US ARMY: RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM

No, for Christ’s sake!

Interpreting the war on terror as a crusade has led to a simmering religous extremism in the US military, which needs to be curbed

When the US ex-President George W. Bush tagged his War on terrorism as a new Crusade, little did he know that his words were being taken too literally by audiences in his own nation as well as across the world. On September 16, 2001 at South Lawn of the White House, Bush said during a press conference, “This is a new kind of evil. And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I’m going to be patient.” 

This statement of his obviously stoked a huge controversy, since it was taken in the religious context, and did not go well with Islamic countries across the world. Franklin Graham (American Christian evangelist and president and CEO of international Christian relief organization Samaritan’s Purse) took it further, as he made an anti-Islamic comment (just after 9/11) and referred to Islam as “a very evil and wicked religion”. Further, on April 18, 2003, he made an statement that true Islam cannot be practiced in the US as the country criminalizes beating your wife, killing your children, committing adultery, et al. Recently a video obtained by al Jazeera (and advocated by the Huffingtonpost) revealed how military officials at Bagram were urging US soldiers to evangelize in the Muslim country. The video also exposed how US military forces in Afghanistan were asked by top chaplain to “hunt people for Jesus” and spread Christianity in Afghanistan. Evidences also reveal that the soldiers stationed at Afghanistan were given bibles translated into Pashto and Dari – the dominant languages of Afghanistan. Even air force cadets in the US were taught to proselytize.

When it comes to religious diplomacy, nothing can beat the Boykin saga. Lieutenant General William G. Boykin – retired Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and a key person during military operations in Grenada, Somalia and Iraq, openly framed the War on Terror in religious terms (obviously anti-Islamic) during a show on NBC News on October 15, 2003. The heights of audacity got breached when it was found that The Soldier’s Bible contained the words of Lt. Gen. William Boykin (in inspirational words from military leaders), where he said of his battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia, “I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.” 

A scan through media reports over the past few years provides disturbing evidences of unethical behaviour by the US army towards non-Christian soldiers. Among many incidents that came to light about harassment of non-Christians, army specialist Zachari Klawonn’s experience is a case in point. He recently filed a lawsuit alleging that that the Army has not followed through on its promises to address problems even after filing more than 20 complaints of harassment for being Muslim. A media report carried out by the Washington Post (November 12, 2005) wrote about the role of private missionary groups who where training cadets to evangelize their peers. In September 2007, a military watchdog organization, Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) joined decorated medic Justin Chalker in filing a lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Robert Gates; charging the Pentagon of forcing the soldier to embrace evangelical Christianity. Neither the Pentagon nor the country’s defence official raised any interjection against scriptures found on US weapons. It was only recently that, after an international outcry, a Michigan-based arms company stopped embossing references to New Testament Scriptures on rifle sights that it sells the military. The Muslim Public Affairs Council in Washington referred to biblical references in the weapon as violation of the nation’s values and feared that the blaze of religious extremism may creep into the US military. 

With a half Muslim and half Christian president at the helm, things were expected to change to a large extent. On one hand, President Obama is holding meetings and soft peddling with Islamic countries in an attempt to undo the Bush administration’s legacy of anti-Islamic rhetoric that had antagonized many Arab and Asian nations with substantial Muslim populations. But on the other hand, he seems to be quite neutral and indifferent on matters of evangelical military culture which aims to Christianize the US army. Experts fear that this indifferent attitude would give space to these extremists to sow seeds of religious extremism among army men. If the US is really keen on tacking religious extremism in south Asia then it can’t afford to ignore a similar simmering sentiment back home. This is that kind of war where using the same weapons as your enemy would prove counter-productive. For the more friends the US has, the better it is. That conversion makes far more sense than the religious one.

US: Nuclear Security Summit

START for 2, a finish for 45!

President Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit is actually a long term ‘only nuke country’ strategy

On April 13, 2010, 47 heads of state met in Washington to attend the much hyped Nuclear Security Summit (NSS). It was seen as one of Obama’s most noteworthy foreign policy initiatives, especially after his most momentous domestic accomplishment – passage of the health care reform bill. This summit finds its roots in the speech given by Obama, last year at Prague, on his vision for a nuclear weapon-free world. But the summit was more like a cliché, wherein the 47 heads of state simply sat and discussed the risks of nuclear terrorism and plausible options to prevent the trafficking of nuclear materials; and thus a future nuclear terrorist attack.

Just a few days before the NSS, Obama had also concluded the new START – in other words, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (held historically between US and Russia). Under this ‘new’ START treaty, Russia and the US would apparently reduce their respective operational nuclear warheads by one-third of their present levels.  This news has been forwarded by the Obama camp as “a very exciting news!” Fortunately for us, there’re few political commentators who believe likewise. To consider the news “exciting” is as ludicrous a proposition as can be imagined. Neither US nor Russia mean a word of what they’ve “agreed” upon. An ultra brief review of history and current statistics would be enough for us to persuade you to join our camp.

US and Russia control about 90% of the 27,000 nuclear weapons being strutted around today. Even if one considers – for the sake of the argument – that there would be 1/3rd reduction, the arsenal both these countries would be left with would be, surprise surprise, still what was there previously. Where’s the catch? The new START talks about reducing “operational warheads” (thus reducing their total to 1550) and does not refer at all to the total nuclear stockpile. Further, the irascible issue of Highly Enriched Uranium has been conveniently swept under the carpet. Out of over 1,670 tonnes of Highly Enriched Uranium available globally, over 95% is in US and Russia.

If US was trying to pull a fast one through the new START, the recent US federal budget did something that we would call ‘perfectly American in nature.’ The new budget for research and development into nuclear weapons is estimated to be more than $7-8 billion. The Nuclear Posture Review (released on April 06, 2010 by the US government) plunders on, giving US the scope of “first using” nuclear weapons in any war against a nuclear nation (including Iran and North Korea).

Compare this with the similar hogwash that was the Nuclear Security Summit. All the commitments made by the heads of state (some of them openly nuclear) were termed “non-binding!” While Obama commented strongly that he would move towards ensuring sanctions against Iran to ensure its compliance, no one felt it gravely concern-worthy that Israel chose to simply give the event a miss.

In fact, we should have too...   

Natural Disaster: Impact on Politics

Can we have a quake?

Natural disasters interestingly have created huge political legacies (in some cases, destroyed them); an easy read on why some politicians perhaps desperately wait for a natural disaster to come back to power

If Moses had the plagues to help him reserve his following, if Noah played to the end of the world tune to deliver his Ark to fame, then modern day politicians have had various brilliantly timed natural disasters to catapult up their political fortunes; and in some cases, even destroy them due to their lack of tactical intent. The more intelligent ones have used disasters to not only cleanse their corrupt and tainted pasts but to decimate opposition too. Presenting a cross-continent easy read correlation review.

