Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department considers Pranab Mukherjee to be India’s foreign minister! More similar gaffes inside...
Truth is stranger than fiction, but fiction does appear to have an irresistible appeal for two of the world’s largest administrative agencies, the US State Department and CIA. The official web portals and communiqués of the US State Department and CIA are splattered with notable misinformation and errors that would be necessarily considered highly affronting at a diplomatic level.
Last week, we showed how both the State Department and CIA confidently misrepresented India’s map (and showed Kashmir as part of Pakistan) on their websites. We had no idea there was more to come – perhaps even ‘the’ reason for why the Americans seem to be making no headway with India on foreign affairs. The US State Department’s official website mentions that the Minister of External Affairs of India is (still) Pranab Mukherjee! S. M. Krishna, the current Foreign Minister of India since May 2009, has been notably left out of the State Department’s official communiqués. Incidentally, Krishna has also met Barack Obama in various forums, including at New York in September 2009. Not all listed information is wrong, though. Some US government letters are thankfully still reaching the right addresses in India. The Home Minister of India is correctly named as P. Chidambaram; and so are some other Indian politicians.
Mistakes on the CIA and State Department’s websites are not only India-centric but can be found in the case of other countries too. What’s interesting is that, in spite of the official websites of these respective countries portraying genuine information, the US has failed to recognise the same in its own records. First, the comical. In South Korea, three years ago, a series of protests against the CIA finally forced the agency to correct the information about South Korea’s origins (CIA had earlier amusingly stated that “South Korea has been a nation for a millennium;” South Korea, apparently a stickler for dates, protested en masse as this nation has been in existence only since the last 4000 years). This was apart from the CIA correcting the misrepresentation of the number of deputy prime ministers that South Korea had had. However, the country is still trying to convince the agency to rectify names of two locations on CIA’s map of South Korea.
On the same lines, Northern Cyprus is still being shown as a part of Republic of Cyprus, despite the region having gained independence in the year 1983, 27 years earlier. On another line, while the whole of Kashmir is shown as being “disputed”, Taiwan is peacefully included on the map of China. This has to be seen along with the fact that Taiwan is shown as a separate country on the US Department of State site with the names of its President and Prime Minister. And when it comes to Myanmar, both the CIA and US State Department list the country under its old name Burma. In 1989, Burma changed its name officially to Myanmar; a rename that was endorsed by the UN. Apparently, not by the CIA/State Department.
While some of the mistakes – including India’s foreign minister’s name – are evident typographical mistakes (and show the lack of intent within the government to keep critical diplomatic facts updated), some of the mistakes, like Kashmir or Taiwan, seem deliberate and evidently committed with political intent. This can be considered even propaganda if one were to assume the worst, as many institutions globally (including schools) refer to these websites for authentic information. There’s a thin line between a diplomatic error and a strategically planted insult. Imagine if were considering Bush still to be the US president.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
International adoption is emerging out as a new illegal business
Adoption predominantly and fundamentally was meant to provide a better living and growth environment for orphans. Historically, the process of adoption was given a very high social recognition and was seen as a community responsibility. Of late, especially in the developed world, the increase in infertility rate has shifted this process of adoption from realm of domestic region to international markets. With Hollywood celebs like Madonna and Angelina Jolie adopting numerous children from world’s poorest regions, the whole concept of adoption seems to have become an international fad now.
Westerners see this act of international adoption as a rescue measure for orphans from poverty-stricken life. But then, this act at no given point of time convalesces the fundamental and core reason of poverty. Moreover, these so-called adopted children are actually either kidnapped, stolen or transacted and not really adopted. Social unrest, poverty and natural disaster make it very simple for child traffickers to export or import babies like any other commodity behind the veil of adoption.
International adoption has today become depraved business of supplying children to rich Westerners. Children are literally assumed as commodities and are sold to those who can afford it. In regions like Haiti, Guatemala, China and Africa there are agencies that deal in international adoption. Going by a conservative estimate, adoption today stands as a $100 million industry and agencies charge anything between $25,000 to $40,000 per child from adoptive parents.
According to an adoption advocacy organisation in the US, around 13 countries have put a ban on international adoption. There have been numerous cases where adoptive parents later kill the children or these orphans find themselves in foster care. So much so that these so-called orphans turn out to be local children and not actually orphans. This can be exemplified by recent arrests of American missionaries in Haiti — accused of trafficking 33 Haitian children out of the quake-stricken country. A few countries use this process for exporting their socially detested or undesirable children to foreign families.
All in all, international community (viz. Hauge, UNICEF) need to urgently give a pause to the on-going glamourisation of international adoption and make it more transparent and regulated process. In the light of natural disaster and social and civil unrest, it is pertinent for countries to arrange bilateral arrangements and developed agencies based on proper accreditation norms. Otherwise soon this gratifying gesture of better-off society will take a shape of gigantic business and become an ‘icon’ among modern families. The present form of international adoption provides a different life, but do not promise a better life. What else could be the reason behind an American flying a thousand miles to adopt a baby while the next-door Canadians prefer adopting, more than 100,000 children, from the US itself? In the same breath, a very few Americans find time to adopt orphans after the Katrina or Rita disasters; but don’t mind flying thousands of miles away and adopt a few so-called orphans from Africa, Korea or other south Asian nations. Sounds quite morbid, isn’t it?
