Good catch by the WSJ's Washington Wire blog:

Joining visiting South Africa’s President Mbeki in the Oval Office Friday, President Bush told reporters that the two leaders “talked about a lot of issues.”

One, he said, was “Darfur and the need for South Africa and the United States and other nations to work with the Sudanese government to enable a peacekeeping force into that country to facilitate aid and save lives.”

Another was economics, particularly the “necessity of trade,” Mr. Bush reported. “We talked about, interestingly enough, [about] the Darfur round,” he said.

(He meant the Doha round of trade negotiations, hosted by the World Trade Organization.)

The FP List recently spotlighted a few of the contenders for the world's next most powerful stock exchange. It looks like the exchanges in the United States are slipping fast, mainly to London and Hong Kong. John Fund, in an interesting article for the WSJ, lays the blame squarely on laws drafted in the aftermath of the Enron and Worldcom fiascoes. These laws, known as the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate accountability rules, are forcing companies to look elsewhere to list shares and raise capital.

Last year, of the 25 largest initial public offerings in the world, only one took place in America. This year, Hong Kong is likely to end up as the No. 1 market for stock offerings world-wide." 

Unfortunately, the increased audit burden placed on companies and executives by the new laws hasn't done much to improve corporate governance. But SarbOx has certainly given places like Hong Kong and London reason to celebrate. At a recent conference in Canada, Henry Tang, Hong Kong's financial secretary, joyously declared, "Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes and Mr. Oxley," referring to Democratic Sen. Paul Sarbanes and Republican Rep. Mike Oxley, the law's chief sponsors. Meanwhile, some observers expect a ripple effect that may hurt, among other things, New York's real estate market if companies continue to push abroad. But all is not lost if reform comes in time:

Hal Scott, a Harvard law professor... told the New York Post that the corporate controls in Sarbox don't exist anywhere else in the world, and compliance costs "are absolutely killing the U.S. in terms of maintaining listings dominance" in world markets. "If we correct it, we have been told to expect an almost immediate turnaround in listings."

Where do electronics go when they die? Increasingly to Africa, according to a recent article in Environmental Health Perspectives. Every month, exporters contracted by electronics recyclers send about 500 containers filled with used electronic equipment to Lagos, Nigeria, alone. The 40-foot containers can be shipped from the United States for about $5,000 and high tariffs are easily avoided when the contents, up to 75 percent of which are unsalvagable, are classified as "scrap."

Even with so much junk, Nigerian importers are able to make a quick buck because of high local demand for electronic goods—Pentium III computers sell for about $130 and a 27-inch television will set you back around $50. The remainder, equivalent to approximately 100,000 computers per month, ends up in dumps and landfills. That electronic waste (e-waste) is chock-full of pollutants like lead, cadmium and mercury that then seep into the ground and water supply. When the mounds of waste get too high, they are burned, releasing toxins from the plastic casings into the air. (For more about how we're destroying Africa with waste, check out Travis's post, The Global Village's Septic Tank.)

Although both the 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, which the United States has not signed, and the U.S. Resource and Recovery Act bar the export of e-waste, both have exceptions for "recycling." Thus, they leave room for the less scrupulous. In the United States, the only companies that can be trusted to safely recycle, reuse, and dispose of electronic goods are those listed by the Environmental Protection Agency as Plug-In to eCycling Partners or by the Basel Action Network as E-Stewards. So, before you throw away your electronic goods, it might be a good idea to look into where they are headed.

What is it with this White House and Asia gaffes? Back in April, during Hu Jintao's much-hyped visit to Washington, an American announcer on the White House's South Lawn referred to China's national anthem as that of "the Republic of China" - also known as Taiwan. 

Now, just hours before Bush was set to leave for Asia to attend a major economic summit, the White House Web site was caught in yet another major mistake. Last night, the flags of the three countries Bush is to visit this week - Vietnam, Indonesia, and Singapore - were displayed on the White House's site. The problem? The flag shown for Vietnam was actually the flag for South Vietnam, the country that ceased to exist in 1975. Once the FT's Observer pointed out the mistake to the White House, the flag was swiftly replaced. Awkward, huh? Then again, it's not like Bush threw up in the lap of his host or anything. 