On December 23, 1972 an earthquake in central Managua, in Nicaragua, helped reveal the social rifts of the Somoza family dictatorship, who reportedly embezzled a huge pie of the foreign aid. This quake became the key excuse for people (underpinned by Sandinista revolution) to come together to topple down the Somoza dictatorship. Likewise in 1976, in China, Mao’s successor Hua Guofeng converted the earthquake to his benefit. He popularised the Tangshan earthquake as a symbolic event and used it as an image-building exercise to eventually destroy the opposition’s hold in the region. During the same period, in Guatemala, the military dictatorship overlooked the rehabilitation of rural areas (and only concentrated on the capital city) after a major quake, and this led to one of the biggest uprisings in the country’s history. Although in this case dictatorship was somehow able to crush the revolution using brute force, some years down the line, in 1985, the self help groups of Mexico ignited the independence movement post the infamous 1985 Mexico quake and succeeded in putting a full stop to the one party system of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional.

While tectonic shifts on the surface have done a lot to make or mar political fortunes, similar tremors below the sea level have been equally omnipresent on making or marring political fortunes. The tsunami, which occurred a few days before the eve of 2005, killed over 220,000 people in 11 countries across the Indian Ocean; but the way it fired up the destiny of Thailand’s embattled Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra is mind-boggling to say the least. For the uninitiated, the disaster happened a few months before the scheduled national parliamentary elections in Thailand. Thaksin – facing ignominious corruption charges – grabbed this opportunity. He did everything possible to make his voters believe that he was capable of handling the calamity. In the course of that endeavour, he denied the need for any international aid and executed a near-effective recovery plan. This bold effort of Thaksin decoded itself into greatly improved rating points.

His disaster reaction timing made him win the forthcoming polls too, despite his near to worse track record (He was overthrown a year later by military, but his party again won the elections in the post-coup elections). The tsunami also led to the concept of Wave Diplomacy in Indonesia. The tsunami reduced the city of Aceh,

in the island of Sumatra, to ruins. Historically, Aceh had been at war with the government for almost 29 years, but thanks to the tsunami, the Indonesian government and the separatist groups cracked an unexpected peace agreement. Separatist rebel groups gave up their demand for independence as they didn’t want any destruction.

Even Peru’s quake came as a silver lining for the President-in-term, Alan Garcia. A devastating 8.0 magnitude earthquake struck Peru’s central coast on August 15, 2007, just a year after Garcia was elected as the president. The president spent four straight nights sleeping by candlelight in Pisco, the most affected region. He moved to an air force base in the vicinity of the quake’s epicentre, and had all his cabinet meetings there itself. This act of his paid him well instantly as his approval ratings skyrocketed like never before. Garcia’s approval ratings, which had dropped from 63% to 35% by the end of his first year in office, post his quake efforts reached a resounding 76%.

However, some – it’s quite evident – don’t learn. Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in August 2005. Katrina almost destroyed the whole of New Orleans. George Bush, who had a golden opportunity to redeem his Iraq misadventures and his administration’s WMD lies, flopped without recourse. Not only was he unable to provide an immediate and effective response to the affected zones, his administration failed in various areas of post disaster work too. In January 2005, while Bush’s approval ratings among Republicans was 91%, it fell to 78% right after Katrina. And overall, across America, Bush’s ratings collapsed to 41% in October 2005 and a worse 38% in November 2005. Bush’s dismal ratings, for information, never recovered throughout his term – that is how long lasting the impact of one mismanaged disaster can be. But a Black man, it seems, is leading the learning curve pretty well. The recent Haiti earthquake gave the US president Barack Obama a fantastic opportunity to shore up his crashing ratings. Obama had earlier implemented an extremely strict policy of banning immigration from Haiti and had called for deporting back all such immigrants. To start with, he has temporarily cancelled this deportation program (Around 60% of Haiti’s budget depends on foreign aid and thus they need the remittances of those 30,000 people who work in the US). Secondly, Obama has pledged $100 million and many US troops for post quake relief efforts. Obama’s approval ratings have mystically started improving as if on cue, from 46% before the quake to 50% (CBS News Poll).

Evidently, for politicians who understand the correlation coefficients well, natural disasters are boom times to build on popularity, but only through a committed and sincere focus on altruistic development. During such times, words matter, actions most. It’s a miserable irony that politicians have never understand that even poverty is a kind of natural disaster resulting in hunger, illnesses and millions of deaths globally

The US-Israel relationship: is in trouble

The feast of love

Is the romance saga between US and Israel finally over?

If life never ceases to surprise, then geo-politics would go a step further. Going by past trend of US-Israel romance, no prophecies would have predicted a fissure to appear between them. But then, this six-decade old relationship is all set to get sour, especially after the recent remarks from Israel’s end. Recently, Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu’s brother-in-law, Hagai Ben-Artzi, in a radio interview called Barack Obama an anti-Semite. This remark of Hagai Ben-Artzi has its roots in the near past. During the US Vice President Joe Biden’s recent visit to Israel, Israel had announced their proposal to built 1600 Jewish houses in Ramat Shlomo in east Jerusalem (as approved by Israel’s interior ministry). This announcement offended many top officials of the US to an extent wherein Hillary Clinton expressed this act as an ‘insult’.

On hindsight, it seems that Israel is getting stronger both economically and politically. The Israeli economy is improving and is now neck to neck with economies like Singapore, Hong Kong and a few other fast developing nations. And of course, there seems to be no match to Israeli nuclear and defence development initiatives and technology. Israel today can boast about their high tech research and advance defence system. On the political front, of late, the Hizbullah and Hamas activities also have gone down to a large extent.

But the grimness of the whole issue gets highlighted when seen in context to the Israel-Iran conflict. Netanyahu has had fantastic support from the Republican regime, with consecutive US Republican Presidents looking the other way to Israel’s excesses, sometimes correctly too, given Israel’s extremely sensitive geo-location. George Bush had taken this support to a new level with his straightforward attacks on Iraq and threats to Iran. The anti-Israel open-rhetoric of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his intentions (later denied) to “wipe Israel off the map” only helped increase tensions between Israel and Iran. As recent as February 7, 2010, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the destruction of Israel was assured.

