INFORMATION PORTAL: US PROPAGANDA

US: Pranab is still the External Affairs minister

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. 

US: TERROR POLITICS?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FUNDING : TERROR SCHOOLS

Crime is what they teach

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

 

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

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

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

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

Barack Obama’s one year report card

One out of every five!

Obama made several promises during his campaign days, but precious few seem to have been realised. Will America and the world cherish his presidency the same way they had welcomed it? For that to happen, Obama will have to live up to expectations that could be well beyond his reach.

It is quite normal for elected candidates to bear the burden of expectations. What makes Obama peculiar is the scale and magnitude of expectations that he carries. That has in part to do with the symbolism of his election. But that’s a small part, as a majority has to do with all the promises of change he made. Contrary to the expectations of 75,000 supporters and 365 electoral votes, the P.O.T.U.S [President of the United States] Barack Obama has not delivered the change that they could believe in.

Ironically, a person whose campaign was all about “Yes, we can,” hasn’t accomplished much of what he promised. His stimulus package creditably prevented a probable catastrophic financial crash. Yes, it hasn’t nudged the unemployment figures by much, something Obama accepts now. Obama’s flagship agenda of the health care bill is still awaiting its time in the sun. The same goes for his much hyped climate change bill. In his recent State-of-the-Union speech on 27 January, 2010, Obama promised something that is quite the opposite of what he had stood for in his campaign days. Instead of talking about green jobs and climate change policy, he discussed his plans on nuclear power, oil, gas, coal and bio-fuels! That’s change indeed!

The major blows for his supporters so far has been his failure in closing the Guantanamo Bay prison and also in providing relief for illegal immigrants, which he promised and initiated in the initial period of his presidency. Even after a year, Gitmo is active and no concrete policy has been designed for illegal migrants. What is most surprising is that his promises of closing Gitmo and solving other human rights issues were part of the parcel that won him the coveted Nobel Peace Prize. The leading entity PolitiFact found that Obama has kept around 91 of his promises... out of 500!

But Obama’s fall from grace is perfectly well in line with his predecessors. History bears testimony to the fact that not one President of the United States has been able to meet any kind of unrealistic deadlines or unrealistic promises. Quoting from one of our previous surveys, take for instance Woodrow Wilson who promised to keep the US out of World War I and ended up pushing the US into the same war. Then came Herbert Hoover in 1928, who, in his presidency speech, pledged to end poverty and promised “a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage”– but eventually gifted the US ‘The Great Depression’ and gave many chickens a new lease of life! By the end of 1932, the unemployment figure touched the 24.9% mark with around 5,000 banks failing. Following the trend, Franklin D. Roosevelt graciously ‘un’met his 1932 pledge to maintain balanced budgets and to keep the US out of World War II. He bombed Japan and his government’s spending increased from 8.0% of GNP to 10.2%. The national debt, in turn, doubled from 16% to 33.6%. Richard Nixon promised resolutely in 1968 to ‘quickly’ resolve the Vietnam War. He didn’t! 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. It seems that Obama, is on his way to keeping the spirit of freedom alive and kicking.

Nothing can indicate this more than Obama’s southward moving rating graph. His approval rating has dropped from 67% in 2009 to 50% today, the lowest ever rating at the end of a president’s first year term. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were the only other presidents polled who, like Obama, started their second years as president in the 50s (percentage wise), earning 55% and 54%, respectively. Then there’s more. A YouGov Polimetrix poll for The Economist found that 51% people think Obama says what people want to hear and not what he believes in. The same poll further reveals that a huge percentage disapproves the way Barack Obama is handling the Iraq issue (43% disapproval), the economy (47%), immigration (47%), terrorism (42%), health care (45%), social security (43%) and the Afghan war (49%).

Obama’s sycophantic speeches haven’t helped his cause post election so far. And beyond any apprehension, the second year will be even tougher. With Obama losing support (and majority) at the Senate, passing health care bills, moving his immigration policy further and ensuring more green jobs will become harder. But then as his campaign showed, Obama is known to be at his best with his back to the wall, at least when it comes to giving off his spiel against countries like India and China and the business threats they pose to the future of America. Irrespective of his spiel, there would be five simian issues that Obama would find hard to get off his back in the coming year. The IIPM Think Tank provides its analysis of the list.  

Obama promise: healthcare

Every time he promised to negotiate healthcare reforms in public during his two year long campaign, Obama won applause all around. His campaign rhetoric went thus, “We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies – they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair... That approach, I think, is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.”

Studies by the Department of Health and Human Services estimate that health spending will grow an average of 6.2% a year in the coming decade, to $4.4 trillion in 2018, which makes the whole issue about healthcare insurance more pertinent. The healthcare bill, if passed, would have required all US citizens’ to have a health insurance and would subsidise premiums for many. This would enable families to cut their medical costs by around $2,500 a year. But the bill has faced many hurdles, especially from lawmakers & an already burdened Treasury.

The malaise in health insurance currently is too deep and malignant, and it all is expounded in the face of some clearly nonchalant insurance plans. For example, in some private plans, women are charged up to 48% more than men for exactly the same medical service. Even a Caesarean section is considered a pre-existing condition. In fact, some plans even consider a victim of domestic abuse as having a pre-existing condition (and thus deny insurance). As per a few studies, lack of health insurance is responsible for more than 48,000 deaths every year in the US. Critics say that the whole industry is now like an organised mafia. If one plays to the hooters gallery, then it’s easy to see that while the private insurance industry is more concerned about (ensuring?) healthcare denial, the CEOs in this sector were pretty well looked after – CEO packages of ten large insurance companies averaged around $11 million in 2008.

