy Scouts by the numbers

Land: Gays in Boy Scouts ‘a catastrophe’

‘Learning from mistakes’ in Boy Scouts

“The resolution also reinforces that Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting,” the 103-year-old organization said in a statement after the vote.

The BSA said there are no plans for further review of the issue.

BSA President Wayne Perry said the vote came after “an extensive dialogue within the scouting family (that) was exhaustive and … very respectful.”

“No matter how you feel about this issue, kids are better off in scouting,” Perry told reporters. “Our mission is to serve every kid.”

Reaction from interest groups to Thursday’s vote was swift.

The Human Rights Campaign said the BSA took a “historic step forward.”

“Unfortunately, the new policy does not go far enough, leaving adult Eagle Scouts, scout leaders, and parents behind,” the group said.

Scouts for Equality and GLAAD lauded the BSA’s “commitment to creating a more inclusive organization.”

Jennifer Tyrrell, an Ohio mother who was ousted as a den leader in April 2012 because she’s lesbian, called Thursday’s vote “incredible.”

Opinion: Boy Scouts’ decision makes no sense

“They’ve never been raised to discriminate against anyone regardless of sex or color or anything, so they can’t understand why people care so much,” she said of her children. “… Definitely, one day, I hope they look back and think that we’re part of something amazing.”

Tyrrell, in an interview with CNN affiliate KTVT, said that the vote energized her for her next push — to change Boy Scout policy so that gays and lesbian adults, like herself, can serve as leaders.

“When we used to exclude women from things, when we used to exclude black people from things, and that never has ever worked, but we continue to do it,” she said. “I’m going to be around to make sure that that’s not the case. We’re definitely not going to go away.”

Conservative groups and some religious organizations argued against making any change in the membership policy, saying it would dilute the Boy Scout message of morality and potentially destroy the organization.

John Stemberger, founder of OnMyHonor.net, which opposed the resolution, called the vote a “sad day for Scouting.”

Stemberger claimed that Boy Scout officials didn’t foster a “robust discussion,” didn’t provide “honest information” and “hid information from the delegates.”

He claimed that scouting groups now have two options: to “segregate” gay scouts from heterosexual ones by putting them in separate tents, or “put homosexual boys with other boys and put them at risk.”

“We wouldn’t put boys and girls sleeping together. Why? Because they’re attracted to each other,” Stemberger told reporters.

The conservative Family Research Council tweeted: “Sadly, the @boyscouts’ legacy of producing great leaders has become yet another casualty of moral compromise.”

BSA conducted a survey on the issue

The vote followed months of intense debate among interest groups and within the ranks of Scouting itself.

In February, the Boy Scouts’ national executive board postponed a vote on the issue and ordered a survey of its members.

That survey showed an organization divided by age and, in some cases, by region.

“While a majority of adults in the Scouting community support the BSA’s current policy of excluding open and avowed homosexuals, young parents and teens tend to oppose the policy,” the survey said.

Survey: Should gay and straight Boy Scouts share a tent?

A BSA spokesman at the time called the issue “among the most complex and challenging issues facing the BSA and society today.”

“The Boy Scouts of America will not sacrifice its mission, or the youth served by the movement, by allowing the organization to be consumed by a single, divisive, and unresolved societal issue,” the group said after Thursday’s decision.

Chief Scout Executive Wayne Brock said, “Our goal through all of this was to put kids first … It allows us to serve youth who want to be part of scouting.”

A long time grappling with a polarizing issue

The BSA for years has been at the center of the debate over gay rights.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News Poll showed that 63% of Americans said they would support allowing gay youths to join the Boy Scouts.

The vote comes more than a decade after the Supreme Court ruled that the organization has the right to keep out gays but also at a time of declining participation in the organization.

Membership in Boy Scouts has declined by about a third since 1999. About 2.7 million people now participate nationwide.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, after the vote, said it will continue to work with the BSA.

“Sexual orientation has not previously been — and is not now — a disqualifying factor for boys who want to join Latter-day Saint Scout troops,” it said in a statement.

It was too early to tell what impact the decision might have on scout troops, and whether some families may join other organizations.

The impending vote did spur action by a new organization called Faith Based Boys. Thomas Dillingham, an official from that group, said applications will be accepted starting in August for youth members and group leaders.

“Christian churches and organizations will use this program to continue serving God by training young men to have good character through service to their communities,” Dillingham said Thursday. “The profound need for a nationwide program like this has now been realized and the relevance of such a program will only become more important as time goes on.”

Tico Perez, the BSA’s national commissioner, said there have been ongoing talks with churches and others opposed to the inclusion of gay scouts.

That said, he echoed other Boy Scout officials in saying they believe that Thursday’s vote ultimately helps advance the cause.

“We’re accepting youth,” Perez said, “and we’re excited about where we are.”

CNN’s Katia Hetter and Ed Payne contributed to this report.

Article source: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/23/us/boy-scouts-sexual-orientation/index.html?eref=edition