But the Democrat camp, led by Obama and Hillary, is another walk altogether. It may be noted that last year’s Israeli bombing of Gaza was stopped just a handful of days before Obama assumed office – clearly due to a straightjacketed warning from the Democrat quarters. Not only do Democrats not appreciate Israel’s belligerent claim to territory, they also are forcing it to reach a settlement with Palestine. However, this is not for the first time that Obama is upset with Israel’s act. Last year too, Obama came down hard on Israel’s settlement activities in the region. (Despite this, pro-Israeli representatives still played a noteworthy role in the passage of Obama’s health care bill; many US politicians are members of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee or the so-called Israeli lobby). Obama is getting tough on Israel because if another Israel-Palestine live conflict flares up, Obama’s attempts to stabilize the situation in both Afghanistan and Iraq would get magnanimously disturbed. A newly confident (and nuclear ambition loaded) Iran would necessarily step up the verbal onslaught, leading to sure-shot military manoeuvres. And as Iraq and Afghanistan share borders with Iran, the issue would have a domino effect in these countries.

On a bigger front, Obama’s posturing also has an intended positive effect – of mollycoddling the slighted Muslim groups and of reassuring them that US is not the enemy. So is the Israel-US infatuation over? To say that would be a figment of one’s imagination. Israel is a key fixture in American foreign policy – and people from that nation have supported America in its various exploits without questions. To that past, present, and future allegiance, America is indebted. Obama knows that too. And he won’t allow current posturing to destroy decades of committed resource building for the US by Israel. And you don’t need to be an Einstein to know that...

END OF THE WORLD

From Mayan to ‘Obama’yan

Yes, we can’t (duh) 

Perhaps it’s already too late to save the world of its various ills; a primer

“State of Fear”. That is the name of a book where the late Michael Crichton talks about eco-terrorists who are attempting to create a ‘state of fear’ to press forward their point-of-view regarding global warming. There have been several prophecies from almost all civilizations pointing toward the end of the world. Be it the Mayan 2012 prediction or the Chinese oracle of the I Ching or the internet bot software program – ‘Web-Bot Project’ (which predicted that a reversion of the earth’s magnetic poles will devastate the world in 2012) – all forecasts have boiled down to a specific date of the end of the global society to peddle their postulation.
Surprisingly, we are not questioning the credibility of these oracles; instead; we are forwarding the premise that perhaps all these oracles who did get it right (their forecasts, that is) for all the wrong reasons (of course, the dates were all kooky) dug up a bigger problem – and that was that all the ‘other’ forecasts which were positively more pertinent and had a better chance of seeing the light – or dark – of the day were also relegated to the standard bin of ‘end of the world’ theories. To contribute our mite to the weight of the bin, is this issue’s section of Scrutiny, in which we pretend to be the first ones to be predicting how and why the end of the world is nearer than you thought and why Obama might end up being able to do nothing about it.
At least geo-politically, what we are seeing around is surely nothing less than steps towards the end of the world – the rising tension in Middle East, strategic moves by Russia, emergence of China and South Asia in making themselves potently loaded with nuclear weapons... Economists who support the growth of nuclear arsenal (yes, they are there!) forward the hypothesis that in the modern era, weak countries are arming themselves not with an intention to attack, but with an objective to dissuade other stronger countries from attacking them. The theorem does hold credibility – when Pakistan attacked India’s borders, India was constrained in its response due to Pakistan’s visible atomic base.
However, those are not democratic and sane governments that rule all countries across the world. Studies have shown, but obviously, that even a limited nuclear war would devastate the world. And the day an autocratic or military ruler decides push has come to shove and the time to decimate the opponent is now, many more than the two of us would wish we were living near the Thames in London.
What the world today requires is a foolproof non-proliferation policy. Comprehending the vibes, Obama has already amended his policy to protect the world from nuclear terrorism. During his April 2009 speech in Prague, he delineated his arms control and non-proliferation agendas and promised a US-led international effort to secure “all vulnerable nuclear materials” within the next four years. That is the most far reaching agenda any US President – for that matter, any premier across the world – has announced in history. To start it up diplomatically, in the recent G8 Summit in Italy, he announced a Nuclear Security Summit in 2010 to combat nuclear smuggling and prevent nuclear terrorism.
Obama knows his priorities too well – the US considers climate emissions control its last priority on the ‘save the world’ list; the December Copenhagen summit will be proof enough. We aren’t complaining about that...

Alpha (decay) male

Alpha males that we all are, none of us believes a nuke attack will ever happen in our lifetimes – so we write this treatise to the alpha female

With around 2000 nuclear weapons on high alert and ready for launch, the nuclear Armageddon is just waiting for its reincarnation. We provide some ‘what if’ details.
There are currently more than 30,000 nuclear weapons of which 8,000 are currently operational. In 1977, the US Department of Defense predicted 265 million casualties from a full-scale US-Soviet nuclear war. United Nations Disarmament Committee states there are more than 16,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons ready for deployment and another 14,000 in storage. With regional tension intensifying, especially among nuclear-rich countries, the probability of nuclear war can’t be denied.
Around 50 nuclear weapons are reportedly deployed against each other by India and Pakistan, targeting their megacities. An incident involving Israel and a neighbour (particularly Syria and Lebanon and to some extent the Palestinian areas) may stimulate the Arab nations to fight. Even the nuclear tensions in Iran and North Korea are increasing. Iran’s nuclear program and North Korea’s nuclear testing spree adds to the complexity. Factoring in nuclear terrorism creates a creepy new dimension with enhanced risk. A nuclear country with a terrorist presence could trigger a nuclear war easily. After the US attempt to push Russia’s neighbours into NATO and the EU, the probability of a US-Russia flash war, though feeble, still can’t be done away with. NATO has stationed around 500 nuclear weapons in Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Germany and Turkey. When it comes to the mightiest, the US and Russia keep hundreds of missiles armed with thousands of nuclear warheads on high-alert, 24 hours a day, that reach their targets in less than 30 minutes.
So what if a ‘mild’ nuclear bomb detonates, say in the subcontinent (ten times the power of Little Boy)? In the 30 million subsequent deaths, NRDC (Natural Resources Defence Council) calculated that almost 22.1 million people (in India and Pakistan) would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem (units that measure the effects of ionizing radiation on humans) in the first two days after the attack. Add to this, 8 million people would be affected by 100 to 600 rem. In general, besides the local destructions, any nuclear war in any part of the world would result in a ripple effect. A study on the ‘Atmospheric chemistry of regional nuclear war’ suggests that the hot smoke from a burning city would tear holes in the ozone layer. Research by scientists at the University of Colorado at Boulder proves that the increased ultraviolet radiation (from the ozone loss) would double the DNA damage along with increasing the cancer rates manifold. This would also reduce crop yields and starve hundreds of millions the world-over.
It is now clear that even a limited and local nuclear war involving less than 100 low-yield weapons, apart from killing a minimum of 20-25 million people, would activate a decade of cold climate titled the ‘nuclear winter’ (report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science). This limited war would also generate 1 to 5 million tonnes of carbonaceous smoke particles, darkening the sky. NASA predicts that 40% of this smoke would stay in the stratosphere for 10 years. The Journal of Geophysical Research concludes through climate model simulations that even a small nuclear conflict would cause mayhem on the atmosphere by “cooling it twice as much as it has heated over the last century.” The journal reports that on an average, global surface cooling of –7°C to –8°C would remain for years – this could well make global temperatures colder than they were 18,000 years ago.
Like we mentioned, it is much easier (and faster) to die from the effects of a nuclear disaster than from those of global warming. Black humour aside, the world in general should gather behind Obama to support his effort to make the world free of nuclear weapons. What would work against him is the fact that the US has extremely less moral authority on this issue. Well, they’ve carried out 1050 plus known nuclear tests till date..