'Homeschooling' is here to stay, especially in the developing world
The concept of 'homeschooling' has not caught-on with parents in this part of the world. But then, in most of the developed countries the whole idea of homeschooling has gone beyond mere alternative education and has entered the ambit of politics and lobbying.
For the starters, homeschooling is the education of children at home and is seen as an alternative, in developed countries, to formal education. However, the surge in homeschooling is hitting the market of conventional education system in the US. A conservative estimate shows that over 50 million children are enrolled in over 100,000 schools in the US. The average per student expenditure in the US public schools is around $7,000.
In the US, where quality of formal education is quite worrisome, parents are largely opting for homeschooling. Take for instance, the IQ level (and maths skills) of an average American student is far too less than his counterpart in the developing countries. A 2007 survey by the Department of Education reveals that 88 per cent of homeschooling parents felt their local public schools were unsafe, drug-ridden or unwholesome in some way and 73 per cent complained of shoddy academic standards.
However, in developing countries, the practice of homeschooling is not so common. Reason being, that homeschooling is too expensive in metros (even surpasses school’s tuition fees). And in non-metros (or tier-II and tier-III cities) parents are not able to match up with modern education syllabi. Moreover, homeschooling is not encouraged at the time of college admissions. Unlike the West — where there is a strong network of activities and legal lobby that has ensured colleges/institutes to have a separate policy — developing countries do not have any body to advocate this concept.
Homeschooling in Africa is highly influenced by many missionaries, who are homeschooling their own children (due to lack of good schools and domestic instability). But there is an ongoing struggle between homeschoolers and the government over control of curriculum. Moving to Asia, there are a limited number of homeschoolers and many governments are against homeschooling.
On the one hand, schools in the West are lobbying with top officials to regulate homeschooling and discourage parents (of course, for obvious reasons!). Whereas on other hand, this concept can, to a large extent, compensate for lack of schools. This can also help those who are sole bread earners of the family and thus are not able to attend conventional schools. It will also help children in those parts of the states who can’t attend school because of domestic instability. What government needs to do is to recognise homeschooling (and standardise the syllabi) and make it acceptable during admission in college admission procedure. Moreover, with intervention of ICT (Information & Communication Technology) this medium can reach a larger audience.
However, this form of education is not an answer to lack of good schools and quality education, but for the time being can solve the problem of education (and schooling) in rural hinterlands of developing countries across the world.
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 aNuclear 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..
Countries like Iran and India have strangely not realised the importance of Rahm Emanuel; it is time...
Rahm Emanuel is a name that irritates many more than it intended to in the first place; some say because the man shoots first and doesn’t even ask later. That Obama is using Rahm to straighten numerous issues in America’s foreign policy – be it for Afghanistan or Israel or Arabs – is now well known, but what might not be known is that it was William Daroff (who directs the Washington office of the United Jewish Communities or the UJC) who first called Rahm Emanuel “Obama’s secret weapon.” For the uninitiated, ‘Rahmbo’ Emanuel began his political career raising money for several Democratic campaigns and later in 1991, became a fund-raiser for Bill Clinton’s Presidential bid. A few years later, in 2006, he was central in devising the Democratic takeover of Congress. Currently, Rahm is Obama’s Chief-of-Staff – a position widely accepted to be the second most powerful in the US government – and although Obama may not like the inference, Emanuel is believed to be the cerebral force and pusher behind Obama’s ‘do-everything-at-once’ strategy. From supporting and promoting Obama’s stimulus package plan, to helping overhaul the healthcare bill and getting it passed, Rahm has worked fanatically for most of Obama’s initiatives, lobbied with numerous research groups, fought for the bailout, the budget bill and much more, not just for the sake of the nation, but as Obama states, for a friend. Both Obama and Emanuel’s political legacy can be found in Chicago. They have known each other since their early political career. But the truth behind their personal friendship perhaps became starkly clear to the world only after Obama’s official speech, which he gave after inviting Rahm to be the Chief of Staff this year, “I am pleased to announce that my good friend, Congressman Rahm Emanuel, has agreed to serve as my White House Chief of Staff... In just six years in Congress, he has risen to leadership, helping to craft myriad important pieces of legislation and guide them to passage... The son of an Israeli immigrant, Rahm shares a passionate love for this country, and has devoted much of his life to its cause... I appreciate his friendship. And I, and all Americans, should be grateful that Rahm is once again answering his country’s call.” It has been unprecedented for any past President of the United States to publicly accept his personal closeness at such levels to such a high member of the cabinet, and this at the danger of being accused of being nepotistic. And the biggest advantaged entity we guess is Israel. Rahm is a Jew, has served as a civilian volunteer in the Israeli defense force, and is expected to be the leading think tank behind Obama’s strategy on Israel (Benjamin Emanuel, father of Rahm, said, “Obviously he [Rahm] will influence the President to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.”). Recently, Obama cancelled his planned visit to the UJC/Jewish Federation of North America conference. It would have been Obama’s first major address to a Jewish American group since he became President. No prizes for guessing who’s going in Obama’s place. It would do well for nations at the wrong end of Obama’s different sticks – for examples Iran, India – to instead try and convince Rahm Emanuel on many conflicting issues. Think about it, how many times has an Indian or Iranian government head invited/talked to/met or even mentioned Emanuel’s policy on India? There, you have the answer!
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...
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...
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.
