Although Egyptian authorities said that satellite imagery showed no activity around the cable that was damaged off of their coast, Dubai disagrees.
It looks like last week Dubai authorities impounded two ships who were spotted in satellite photos near the damaged cables around the time that they were cut. The ships were identified by Reliance Globalcom, whose FLAG Telecom unit maintains the cables, and which in turn notified the Dubai Port Authority.
Officially, the two ships, the MV Hounslow and MT Ann improperly dropped anchor near the cables and accidentally severed them. When they arrived in Dubai on February 19, the Iraqi and Korean ships were seized. Reportedly, the Korean ship paid 60,000 USD in compensation to FLAG Telecom for repair costs while the Iraqi ship is sitll being held.
Whether other ships accidentally cut the other three cables serving the Middle East and caused a loss of power to a sixth is yet ot be determined. ;).
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Ships Impounded for Middle East Internet Cable Cuts
Sunday, March 23, 2008
The Environmental Impact of All Those Islands
A gold star to the Economist for discussing something that has bothered me for a long time. While swimming at the (Jumeirah) Palm beach for the first and only time last November, I noticed a few troubling things. The first of course was the ongoing construction - we were swimming on the trunk's beach, while a few hundred meters down the trunk construction workers toiled away on a new building, which made me feel a bit guilty/unwilling to get out of the water to avoid being looked at (even if they were far away). The other was the amount of shells on the beach. Being still mostly a construction site, the Palm didn't have that many people on it, and we were one of a few to have used the beach. It was covered in shells, some really good ones (large, colorful, etc), but almost all broken. At first I was thrilled, as I like shells and marine life in general, but then I realized what was going on; these were all of the shells dug up and crushed as part of the process of building the island. The water was crystal clear, and we saw a few fish (the emptiness of the beach meant that they were quite willing to come up to the waters edge, darting away only when my shadow fell on them), so clearly someone is enjoying the new islands, but I was quite worried by the sheer numbers implied by so many broken shells.
I also wonder about the sustainability of the islands' marine life. If the islands' fronds and coves are to stay clear, dredging and cleaning operations will likely be necessary. If this is the case, then they will be forever disturbing the "new life" these formations are to support. Not to mention the role played by the many boats, jetskis, swimmers etc that are sure to come.
PS The World, Universe, Palms, etc aren't the only islands. Apparently the wife of Sheikh Mohammed has one (although I'm not sure which wife - Hind, the first wife, has her own, Princess Haya, his more public junior wife, or the rumored Moroccan middle wife, who may or may not exist, may or may not really be his wife and/or may or may not be the mother of some of his children), and someone else has been making a reverse-island, i.e. custom waterways.
ECONOMIST
How green is The World?
Evaluating Dubai's island-reclamation project
ITS DEVELOPERS call the three hundred islands laid out in the shape of the world map just off Dubai’s coast the “most innovative real-estate development on Earth”. These new artificial islands, known as “The World”, are just part of a plan to create hundreds of kilometres of new waterfront for Dubai, attracting visitors and wealthy home-owners from around the (real) world.
The World’s developer, Nakheel, built its first artificial-island chain in Dubai in 2001 in the shape of a palm. By 2007, Palm Jumeirah, as it was called, claimed to be the world’s largest man-made island. Construction of two more giant islands, as well as other projects along the coast, are well underway. In January of this year, the last rock was put into The World's breakwater, which stretches for 27km and uses 34m tonnes of rock. Buyers have already started to move in.
ds are built the same way. Masses of sand are gathered from the seafloor of the Arabian Gulf. The sand is then brought to Dubai and sprayed in a giant arc onto the shallow (10.5 meter) seabed off the coast. The sand piles up until it breaks through the surface of the water and forms an island about 4.5m high. Then a massive breakwater is built around the islands to protect them from the stiff local sea currents. It is expensive work: each development typically costs billions of dollars.
The short-term environmental consequences of this reclamation are clear: the intensive construction of Palm Jumeirah created vast plumes of sediment that turned blue seawater milky and temporarily damaged marine life. It also destroyed turtle nesting sites and the only known coral reef along Dubai’s coast.
But Nakheel contends that the new rocky breakwaters of all these projects are creating vast artificial reefs, habitats for reef fish and meadows of sea grass in between the “fronds” of the Palm Jumeirah. They promise to build new turtle nesting sites. Furthermore, they say that the sandy, seafloor habitat held little marine life—and this habitat is common in the region. On balance, they contend that the environmental impact of the project is positive.