Abortion (to allow it. . . or not to)

Birth rights of sperms & eggs

The debate on abortion has moved away from the empowerment of women to cutting religious propaganda

Of course, all this is not happening for the first time. Since time immemorial, a woman’s body has been the theoretical and unembellished territory for societal and political war. From the theoretical, scientific and religious end, there are numerous logical stages that define the starting point where ‘human life’ begins. Many schools of thoughts believe that sperms and eggs have life; and put them at par with humans, thus considering them as preconceived life. Many don’t! But almost all blocks ranging from political to religious are in some or the other form discussing the issue of abortion – or as the critics call it, immoral killing of a life.

So what is the debate all about? That’s simple, as that rests on the analysis of the options a woman with unwanted pregnancy has, and those are: one, she can put up the child for adoption; two, she can accept the child; and three, she can abort the unborn child. And that is where the whole debate on abortion starts, with opposing philosophies promoted by two schools of thought: Pro-choice campaigners (who demand a mother be allowed to choose whichever of the three options she might wish to undertake), as opposed by pro-life campaigners (who generally argue in terms of foetal rights rather than reproductive rights). The pro-choice group believes that “a woman should have complete control over her fertility and the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy,” and demand that a woman is given ‘the guarantee’ of reproductive rights – access to sexual education, fertility treatments, contraception, to safe and legal abortion, and even legal protection from forced abortion. The pro-life group’s philosophy revolves around the argument that “…human foetuses and embryos are persons, and therefore they have a right to live.” Thus, the movement is characterised by extreme wingers opposing sale and use of contraception, practise of death penalty, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research et cetera.

Philosophers and writers have been key in this debate, saddling further complicated arguments. Mary Anne Warren, noted American writer and philosophy professor (cited in major publications like Peter Singer’s ‘The Moral of the Story: An Anthology of Ethics Through Literature’ and Bernard Gert’s ‘Bioethics: A Systematic Approach’) concludes that the foetus “satisfies only one criterion: consciousness (and this, only after it becomes susceptible to pain); the foetus is not a person and abortion is therefore morally permissible.” Using a scientific angle, a former President of the British Academy and current President of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, the well known Anthony J P Kenny believes that since division of the zygote into twins through the process of monozygotic twinning can occur until the 14th day of pregnancy, abortion should not be permissible after two weeks! Again, noted American moral philosopher and metaphysician Judith J Thomson states that even if the foetus has a right to life, abortion is still morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body. The concepts of pro-life versus prochoice are in general visible across the world, leading to starkly distanced abortion laws across the world – for example, if in Canada abortion is available ‘on demand’, then in a country like Nicaragua, abortions are illegal.

In history, under Roman law, abortion did occur and was allowed, though only sometimes. Under the common law in England and in the US, abortion was illegal after the movements of the foetus could first be felt by the mother to be. In the 19th century, many western countries began to use statutes to codify abortion.

Under Vladimir Lenin, the Soviet Union legalised all abortions in 1920, but this was fully reversed in 1936 by Stalin in order to increase population growth. Between 1930 to 1960, several countries like Poland, Turkey, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland and Mexico legalised abortion in some special cases. This was followed by legalisation of abortion in Japan, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Canada, United States, France, Austria, New Zealand, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium. Since the last few decades, as per reports published by Guttmacher Institute, most of the decline in abortion rates occurred in countries where abortion had long been legal. Contemporarily, the highest rates of abortion have shifted to developing countries, which often have some of the most restrictive abortion laws. In countries like Thailand and Iran, after abortion restrictions were eased around 1997, unsafe abortions have slipped from 15 to 14 per 1,000 women, a big drop when seen demographically, given the fact that around 70,000 women – mostly in developing countries – die each year from unsafe abortions. Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Malta and Vatican City ban the procedure entirely, but in Canada and the US, as we mentioned before, there are no restrictions on the provision of abortion. In the US, almost half of all pregnancies are unintended and thus four in ten of these end in abortions. The Bush administration had placed a ban on federal funding for international family planning programs that provide abortion information to clients. Obama, within a week of being sworn in, lifted the Bush administration’s ban. Obama further passed an executive order officially scrapping the Mexico City Policy (that ‘protected’ – or rather, restricted – taxpayers from involvement in overseas abortions for eight years). Kenya, India, Bangladesh, Spain, Mexico, all are nations where abortion is illegal (sometimes, after a few weeks of conception; like in India) but the governments are not able to control or deliberately overlook the illegal abortions (Mexico has over 900,000 illegal abortions every year). And this point is where religious groups, especially the Catholic communities, are lobbying very hard to stop abortions globally. In general, a majority of Catholic Christians are considered to be pro-life. We repeat, in general! While pro-life believers use scripture references to propagate their views, Roman Catholics in particular recognise that conception is the definitive start of what we know as human life; and therefore, abortion at any stage is immoral.

While Barack is now giving millions of dollars to groups that aggressively promote the pro-choice concept on a worldwide scale, he has been highly condemned by the Vatican along with pro-life leaders on this move. In the Dominican Republic, after the Dominican Catholic Church lobbied, the present laws ban abortion in all circumstances, even in cases of rape; in fact, even when the mother’s life is in danger. Abortion is banned in Catholic heavy Ireland, except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. In Spain, though abortion is illegal, with the passage of gay rights the ban was expected to be removed. However, the Catholic Church has launched strong campaigns to prevent the reform from being passed. It’s clear that the issue of abortion can never escape the bloodying conflict between the political and religious spheres. The politician who attempts to go against the existing religious paradigm could well end up losing a huge base of voters – Obama knew that and still won. But then, is abortion right or wrong?

