OBAMA : BORDER SECURITY BILL

Please, find better ways …
…to secure the borders than increasing visa charges!

After being passed by the US Congress, the much-touted Border Security Bill was signed by the President Barack Obama. The bill will strengthen security along the border with Mexico and address the ongoing problem of illegal immigration. 

The $600-million bill will fund necessary law enforcement equipment and cover expenses of newly-recruited officials. But before the bill could come into effect, there were several protests and dissent across the globe. Since the bill will be funded through charging higher visa charges from foreign companies operating in the US, many Indian companies showed their agitation over it. Most of Indian IT companies have their operations in the US and they collectively apply for more than 50,000 visas every year. The sudden rise in application fee for H-1B and L-1 visas, by at least $2,000 for the next five years, would hit the operations of Indian IT companies to a very large extent, as Indian IT export industry earns over 50 per cent of its revenue from the US market. However, this is not for the first time that a move or statement by Obama will affect Indian IT or for that matter outsourcing business in India and sub-continent. 

Even in his first state of the union address, on January 27, 2010, Obama announced that the tax breaks that Indian companies get would be discontinued and said, “It is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the USA…” On the same lines, this move of Obama will not only increase the operations cost of Indian firm but will also deter Indian investment in US. 

The H-1B and L-1 visa application already costs around $2000-2500; and an increase of $2000 as filing and fraud prevention and detection fees will ensure more per capita cost on temporary skilled workers sent to the US for work from India and subcontinent. As per trade body NASSCOM, the impact on the Indian IT sector could be as high as $200-250 million per year. 

Further, the bill may not be acquiescent with WTO as the state department spokesman put it defensively, "We are reviewing a suggestion that this bill is not WTO-compliant. I am not aware that we've reached any final judgment, but we're not sure that necessarily any WTO issues are triggered."

Interestingly, a report titled ‘Regaining America's Competitive Advantage: Making our Immigration System Work’ made by the US Chamber of Commerce and a popular think-tank called American Council on International Personnel suggested that far from restricting foreign workers, the US should eliminate the cap on H1B visas and allow the market to determine the overseas workers entry into the country. The US President Barack Obama and his government definitely understand already that it is this capability (of the US) to absorb highly skilled foreign employees that is the prime reason behind America’s competitiveness and its position as a top superpower. It’s surprising that knowing all that very well, they would still allow such a move to curb the flow of skilled technicians and experts that could, in the long-run, dent America’s intellectual capital and international business competitiveness. 

US: TERROR POLITICS?

Why Osama will be...!
Alive! There are reasons to kill Osama, and there are reasons to keep him alive; Pakistan, and the US, look decisively tilted towards the latter

May 11, 2010: In context with the failed attempt of the Times Square bombing, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warns that Pakistan would face “severe consequences” if a future terrorist attack on US soil was traced back to Pakistan and said, “…Pak officials know where bin Laden, al Qaeda, Mullah Omar and the Afghan Taliban leadership are.” A few days later, she reiterates her warning (albeit in a relatively softer tone) and said, “There is more that Pakistan must do to face what is now a common enemy…” May 12, 2010: The US Defence Secretary Robert Gates bellows, “The relationship between the two anti-terror allies [aka, USA and Pakistan] has improved significantly over the last two years.”

In the two statements above, which are obviously contradictory, the usage of word “ally” does raise critical concerns. When one juxtaposes this with the latest leakage of thousands of secret US military records by a whistle-blowing site WikiLeaks, which proves Pakistan’s deep complicity in terrorist activities, US pro-Pak political intentions suddenly become suspiciously dangerous, as the US and especially Barack Obama ostensibly are still not convinced enough to declare Pakistan as a terrorist state, amazingly turning a blind eye to what seems crystal clear to the rest of the world!

But wait! Barack’s bent clearly must be a put-on, in his efforts to get Pakistan’s assistance to catch Osama bin Laden, right? At least initially, it seemed so. But of late, Barack’s double entendres just can’t be ignored. While Barack announced that his administration would stick with pulling out US troops from Iraq (down from a peak 150,000 to 50,000 by the end of this month), he has concurrently increased the deployment of US soldiers in Afghanistan (up from 68,000 to 100,000). With a shrewd redeployment, it’s quite clear that the US is simply gaining avenues to increase its influence over Central Asia. Without the excuse of hunting down Osama bin Laden and Taliban, the US would surely have faced global admonition on troop deployment.