Yesterday, I asked people for their thoughts on why Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega is so America friendly. Passport reader Richard Feinberg, a professor at UCSD's graduate school of international relations and a former president of the Inter-American Dialogue, e-mailed us a thoughtful offering:

You're right, not only is candidate Daniel Ortega not touting anti-Americanism, but he seizes every opening to suggest that he would be able to play ball with the United States. When U.S. Ambassador Paul Trivelli mentioned in passing that the US will be willing to work with whomever is elected in a free and fair election, Ortega jumped on the statement to say that, see, he would be able to maintain normal relations with Uncle Sam. Why? Because polls show that most Nicaraguans do not want a return to confrontation with the United States, on the contrary, most Nicaraguans favor the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and welcome U.S. foreign assistance, trade and investment. In fact, the Sandinistas say publicly they welcome the opportunities offered by CAFTA and would seek to exploit them (even as they also welcome promised subsidized oil shipments from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez). Most Nicaraguans -- most Central Americans -- generally look favorably on the United States, indeed polls show that, if given the chance, as many as half or more would move to Miami. Anti-US feelings grow as one moves southward toward Argentina, but in the Central American tropics, politicians jockey to demonstrate their warm relations -- even as they pledge an independent, sovereign foreign policy -- with Washington."

Good point. It has been my experience that most Central Americans are friendly toward the United States, too. So why is the Bush administration so staunchly against Ortega? Given the surging popularity and influence of Chavez, don't we need all the friends we can get in Latin America?

The U.S. trade deficit rose from $68 billion in July to $69.9 billion in August (a rise of 2.7 percent), on course to set a new record. As of the end of August, the deficit totalled $784.2 billion, 9.4% higher than a year ago. High oil prices, which have pushed up petroleum import costs, and the politically-charged trade deficit with China, aided in setting this new monthly record. These figures have given fuel to the Democrats in the run-up to the mid-term elections, who argue that the Bush administration's mishandling of trade and economic issues is just another reason to give them the boot.

With their economy still stagnant, Japanese have long eyed China's growing economic prowess with trepidation. Now, China's rise is hitting them where it really matters: the dinner table. The New York Times reported yesterday that due to the growing popularity of sushi in China, and especially of the rare bluefish tuna, Japanese are worried that they will be priced out of the market.

Now only Chinese in the coastal areas are eating sushi, or can afford to," [fish farmer Hidemi] Kumai said. "What happens when the Chinese in the vast hinterland start eating sushi?"

Mr. Kumai, who has discovered a method of farming the temperamental - and expensive - bluefish tuna, argues that farming the fish should be a "national project," because "[n]ow Americans and Chinese are eating sushi, so we can't just sit back." And that's just the kind of economic aggression that new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is advocating. 

Even in a slow news period, it is hard to get anyone but the most focused wonk excited about global trade talks. But when the competing headlines are two wars in the Middle East, it is nigh-on-impossible. So, the death of the Doha round has received scant attention. It may seem like old news that Doha has collapsed, but on Monday night it passed the point of no return, even given the Rasputinesque qualities of trade negotiations.

The blame game is in full swing, with some rather undiplomatic language coming from all quarters. The European trade negotiator Peter Mandelson sniped that, "The United States has been asking too much from others in exchange for doing too little themselves. This is not my definition of leadership." This prompted the U.S. Trade Rep. Susan Schwab to retort that the EU's attempt to pin the blame on Uncle Sam was "false and misleading." All this buck passing leaves one wishing to roar, like Mercutio, "A plague on both your houses."