That, we truly believe, is for a nation and its people to decide. If the democratically elected legislature of a country – which promotes equal women’s rights – believes abortions should be allowed or banned, in whatever form or reason, then be that as it may! Unfortunately, not only is the majority of most global legislative assemblies almost always made up of men, these nations also suffer what we now know as the Roe Effect, which says that pro-choice parents have generally ended up having more abortions and hence fewer children over decades than the pro-life population; thus support for legal abortions has declined over time, and will decline further in the future. That, sadly, might be the way of things to be in the future...

 

 

United States of America: Transition history

A brief history of character!

On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama was sworn in as the President of the United States; a commentary...

With tectonic shifts in the US politics power play, the longstanding question of US competence seems to be resurfacing. Let us clarify. That Bush was incompetent is not a Nobel Prize winning theory. But will US be seen again as an intellectually social nation, is the question! Not only Americans, but the whole world is waiting for Democrats to come to true power and refurbish America’s tainted image. Let’s be honest, US, through decades, has built its reputation on genuine achievements that took years of some prim and somewhat improper planning. In contemporary history, it all started from the first nuclear weapon US gave to the world, through what is now known as the Manhattan project. Then came their Marshall plan in 1947 [officially the European Recovery Programme], which focussed on fortifying a stronger foundation for Western Europe, and warding off communism after the second World War. Beside these two war-oriented initiatives, the US also proved its competence in the field of science, technology and arts. This is evident by the number of Nobel Prizes that Americans grabbed – a jaw dropping 309 since 1906 [an average of 3 prizes per year] making it the top contestant in the race. America also developed remarkable institutions of higher learning [Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Yale] giving depth to what ivy league defined. Perchance the most appreciable move was the development of a society that redefined the meaning of melting pot. From the criminally racist days of Cassius Clay, most of US transformed uniquely to welcome all ethnic groups, religions and races. Today, however, the scenario seems different and of course bleak, and the growing acceptance is that nonfeasance is a major risk to America’s global image. The last ten years have been enough to vividly showcase the scars America has received and encouraged. The Iraq war and the much publicised absence of mass destructive weapons was the key. From the American initiative to use private security companies to protect Iraq’s oil infrastructure to the much hyped Iraq reconstruction projects [The Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction reported frauds in the initiative and led to conviction of many top officials]; from the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons, where the prisoners were subjected to unspeakable torture [Amnesty International’s 2005 report confirmed the same], to Sergeant Samuel Provance [who reported the sexual abuse of a 16-year-old girl by two interrogators]; from US Attorney Alberto Gonzalez [under his regime, the Justice Department and the FBI have illegally used the US Patriot Act to uncover personal information about US citizens] to Bernard Madoff [arrested oncharges of the biggest accounting fraud in history that led to investors losing $50 billion]; from all this to much more, US hasleft much to answer for its ‘achievements’ in the last eight years, be it the response to Hurricane Katrina, or Saddam Hussein’s structured execution, or America’s conspiratorial and deliberate support to promoting the recession, or the Wall Street melt down, and of course, Bush’s failure to capture Osama bin laden! But perhaps Bush is playing to the past, where previous Presidents have mirrored his lack of commitment to promises.

Woodrow Wilson promised to keep the US out of World War I; and ended up pushing the US into the same war. Then came Herbert Hoover’s 1928 famed pledge to end poverty – he gifted US ‘The Great Depression’. Franklin D. Roosevelt met with aplomb his 1932 pledge to maintain balanced budgets and to keep the US out of World War II. He ‘atom’ bombed Japan and his government’s spending increased from 8.0% of GNP to10.2%. The national debt doubled from 16% to 33.6%. Nixon promised resolutely in 1968 to ‘quickly’ resolve the Vietnam War. If not the war, he at least ended the drought of box office hits in Hollywood where innumerable movies kept on crapping about US heroism in Vietnam.

George H.W. Bush Senior promised in 1988, “Read my lips: No new taxes!” For records, he increased taxes and strangely parted with exclusions for high-income taxpayers. If John F. Kennedy had only Marilyn Monroe for company in history books, Ronald Reagan had Parkinson’s and Star Wars. Yes, William Jefferson Clinton is the most successful President in recent history on almost all parameters– economic [US deficits fell], social [crime rates fell too], global security [Arabs loved him; their wives too]. That he will be known more for Monica than for any of his achievements is the irony of the factor that Americans have lost almost completely, a factor called character.

One man caught on to the remnants of this almost dead factor in the deep emotions of Americans; one man who believed that if hope lived in Harriet Beecher Stowe, then character could live again in Americans; one man who beseeched America to change, radically, dramatically, emphatically to nurture back the character of a nation that once believed in humanity. Till now, he is only known for the colour of his skin. Somewhere in the future, when America redeems the depth in its character, and the character in its promises, this man will be known more for his achievements... “When his children will one day live in a nation, where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.” That is the dream... That is the dream...

 

 

W o r l d : G e o - s t r at e g i c L o c at i o n

Roach’s good face!

Why you have no idea what’s going on in the Arctic and the Antarctic!

When it comes to environment and environmental concerns, nothing can beat the global warming issue. Global warming already contributes to anything above 150,000 deaths and five million illnesses annually, as per research reports by the World Health Organisation and the University of Wisconsin. But then, as they say, there’s a good face to every roach that lived. Since civilisation, the Arctic and the Antarctic were the only two regions that did not experience any kind of colonisation. How much longer, you ask? We say, a question too late. A few countries are all set to turn the tables in their favour and commercially exploit this melting issue. With global warming intensifying, new resources and new avenues of commercialisation are gradually getting exposed. So what, you ask again – well, weren’t countries already studying penguins in these caps? Wake up Rip, you really have no idea what’s going on!
The North Pole first. The Arctic icecap is rapidly melting, thus opening up access to massive natural resources and creating shipping shortcuts that could save billions of dollar. It is estimated that over 50% of the ice cover in the Arctic region has disappeared since the last 2-3 years, resulting in the opening up of new sea routes. Countries like Russia, Canada, Denmark and Norway are leaving no opportunity to claim their control over this area. Since August 2007, strategic bomber patrol flights (predominantly Russian) are a regular affair over the region. Not for anything else, but to keep an eye over the activities of other countries over this region. In the same year, in 2007, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper also showed his interest in sending naval patrol vessels to Arctic and setting up a training centre along the Northwest Passage. He further announced the building of a deep-sea port (at Nanisivik) and a military base (at Resolute Bay). The very next year, in 2008, Canada conducted its largest military exercise ever. A few months back, in July 2009, Denmark’s MPs approved plans to set up an Arctic military command and task force. Likewise, Norway is also considering exploration for oil and natural gas in its Arctic volcanic island of Jan Mayen.