On the other side of the coin, the presence of Osama and the controlled nurturing of Taliban and anti-India elements allows Pakistan to keep receiving spectacularly humungous aid from the US, most of the moneys going to the personal pockets of local bureaucrats and politicians in Pakistan, a handful of who – by some accounts – are now close to becoming billionaires. Pre-Osama, from 1991 till 2000, Pakistan received $434.2 million as economic and military assistance aid from the US. Post Osama (9/11), from 2001 till 2009, Pakistan has received a shocking $15 billion from the US; and Obama had deftly announced another hollering $7.5 billion in October 2009! 

Newsweek reported late last year that officials at the US embassy in Islamabad alleged that “Pakistan misspent some 70% of the US funds!” Pakistan is also accused of “running a double game with the money, keeping the Taliban at bay just enough to persuade American benefactors to keep their wallets open.” Not that this was a State secret; but the benign nature of Barack Obama’s response – or lack of it – is astounding! On August 2, 2010, Obama commented that Pakistan is beginning to “take the fight to violent extremists within its borders.” That sounds as far from the truth as possible.

Thomas Friedman writes in this week’s issue of The Sunday Indian, “The 9/11 attack was basically planned, executed and funded by radical Pakistanis and Saudis.” Fareed Zakaria confirms, “70 percent of the terror plots uncovered in the past decade can be traced back to Pakistan,” a country which, Zakaria adds, is “the epicentre of Islamic terrorism!”

Is Barack Obama blind or are we plain nutty? The practice of keeping anti-social elements alive for political and economic benefits is not just a western phenomenon. In the Asian continent, the most famous case was of a forest brigand cum smuggler in Southern India, called Koose Muniswamy Veerappan, who – in spite of being charged of murdering 184 people, poaching around 200 elephants, smuggling ivory and sandalwood worth $24,600,000, kidnapping the who’s who of the political and entertainment world – never saw the local government ordering swift action against the criminal, mainly because a considerable amount of money flowed into the territory due to his staying alive and in action.

Similar is the case with bin Laden. His living means more to Pakistan than to any other entity. Barack’s refusal to call a spade what it is, will go down in history as perhaps the worst two-faced moves ever made. Friedman quotes, “If you are in a poker game and you don’t know who the sucker is, it’s probably you!” Obama, ever wondered why Chelsea never invited you for her wedding?

FUNDING : TERROR SCHOOLS

Crime is what they teach

Call it SOA or WHINSEC, the US must close down this war factory soon

 

The history of hiring mercenaries to conduct war on a country's behalf is certainly not a new phenomenon. The Saika mercenary group of the Kii Province, Japan, played a significant role during the Siege of Ishiyama Hongan-ji in the 15th century. Although, the concept of mercenaries — also known as overseas security consultants — may have changed, but using these trained troops to do one’s evil work is still rampant. The mercenaries, who had been hired for international peacekeeping duties, are now being used for different purposes. Present day governments across the world (especially in developed countries) use them as convenient tool to meet their political ambitions.

Ironically, Fort Benning—a mercenary producing factory and popularly known as the Army School of the Americas (or SOA) in Georgia — widely known for recruiting best of instructors and students from Latin America's military forces. These instructors and students, however, undergo rigorous training for counter-insurgency, military intelligence, interrogation techniques, jungle operations – to name a few. But these students are not trained to protect their border or safeguard their country from foreign invasion, rather to wage a war against their own people! Congressman Josheph kennedy was once found quoting, “…US Army School of the Americas is a school that has run more dictators than any other school in the history of the world." Apparently, if media reports are to be believed, in the past 60 years, the SOA has trained over 60,000 mercenaries who have tortured and killed thousands of Latin Americans till date. Even Colonel Alberto Quijano (Colombian Army's special forces) was recently arrested for helping Diego León Montoya Sánchez — who is on FBI’s most-wanted list and is the leader of Norte del Valle Cartel. Besides, name like Atlacatl Battalion, Romeo Vásquez Velásquez and Juan Velasco Alvarado are some of the alumni of this war factory. Moreover, Gen. Hernan Jose Guzman Rodriguez (responsible for the deaths of at least 149 people), Gen. Hector Gramajo (architect of genocidal policies from 1980-1991 in Guatemala) are other prominent names. Reports say, the SOA graduates conducts most horrendous crime across the world. In fact, over 10 high-ranking military officers (SOA graduates) are accused of human rights abuses. 