Already, the older reef around the Palm Jumeirah is starting to thrive, it says. Nakheel's website says of Palm Jumeirah's breakwater: “As the island was reclaimed, the fine sediments that were created by the reclamation eventually paved the way for a biologically and organically fertile soil on the sea bed, on which turtles and a variety of fish are living. This will lead to a highly oxygenated water, with excellent visibility for divers and snorkelers.”
But Milton Love, an expert on artificial reefs at the Marine Science Institute at the University of California, poses an interesting question: “Clearly, if you were a worm living in the soft sediment and someone dug your home up and replaced it with rock to form an island, you would be out of luck. On the other hand, if you were a butterfly fish and only lived around reefs, and someone changed the sand bottom to a reef, you might like that. But which view is the ‘right’ one? Strictly speaking, neither one is; it just depends on what a person’s philosophy is”.
If one's philosophy, for example is that the ocean should be largely left alone, then whether reclamation provides homes for more fish will not matter. Others, though, may take a more pragmatic view, thinking that the development has essentially created something from nothing. Indeed, many artificial reefs—scuttled ships and aircraft, sunken tyres and shopping trolleys—house marine life in otherwise empty waters.
That conclusion, however, risks oversimplification. While there may be more substrate for coral to grow, the question of whether there is actually more marine life is complicated. Do artificial structures in the ocean actually promote more life, or do they simply attract it? Dr Love reckons some reefs do one, some do the other and some do both. So while the artificial reefs have certainly created new habitats, it isn’t clear whether this is as a net benefit for the region.
That doesn’t give The World and the other islands a clean green bill of health. And focusing on what goes on under the water risks ignores a bigger question: where is all the fresh water for this paradise coming from? Dubai is famous for a number of things; not among them is a plentiful supply of water. So where do they get water for the swimming pools, spas, gardens, dishwashers and hotel laundries? Most of it comes from desalination plants, which expend a lot of energy and release plenty of carbon dioxide.
Anyone in the market for one of the Dubai islands might want to consider the contradictions inherent in their investment. As our climate continues to change, thanks at least in part to the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, sea levels will probably keep rising, turning low-lying islands into something less than a paradise.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Diaghilev Burns, the Moscow "Elitny" Scene and Property Raids
Moscow club burns itself down to avoid going out of style?
One of the more annoying features of life here in Moscow is the obsession with "elitny." A cognate of the English word "elite," and sometimes used to mean exclusive, it really means expensive. There are elitny apartments, elitny restaurants* and even a free HR and employment newsletter available at my gym, "Elitny Personnel." The reason this is so annoying is that Moscow doesn't have much "in the middle" - most of the city is either cheap, and not that nice, or "elitny," which means you have to buy into the whole "I am visibly and vocally better than everyone else" vibe. Which is a pain if you're me, who likes nice things, and even a flashy time sometimes, but lacks the patience, insecurity and (hopefully) pettiness that means it needs to be about being better than others more than just a good time with the people I came with. The whole vibe makes me feel guilty and is a real turn off. It also calls to mind one of my favorite sayings by former British Prime Minister* and chancellor of my undergraduate university Margaret Thatcher; "Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't."The same applies to being elite, and while Moscow does have some of the truly elite, they aren't at most of these establishments, and most of the people aren't them.
The main focus of all this is a few night clubs, where a door policy called face control (really money control. People like to say it is wealth for men and beauty for women, but I’ve noticed that the former goes a lot farther than for both genders). It can be strict, or arbitrary, and groups of friends are sometimes broken up to increase the social pressure. The weird part is how pushy it can get; I’ve seen people bunch up at the door and push, so that there is a dense cluster at the entrance and empty space a few feet back. Everyone wants to be in front of the bouncer and is afraid to wait their turn.
Of course this isn’t a very line-friendly country anyway (trying to navigate the aisles at my Perekrestok grocery store during peak hours can be hazardous), but the tight ball of people/empty space pattern is fairly extreme, and a little silly. Back in the day (I think it was in 1999) I went to a Versace show in Milan where the Backstreet Boys performed. The entrance was swarmed with girls wanting to see their idols (one of which kissed the gay director’s cheeks to kiss the Backstreet Boy molecules which might still be there after he cheek-kissed them hello). Face control involves less people than that shriek-fest, but is more intense.