If Russia thought it had had a head start, today, the region is covered by strategic bomber flights of Canada, Norway and Denmark too – of course, with the Russian navy patrolling the waters. This unconventional growing interest of various countries over ‘dead’ region can be explained through researches conducted by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the Norwegian company StatoilHydro that predicts that the Arctic hides 25% of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas deposits.
The studies further reveal that the region may contain nine billion barrels of oil and 86 trillion cubic feet of gas. Extending this research, British Petroleum, Europe’s second-largest oil company, estimates the region to hold nothing less than 200 billion barrels of oil or up to 50% of the world’s undiscovered hydrocarbons. In September 2006, Gazprom completed drilling in a few areas of Shtokman field (estimated to have 3.8 trillion cubic meters of natural gas and more than 37 million tonnes of gas) and expects the gas production facility to be operative by 2015.
Add to it the newly discovered sea routes, which are saving huge amounts for shipping companies. Warming can take a walk, many companies use icebreaker ships to cut the ice, their cost and transit time. A fast-dedicated sea-lane is being planned between the Arctic port of Murmansk (in Russia) and the Hudson Bay port of Churchill (in Canada). Arctic routes are unbelievably giving substantial competition to Panama and Suez Canals; and their biggest selling point is that as of now – unlike the Suez or Panama – there are no fees for Arctic routes, unless of course polar bears attempt to fleece you. Talking business, even South Asia’s giant, China, is gearing up to exploit this business model. China has one large “research” icebreaker, the Snow Lion (Xuelong), which is being used in both the Arctic and Antarctic. Since China’s economy is highly dominated by exports and international trade, such low cost shipping route would add to its profit. Beluga Shipping, on September 12, 2009, became the first shipping company to travel through the Northeast Passage without an icebreaker ship as an escort. A few weeks later, even German merchant ships MV Beluga Fraternity and MV Beluga Foresight from Ulsan, South Korea arrived through the passage at Yamburg, Siberia.

Some newspapers report that while the “journey from South Korea to the Netherlands, for example, is about 12,658 miles, by using the Northeast Passage, approximately 3,452 miles (and 10 days) can be shaved off, thus saving about $300,000 per vessel.” Studies show that by avoiding the Suez Canal, the trip from Asia to Europe is shortened by almost 5,000 km. Even South Korean and Singaporean shipyards are busy building massive new icebreakers; and Japan is strategically lining up its shipping industry to exploit the routes.

If North Pole is the mistress, the South Pole is the pole dancer. Like Arctic, various studies suggest that the thick ice cover over the Antarctic continent is home to the world’s largest reservoir for fresh water – holding 30 million cubic kilometres of ice, which is equivalent to 75% of earth’s fresh water. Seismic tests suggest there could be about 60 billion barrels of oil under the hidden ocean floor. It all started in the year 1959. In order to protect Antarctica’s ecology and to prevent military activities, mineral mining, unofficial scientific research and other ecologically harmful practices/initiatives, twelve countries signed the infamous Antarctic Treaty. But then, like almost all other global treaties, this treaty was also not able to contain the greed of the already greedy world.
By the end of the 20th century (late 1990s), many countries had consolidated their control over parts of Antarctica. Argentina had a control over various areas since long. By 1994, permanent occupation was also observed. Earlier, in 1982, the Brazilian government had launched its first Antarctic expedition – and in about a year had successfully built their first base (Comandante Ferraz). Furthering this neo-colonisation procedure, in 1991, Brazilian President Fernando Collor de Mello became the first president to spend three days in the occupied area – and all this to again fortify their claim. This was followed by a visit of 13 Brazilian parliamentarians to the base (in January 2008 and then in January 2009). Another Latin American country’s claim on Antarctica is a matter of hilarity and dispute in global forums.

Chile’s officials claim that Antártica Chilena, a ‘province’ on the continent, historically belongs to the country and is as old as Chile itself. To further its claims, Chile maintains a permanent civilian population (130 plus), a small school and even a bank on the province. But the oldest coloniser among them all, predictably, is the United Kingdom. The country had a continuous presence in the South Atlantic region since 1833 (the area is today called the British Antarctic Territory or BAT). The UK went as far as undertaking a secret wartime military operation (the infamous and ignored Operation Tabarin in 1943 – during WWII) in that territory. BAS, or the British Antarctic Survey, is currently administrating the research and control in the area. Hilariously, last year, to commemorate the centenary occupation of British rule, the BAT issued its first legal tender coin. Not to forget the US, which of course has NASA’s bases in the continent (NASA believes that Antarctica’s surface ‘is quite similar to that of one of the moons of Jupiter’. Right, we get it now!).
The geopolitics game begins with New Zealand and Australia recognising the BAT and UK returning the favour by recognising the Australian claim on the continent. But then these two ‘friendly’ neighbours do not recognise the Argentine or Chilean territories; the compliment is paid back vice versa. Seven countries (France, Argentina, Australia, Chile, Brazil, New Zealand and Norway) have made eight territorial claims (two by Norway and one each by others). And the interesting fact is that these claims have been recognised only between these seven countries. Why are all these manipulations critically dangerous for the world? That’s because it won’t be long before a nuclear armed nation with a cannonball leader stakes its claim to a valuable portion of Arctic or Antarctic, and announces it will go to war with any country that disputes the claim or tries to evict them from the area. We’re betting 60 billion barrels of oil that that time will be pretty soon!

Rio de Janeiro: Olympic Bid

Olympian samba in ‘Lula’land

Brazil is on track to host the 2016 Olympics, but it must also focus on developing more world class athletes

“Yes we créu!”, may sound like a cliché – especially to all those North Americans who have been pre-occupied with the razzmatazz of “Yes, we can”. But this was one occasion they couldn’t; make Chicago win the bid to host the 2016 Olympics, that is. And this happened despite Barack Obama himself staking his reputation behind Chicago’s bid. 

Anyways, the more interesting development has been w.r.t. to the winner – Rio de Janeiro, a city famous for sun and sin, which got chosen ahead of Chicago and Tokyo. Even more shocking was Madrid’s lost of 32-66 in a direct contest between the two in the final round of voting. It’s for the first time that any Latin American country will be hosting Olympic games. The IOC’s choice of Rio de Janeiro makes the emergence
of this “backyard of the United States” quite evident.