After huge public outrage and protest, the SOA changed its named to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). However, reports have confirmed that the training at SOA still prevails in the Latin American countries. In 2008, the Congress completely terminated $20 million annual funding bill for the SOA/WHINSEC. This has boosted the spirits of NGOs and social watch groups, who are still optimistic about the closure of the facility. With Obama closing down the Guantanamo Bay and advocating humans rights across the world, activists seem hopeful that the US President will close the "bloody" school. 

With series of WikiLeaks and surfacing of human rights abuses by the US, Obama may soon curb the funding of the institution, if not the closure. 

AFGHANISTAN: THE $1 TRILLION LOTTERY

$1 trillion? Sure...


The US has announced the discovery of minerals apparently worth $1 trillion in Afghanistan – the IIPM Think Tank believes much of this made up value is balderdash and pure hogwash forwarded by the US

Have you heard about the jungle gold digger who announced to the world that he’s found the biggest gold horde underground? Never? That’s not too surprising, as not even a sophomoric mercenary would make the mistake of letting the world onto El Dorado if he found it first – unless, of course, he didn’t find it and simply wanted to conjure one up in order to boast to grandma back home. Or, of course again, the protagonist in question were the conscientiously incorruptible and trustfully industrious United States.

If those adjectives sounded oxymoronic, that’s basically the simple crux of this article’s argument. The recent June 2010 announcement by the US geological survey – a Pentagon study, if anyone expected any less – that they have stumbled onto $1 trillion and beyond of “untapped” mineral deposits (ostensibly iron, copper, cobalt, gold and lithium) in Afghanistan reminds one of the Great Game that was played between the British and the Russians for gaining influence in central Asia in the early phase of the 19th century.

The US is an old hand at peddling such so called discoveries for its mutual convenience – or at not peddling them. During the period that US took over Iraq, did one wonder even once that the Bush regime never gave official confirmation of the oil reserves in Iraq that the US was directly controlling and extracting? Rarely, as it was a given fact that US will siphon off oil money to pay for its war expenses and claims. The truth is, in February 2010, Agence France Presse had already quoted Karzai brandishing a US Geological Survey report that Afghanistan had $1 trillion mineral reserves. The flop attempt at global media publicity went unnoticed then. Clearly, Pentagon’s spin doctors were not too impressed by the February achievement, and re-branded the effort, training Karzai to repeatedly mention that the reserves were between $1 trillion to, hold your grandma’s horses, $3 trillion! 

There’re three reasons for the June 2010 re-branding of old news. First: when it comes to fragile governance, the Afghan government is already a top contender. It is today standing on legs largely because of foreign aid, which is over 70% of its budget. Undoubtedly, the announcement of this discovery will give Karzai – who has recently mended fences on his own terms with Obama – a new lifeline in his fragile political career, as he would be able to wishfully promise the mineral rich regions to tribal chiefs and Taliban representatives. Second: the announcement will give an excuse to the US to postpone their decision of withdrawing troops out of the country. Third: the US has been trying hard to figure out ways to attract foreign investment into the region. The announcement will jump start the proceedings. One can easily visualise deals being signed under pure promises and conjectures than on realistic data – leading to future litigation.

There is a huge downside for Afghanistan due to this announcement. Mineral and oil discovery announcements have led to social unrest in various countries; and Afghanistan is a country that is still struggling to come out of a war like condition. African nations like Ghana, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Nigeria and Sudan saw a decade long violence and civil unrest after similar discoveries. An analysis of the top oil rich countries would show that around 10-12 nations in the top 50 list are unstable. For Afghanistan, the announcement would exacerbate the ongoing power politics. If on one hand the local clans, Taliban, Al-Qaeda and the likes will fight a bloodying conflict to tap these supposed resources to fund their anti-social missions, then on the other, China, which last year grabbed the Aynak copper mine in Logar, would leave no stone unturned to expand its influence over the region and country in particular.

All this is not to say that there are no reserves – of course, there are. But in all probability, only around 1/5th of what has been announced – which anyway would be exploited by US firms. It’ll take decades for other investing companies to realise they’ve been had. By then, Obama will be out of power, and Afghanistan will no more be a priority.