That said, I occasionally yield to the temptation and abandon my one-woman abstention from the elitny fuss. They are flashy, they are trashy, they are overpriced and they aren't elite, but they can be a lot of fun.
Which is why I was torn between Schadenfreude and dismay when Diaghilev burned down. Arguably the most famous of the elitny clubs, Diaghilev has been promoted by a thousand reviews and travel guides calling it "the most exclusive club in Moscow." This was not entirely true, but it was elitny, and it was one of the best clubs in the city. Named after Sergei Diaghilev (who really was elite), it was for a time the premier club of Moscow, or at least the hardest to get in. So hard, that when a Moscow Diskoschnitte actually risked denial and insulted the chief bouncer, a local expat paper wrote an article about it.
This started to change last summer; new competition combined with the natural life cycle of any "next big thing" meant that face control relaxed a little (although not so much, as to do that would immediately make all the people who still wanted to go there, stop). The holiday week following New Year's even brought an advertisement for Diaghilev's events in a banner over Tverskaya Street.
Which is why, when the club burned down (on a Thursday morning - three people were injured but no one waas killed), my first reaction was aggravation, as the Leading Man was visiting from the US and this meant that a lot of Diaghilev's customers would be at Rai, the club to which I planned to take him. Russia must be wearing off on me because my second thought was "whom does it benefit?" This is a Russian phrase used to work out the true machinations behind any government conspiracy and/or shady deal. There are a few explanations, all of which are completely crazy, but which shed interesting light into some of the craziness at work in this wild city.
The first theory was hinted at in the Associated Press story which, in a parting sentence, mentioned that "more recently a Moscow government-linked construction firm has been pushing to redevelop the building, which occupies valuable land." Real estate in Moscow's center is very hard to come by; 140 million people want to live there, but only 1.5 million do, and raids on companies lucky enough to occupy it are common. In the early nineteen nineties, when the city was even wilder and property rights less clear, this could take the form of an actual raid, with mafiosi thugs physically taking possession of a building and then arguing that it was theirs to being with. Now it is a bit more complex, and often business owners are charged with crimes, or forced out in some other way. This may be what happened to Diaghilev; someone wanted their property, but they weren't leaving.
Diaghilev was fairly high-profile though, making it that much harder to launch a raid, but add in an an unfortunate accident in the form of a fire, and then all of a sudden, it becomes a bit more possible. What is more, it occupied city land, and Mayor Luzhkov is expected to leave office soon after the upcoming presidential elections. He and his associated patronage networks including his wife - quite possibly Russia's wealthiest woman - and her multi-billion dollar business empire, much of it in Moscow real estate). Someone may be feeling the pressure to move now, while their own position and influence is more certain.
The story I prefer, if only because it is more dramatic, and, in a way, more principled, is that the people behind Diaghilev may have burned the place down itself. Ad I mentioned before, although still popular, its star was on the wane, and the management, aware of how much their status and that of all their establishments (they own several clubs and other businesses, both within Russia and without) hinges on the hyper-fickle wind of popular opinion and reputation, may have opted to burn out rather than fade away.
It could also be some combination; knowing that Diaghilev was doomed to fade eventually, the arsonist may have gambled that it was a bit safer to go after Diaghilev when the management wouldn’t mind quite as much, or the management could be sing the fire as part of the larger real estate scheme, this way preserving their reputation and eliminating some restrictions on building/renovating/tearing down yet another historical building.
Of course, it could really have been just a fire. My gym was a strip club previously, before a fire gutted it and it became my gym. It's a nice gym and the prices relatively steep, but such a moneymaker it isn't.
*Cafe Pushkin is perhaps the most famous, and is the subject of way too much hype, but it is exempt from the above complaints. I really like it, in spite of (and perhaps a little because of) all it's theme-iness. That the first floor is open 24 hours is the icing on the cake.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Obvious Statement of the Week Award
Six cables damaged in under two weeks and you think it may have been the work of saboteurs? At least the story is getting out there.