What came as an added advantage for Rio was the ongoing preparation for 2014 FIFA World Cup in the country. Brazil has always been over-enthusiastic about football. And this has acted as amajor shot in the arm for its bid for the Olympic games. Since most of Brazil’s infrastructure and games venues are under a major overhaul for the FIFA World Cup, the city seems pseudo-ready for Olympics.

But it seems that this “backyard of the United States” was also preparing itself quite well “behind the veil.” To win the 2016 games for Rio de Janeiro, Brazil spent almost $50 million. Rio will spend an estimated $11.1 billion to build the facilities and infrastructure for the Olympic venues. So much so that Brazilian president Lula da Silva spent two days in Copenhagen and also wrote personal letters to the 106 voting members. He had each letter hand-delivered by an ambassador. Obama’s effort was quite measured in comparison, as he made a special appearance at the last moment. Along with Lula, soccer legend Pele and Olympic champion swimmer Cesar Cielo were also there to urge IOC members. Lula da Silva said in his appeal to IOC delegates, “It’s not possible that it be in England in 2012 and in another European country in 2016 ... It’s not fair that Brazil, one of the 10 biggest economies in the world for 30 years; that Brazil, one of the world’s industrialized countries, a nation that has demonstrated its love for sports; it’s not fair that Brazil not be chosen.”

Europe has already hosted 30 Olympic games, while Asia has five. Oceania has hosted two and North America has bagged 12, including eight in the US alone. Rio also hosted the Pan American Games in 2007, which has led to a lot of positive change in the city. Even the local public support was higher for Rio as per the IOC poll. Around 67% locally supported Chicago, 56% locally supported the Tokyo and 85% locally supported the Games in Rio and Madrid.

Lula knows that along with a huge games infrastructure, Rio needs a complete re-fabrication of its transportation system. To ease the chaotic traffic of the city, Rio is planning to make roadways through granite mountains (from Ipanema to Barra da Tijuca). Rio also plans to upgrade its bus rapid transit or BRT systems. With the poverty graph moving southwards and offshore oil deals paying off the county well, things are indeed looking up for the company. Out of the total planned investment of $14.4 billion, around $11.5 billion will be spent on building/upgrading infrastructure. As per Brazil’s sports ministry, the games are expected to rake in 120,000 jobs each year across Brazil until 2016 and an additional 130,000 jobs per year for the following 10 years. 

 The biggest predicament for this nation now is preparing its athletes, especially in the country that is known as Holy Grail of football, but not so much for other sports. China spend millions on development of its athletes, while UK is doing the same for the London Olympics in 2012. Just like China, Brazil will want to showcase its growing might to the world in every possible way through these Olympic games. And an inspired performance by its own athletes may just be the icing on the cake it needs.

Around the world: mental (in)competence

Are you nuts?

They were great men, running great countries... oh, they were all nuts

Psychos, freaks, insane...! We were amazed when we found out that there have been political leaders in this world who have qualified on all three of the above accounts – no, we’re not referring to our dearest Members of Parliament. It’s more astounding when we realised after our (brilliant?) secondary research that  some of these mentally unstable politicians actually ended up becoming the heads of countries!

Going by the example, the case of Richard Nixon comes first. Nixon was President of the United States from 1969 to 1974 and the first one in US history to resign from office (facing sure impeachment). The book, Richard Nixon: The Shaping of His Character, by Fawn M. Brodie – famous biographer and history teacher at the University of California – became the totem pole for understanding who the real Nixon was. Shockingly, the book reveals that Nixon was actually a sufferer of paranoia. For information, paranoia is most often linked with psychotic illnesses like schizophrenia – experts comment that in some cases (not necessarily in Nixon’s), the person believes he is on a special mission and has been chosen by God. To that effect, some of Nixon’s controversial policies do bear evidence of a traumatic childhood he had gone through.

A study done by a group of psychiatrists at the Duke University Medical Centre astoundingly reveals that 49% of former US presidents were afflicted by mental illnesses. The study published in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease further reveals that 18 out of the 37 presidents researched, were found to have suffered a mental illness of some form or the other. Ulysses S. Grant (general-in-chief of the Union Army during the Civil War and the then President of US) was also among them. The medical case of depression was the most prevalent disorder among presidents, occurring at a rate of 24 percent – ‘At least 10 presidents were affected by episodes while in office, and the study found evidence that symptoms interfered with their performance in almost all cases.’ Abraham Lincoln was one of the most famous of the sufferer lot – his seven losses (at various levels) before he finally became President big reasons for the same. Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, George W. Bush is the most recent documented case of a president suffering from high levels of depression.

On the other hand, although Garry Will, author, journalist, historian specialising in policy and politics states in his book, Kennedy Imprisonment: Meditation on Power, how John F Kennedy’s “insatiable machismo” had dangerous foreign policy implications for his country as well as for the world, one cannot directly infer that Kennedy was suffering from any mental illness – the concept of ‘sexual addiction’ has still not been accepted notably as a disease of the mind.

In a book called Ronald Reagan: the politics of symbolism, the famous American historian specialising on biographies of American presidents, Robert Balleck, says that Reagan’s bitter experience in early childhood, due to his alcoholic father, had severe implication in his later life. As Balleck writes, “The episode(s) must have reinforced Reagan’s horror of being in a helpless condition, beholden to someone else for survival... Reagan lived in fear of his father’s uncontrolled behaviour and understandably places an exaggerated premium on self-mastery in his own life and in the life of the nation.” Although Reagan left office in 1989, in the year 1994, he announced to the public that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, an affliction that kills brain cells. Then CBS White House correspondent Lesley Stahl has commented that during an interview when Reagan was in office, “a vacant Reagan barely seemed to realize anyone else was in the room,” and that “I had come that close to reporting that Reagan was senile.” Reagan’s doctors refute this presumption that Reagan had developed the affliction in office.

If the US has its hands full, the world has its hands fuller. In a medical disclosure of the current President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari was declared mentally ill by doctors appointed by him personally during the time he was behind bars. Doctors reveal how he was suffering from psychological problems like dementia, depression or post traumatic mental disorder. It is also documented how Zardari attempted to commit suicide in the between of the jail terms. On a similar platform was the killing Ugandan President, Idi Amin, who was accused of suffering from the “general paralysis of the insane” (demantia paralytica; a neuro-psychotic disorder). But the diagnosis could never be substantiated.