The United States is at fault for refusing to cut its absurd farm subsidies unilaterally. The Bush administration claims it wants to get rid of them, so why not do it anyway? The Europeans, meanwhile, deserve to be chastised for taking their usual approach to market access. This is all so infuriating when you consider, as The Economist points out, that the World Bank calculates that trade liberalization would grow the world economy by $287 billion and propel more than 60 million people out of poverty.

The bad news it is hard to see things getting better as U.S. politics turn increasingly protectionist and the EU thinks it's a good idea to slap quotas on Chinese bras at the slightest hint of an "economic dislocation." As the Swedish statesman Axiel Oxenstierna said back in the 17th century, "Behold, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed."

Are anti-poverty campaigners allowed to drink champagne? If they are, then I expect that John Edwards poured himself a nice glass of bubbles Saturday night. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee just recommended a primary line-up that gives him a great chance of nicking the nomination from under Hillary Clinton's nose.  

If the DNC approves the new calendar, the Iowa caucuses will kick things off as usual, followed in quick succession by another caucus in Nevada and then primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina. It's hard to think of a better schedule for Edwards short of his own North Carolina gaining first in the nation status. Edwards came a strong second in Iowa last time out and has made the state a home away from home since 2004. He leads the field in early polls there, which considering Hillary's name recognition are a little more meaningful than usual. Next comes Nevada, where organized labor - assiduously courted by Edwards in recent years - has a heavy presence. Edward's leading role in the union struggle to raise hotel workers' wages will have won him considerable good will there. Then it's on to New Hampshire, which isn't exactly an Edwards kind of place but neither is it friendly turf for Hillary. South Carolina ends the early stages and Edwards, who won the primary there by 15 points in '04, must be confident of winning in the state of his birth again. Indeed, a friend of the Clintons objected to South Carolina going fourth on the grounds that it was too much of a lock for Edwards. So, it's possible that, after the early rounds, Edwards could have notched up three wins before Hillary has even gotten on the score sheet. 

The new British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett is on her first trip to Washington and earlier today delivered a speech that was noticeable for only glancing at Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Instead, Beckett concentrated on the failing Doha Round—she said we are "in danger of sleepwalking over a precipice"—and climate change. But before too many Americans laud the broader understanding of world affairs that foreigners have, I should point out that the emphasis of the speech was probably as much a product of Beckett's background as trade and then environment minister as it was of principle. It was like a clever student facing an exam question they hadn't prepared for by smartly weaving all their other knowledge into the answer. This is unsurprising considering that she has only been in the post for a little over two months and hadn't been preparing herself for the role. Indeed, her first reaction when Blair offered her the job was to exclaim "F***!"

Commentators have been fretting about America's massive foreign debt for years. But is all that hype about America's unsustainable indebtedness just that - hype? On Tuesday, the chair of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, Eddie Lazear, argued before Congress that history shows the US has nothing to worry about; Australia has sustained massive levels of foreign debt for decades and is still growing strongly.

Australia in particular has been running a current account deficit that has created a level of foreign indebtedness equal to about 72 percent of their GDP, whereas our foreign indebtedness was only about 21 percent of GDP in 2004. Yet, the Australian economy has been very strong and growing at robust rates over the past decades. 

Though Lazear makes an interesting point, he forgot to mention that Australia and the US play very different roles in the global economy. While Australia's debt is fairly diversified, most of the US debt is concentrated in the hands of a few large treasuries - notably those of Japan and China. The US economy is strong now, but it's dependent on foreign financing. If a few of those financiers decide they don't want to fund the US debt anymore (as China is contemplating), the American economy could face a downturn.

European legislation meant to combat international terrorism appears to be aiding the fight against international corporate fraud as well. Today, judges confirmed that three British bankers accused of conspiring from overseas with Enron executives will be sent to the US for trial under the UK's 2003 Extradition Act.

The bilateral legislation, introduced after 9/11 along with a spate of other security measures, was originally aimed at speeding up the extradition of British terror suspects to the US. The extradition proves, however, that the European and American governments' expanded post-9/11 authority can be used to crack down not just on global terrorism - but murky corporate networks too.