Undersea Saboteurs May Have Been Responsible For Cable Cuts
Some highlights:
Reports from those vessels have apparently indicated that the may not have been caused by accident or through natural events. According to the ITU's (International Telecom Union) head of development, Sami al-Murshed, "We do not want to preempt the results of ongoing investigations, but we do not rule out that a deliberate act of sabotage caused the damage to the undersea cables over two weeks ago,"
"Do not rule out," doesn't carry quite the same weight as "have proof of sabotage," but of the five cable cuts, only one (the link between the UAE and Oman) is definitely established to have been an accident. There are doubts regarding the others, as some experts feel that the cables were too deep to be cut and lie outside of normal shipping lanes. The short period of time between the other four failures may also be indicative of deliberate action, as its unusual for multiple critical cable breaks to occur that close together. Four of the five cables have been repaired at this point the repair status of the fifth cable is unknown.
The damaged anchor discovered at the site of one of damaged cables.This photo comes from the FLAG website, two of FLAG's cables being among those damaged.
Monday, February 18, 2008
It Wasn't Just One Cable
This month brought a bit of drama as damage to undersea cables providing service to the Middle East severely cut Internet access in many countries and weakened telephone capacity as well. Affected countries included the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Iran.
The most popular story appears to be that only one cable was damaged, possibly in two places. This cable is roughly 8km off of the Egyptian coast, near Alexandria. Although true press accounts do exist (see here, here, and here), the majority seem dedicated to preserving this fiction. They mention two cuts, both at that one site, and both taking place on February 1, 2008, but make it sound like they were both near Alexandria. They do mention the other cable cuts, but make it sound as if these were just rumors which "could not be confirmed."
Even those news outlets covering more than the official two cuts seem willing to chalk the entire thing up to an “unfortunate," as were the conspiracy theorists. A poll (translated version) of visitors to the Egyptian site Filbalad.com accepted the story of just two cable breaks near each other, and 13.36% saying they believed an accident caused the cuts, 17.26% thought the damage was due to the natural breakage due to aging infrastructure (which shows you Egyptians' expectations from their infrastructure. Of all the possible explanations I considered, it never occurred to me that such vital telecommunications equipment was just falling apart due to age and poor maintenance).
Mini Cable Damage Timeline
23-Jan-08: The Strait of Hormuz - Off Iran, near the UAE
25-Jan-08: Off Malaysia
30-Jan-08: Mediterranean - off Egypt
30-Jan-08: Mediterranean - off France
01-Feb-08:Off Qatar
01-Feb-08: Off Qatar- connecting to the UAE
Neither explanation is plausible when one considers the high number of broken cables in such diverse locations, but they are if you believe the only damage took place off in one area off the coast of Egypt. Another 52% thought it was Israel, a knee-jerk reaction I'm inclined to disregard as one of many uneducated knee-jerk reactions (blaming the Jews for the Asian Tsunami comes to mind). That said, unlike the Jews-caused-the-Tsunami insanity, this particular conspiracy theory is based on a bit of fact, namely that the cable serving Israel and Iraq remained untouched while so many cables targeting the rest of the Middle East were damaged, and much of the diverted Internet traffic was routed overland through the US. This does not a conspiracy make by any means, but in the absence of a more rational explanation, US and/or Israeli involvement sounds just as reasonable as all the other improbably explanations out there.
Of course, given the wide geographic range of the damaged cables and the concurrent timing of several cuts leaves me no choice but to conclude it IS a conspiracy, the question remains what type, and by whom? Was it the Big Bad US and their favorite ally, Israel? Was it terrorists out to cause damage to the hated businesses and governments in their own region? If so, why didn't they claim credit yet? Was it the US, seeking to weaken Iran, or at least test that country's ability to recover ahead of an attack?Was it Alcatel-Lucent, who signed a 125 million dollar deal with the less than wealthy Telecom Egypt two days after the last cuts (Egypt had several cable connecting it to Asia, four of which were cut)?Dragging a few old anchors over some cables is a fairly inexpensive way of gaining multi-million dollar contact from a country with dire infrastructure development needs and several undersea telecommunications cable already connecting it to the outside world. And why is there this fake cover up? Lazy journalism? A true conspiracy? It all sounds so crazy but something is up.
I am usually so disdainful of those that believe in the unseen hands (the conspiracy kind, not the economic one) and one time even subjected a poor Afghan coworker to a four hour history lesson on the origins of the American Civil war beginning in the late 17th century (he thought it was the creation of the Rothschild family so that they could get wealthy on contracts) in my quest to end them, but in this case, I am willing to make an exception. Games are afoot, I just don't know which. Which is rather frustrating. Further inquiry is required…