Next in the line is Kjell Magne Bondevik, former Norwegian Prime Minister (from 1997 to 2000 and again from 2001 to 2005). He stakes his claim to the fact that he was and still remains the first head of any nation state to publicly announce that he is mentally ill. Wonder of wonders, he did not resign but took sick leave. And currently he remains the President of the Oslo Centre for Peace and Human Rights in Norway.

Winston Churchill was noted to be a manic as he suffered from manic depression. In 2006, a British mental health charity even commissioned a statue of Churchill, and defended the same despite a public outcry – the charity later clarified that it was trying to project a more positive image of people with mental illness (which speak volumes about its initial claim). In his book Black Dog, Kafka’s Mice, and Other Phenomena of the Human Mind, psychiatrist and historian Anthony Storr wrote: “Had he [Churchill] been a stable and equable man, he could never have inspired the nation....”

Premiers and heads of states have been ridiculed, mocked at and made a joke of since almost time immemorial. And more often than not, many of these premiers have given those slights of hand a pass rather than a challenge – unless of course in non-democratic nations, when civilians have been jailed or even executed for mocking the head of a nation. But can one ever imagine living in a world where your own leaders are certified maniacs? There you go again about our MPs...    

Genocide: double standards

Thank you, Dick!

Does Obama have it in him to accuse Bush and Cheney of genocide?

While the June 4, 2009, Cairo speech of Barack Obama came in for much praise within global audiences, what escaped attention was a supposedly inconsequential meeting of the former Vice President of United States, Richard Cheney, on June 1, 2009, with the press in Washington. While most of the meeting had Cheney spawning of forgettable anecdotes, what grabbed our attention was a series of statements, which started with the scandalous comment, “I do not believe and have never seen evidence to confirm that [Saddam] Hussein was involved in 9/11.”

As is fabled, Bush and Cheney had decided to go to war with Iraq post 9/11 accusing Iraq of being connected in some way with the 9/11 attacks and also of owning Weapons of Mass Destruction, which ergo gave Bush an excuse to preemptively strike Iraq – and specifically “Islamic terrorists” – under the US National Security Strategy. Not that any reason could be justification for causing such invasion, but the fact remains that while Bush’s Iraqi WMD spin had been proven horribly wrong some years back, the latest comments by Cheney seal the argumentative debate on the fact that all in all, the Bush-Cheney combine really had no justification to invade Iraq. And so we come to our Hugo Chavez spin, which is a question on why isn’t Obama’s administration now stepping up the policy ladder and accusing Bush and Cheney of deliberate genocide in Iraq? For records, the United Nations defines genocide as “Any of the [many] acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.”

Many across the world have been accused, convicted and executed by international courts for such genocidal acts. For appropriate example, as BBC reported on December 30, 2006, “Iraq’s former leader Saddam Hussein is hanged for crimes against humanity... after a year-long trial over the killings of 148 Shias from the town of Dujail in the 1980s.” If Saddam could be hanged for 148 deaths, allow us to examine the civilian deaths caused due to the Iraq war. Though the figures have been disputed, but even the disputed figures range from between 150,000 (Iraq Family Health Survey) to 650,000 (Lancet Survey) to more than 10,00,000 (Opinion Research Business Survey).

The resemblance between the Iraq war and Darfur civil wars (which the US government accepts is a strong case of genocide) are astonishingly strong. In both the cases, the number of casualties (especially of innocent civilians) runs into hundreds of thousands. In both the case, the perpetrators are the same – paramilitaries. In both the cases, the target victims are groups of people from the same “ethnical, racial or religious group.” In Iraq, Bush and Cheney went one step further. They formalised a quasi-genocidal force while setting up the Iraqi forces, where strangely – or perhaps not so strangely – the forces were clearly dominated by Shiite Muslims and ethnic Kurds, indiscriminately writing a swashbuckling tale of terror against Sunni communities. But while Darfur is termed a genocide, the Iraq war is called a ‘counter-insurgency initiative’.

The present US government (and to a large extent, the previous one too) advocated pulling out of troops and decreasing the size of military from Iraq. But when it comes to Darfur what US does is rather declares trial of Omar Bashir for war crimes. Does this sound like genocide? For them it was just ‘War on Terror’

Cut to Darfur case. Sudanese troops and a pro-government militia known as the Janjaweed killed hundreds of thousands of people to suppress an uprising among the region’s ethnic African against the Arab-dominated regime of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir. On September 9, 2004, President Bush, EU Parliament, labelled the atrocities in Darfur as genocide. Even John Kerry and senators Joseph Lieberman, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton labelled the Darfur mayhem a genocide. But none of the names in this esteemed list have ever given even passing references of any genocide when it came to discussing the Iraq war.

Britain, France, Germany, Japan and Russia, none have raised any ‘genocidal’ debate on the Iraq issue and have remained silent. Although it would sound too clichéd to repeat that the Iraq war was fought by Bush purely for control over its oil reserves, what assumes important context is the fact that the same reason comes to prominence when the US accuses Sudan’s sitting President Omar Bashir of genocide and the International Criminal Court (ICC) issues an arrest warrant against Omar in March 2009.

Why is US so invigorated about giving “justice” to Sudanese people? Like Iraq, Sudan is also a supremely oil-rich and gas-rich nation, despite being largely unexplored (for example, while in 2006, its total oil reserves equalled around 560 million barrels, one year later the same had jumped to 6,600 million barrels, 0.53% of world reserves; similar is the case with gas). However, in its case, all the major oil deals are undertaken with China, which is trying to build its political and economic influence in Africa. This whole power build-up operation is seen as a threat by both US and Europe. And what about Omar? League of Arab States, Russia and China, all opposed ICC’s decision; it’s no surprise all of them are the largest players in the oil industry. Then why is the US silent in the clear case of genocide in Sri Lanka? Isn’t China a growing influence there too (Sri Lanka signed a $37.6 million deal to buy Chinese ammunition and is building a $1 billion port that can protect China’s supplies of Saudi oil)? Heck, the answer is simple; they have no oil Johny boy! And we won’t even touch the subject of US ally, Israel’s genocidal attacks on Palestinian civilians for the past many years (UN complained in June 2009 how an arrogantly confident Israel flatly refused access to UN’s investigative teams into Gaza).

So on one hand while we thank Dick for being so forthcoming in Washington, on the other, we ask whether Obama will have the wherewithal to go against historic rote to charge Bush and Cheney with genocide? In his Cairo speech, to wide applause, Obama eloquently beseeched, “As the Holy Koran tells us, be conscious of God and speak always the truth...” Tell us Obama, will you?