So it’s not only about providing American’s with better medical service but also about breaking the existing mafia by private insurance companies. And Obama is clearly fighting a losing battle. 

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..

Historical endorsers

Think Different, Think Dead

Nostalgia sells. And from using living icons as brand ambassadors, Marketers are now stretching back to dip into history. Result: some iconic men & women are being brought back to life!

Can you spot the similarity between Hamburg-based penmaker Mont Blanc and Bollywood flick Lage Raho Munnabhai? Nah... no product placements by the former in the latter; instead, the fact, that both have used Mahatma Gandhi’s imagary – albeit in different ways – to attract eyeballs. Not only did Lage Raho Munnabhai’s promos actively prop up Gandhi’s images in the backdrop, even the storyline incorporated Gandhi and his non-violence credo to successfully ring in the moolah at the box office. This Munnabhai sequel was an instant hit. Similarly, to cosy up with the Indian audience, German pen maker Mont Blanc launched a gold nib plated pen costing a mind-boggling Rs.1.4 million on bapu’s 140th birth anniversary in 2009. The ostentatious effort was to commemorate Gandhi’s historic salt march, but market watchers claim that since Mahatma Gandhi has been also associated with literary achievements, the freedom fighter’s sheen will rub off on Mont Blanc and improve the luxury writing instrument’s standing among India’s discerning target segment. Reportedly, Gandhi’s great-grandson Tushar Gandhi has even endorsed the idea. As a thank you, Tushar’s charitable foundation has already received a donation of $145,000 from Mont Blanc and will receive between $200 and $1,000 for each pen sold. Aditi Agarwal of Ghalla Bhansali Stock Brokers (they’ve recently released a report titled ‘Marketing the Mahatma’), however, takes exception to such marketing moves. “It’s indeed ironical, that Mahatma Gandhi who was considered as an epitome of austerity is being misused by business barons to make money. Marketing and publicity is vital in today’s tough competition, but to what extent? All efforts need to be taken to protect the legacy that Gandhi has left behind,” she argues vehemently.

But, Mont Blanc and Munnabhai are not alone in having made use of Mahatma Gandhi’s name to sell their wares. The list is long. Be it Apple, Telecom Italia, Martin Luther King Jr., Raj Kumar Hirani, or even the American President Barack Obama, all have used Brand Gandhi to break the clutter and reach out to their respective target segments. Leaving aside the hullabaloo of shocked critics and their lengthy petitions to correct the trend, here’s the moot question. What sense does it make to bring back a popular icon from history? Does using the Mahatma as your brand endorsers work better or should marketers settle for current mass icons like Big B, Tendulkar or even couples like Pataudi & Sharmila Tagore?

Some marketers refer to using historical icons as a goodwill gesture (‘paying a tribute’) and if it serves the added purpose of raking in moolah and raising the brand stature, so be it. But the answer to that question could well range from being financially viable (in some cases) to harnessing the product values with the long lasting untarnished image of the endorser. On one thing though, marketers are unanimous viz. the immortal image of these historical ambassadors provides the requisite ‘X factor’ for their brands.

So it’s not only Brand Gandhi who has been used as a brand ambassador by marketers. Che Guevara, Charlie Chaplin or for that matter even Adolf Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussain (recently used in a German AIDS awareness campaign) are also right up there. But, Gandhi has by far been the clear favourite, when it comes to reaching the Indian masses. Remember the ‘Think Different’ campaign launched by Apple in 1997 – with Gandhi in his simple white loincloth and shawl? The image linked an ambassador of immense physical and mental strength to the brand – and helped them break the clutter. Even Italy’s largest telecom company, Telecom Italia used Gandhi in its 2005 campaign and went on to grab the ‘Mezzo Minuto D’oro’ (considered equivalent to the Oscars in the Italian ad-industry) award. Take the case of Luxor, which has consistently used historical figures to illustrate the usage of its highlighters. Their ads showcase usages of Luxor Highlighter by sketching images of Che Guevara, Adolf Hitler and Charlie Chaplin on their ads. Not only have the ads highlighted the historical heros but also the brand, transferring their heroic qualities to the brand. In the process, Luxor also managed to break and rise above the clutter in their segment. Similarly, Rasayana (the anti-stress tea) showed Adolf Hitler smelling a rose with a caption saying, ‘Make peace with the world. Anti-stress tea from Rasayana.’ The slogan simply made the world identify better with the nascent brand. Hitler’s face on the campaign made way for instant recognition among the target audience and made a simple product look smart and maybe, the brand promise even fuelled initial trial purchase.

Thanks to Cherry Shoe Polish, the image of Charlie Chaplin is still afresh in people’s mind. As a matter of fact, the two have become inseparable from each other. It goes without any saying that Charlie Chaplin is loved by everyone alike. His black-and-white persona and humor are evergreen and what better way to describe a black and white shoe polish than an iconic comedian from the black and white era? Charlie rightfully portrayed the idea of ‘enjoy polishing’. Says Alyque Padamsee (who helped create the first series of Cheery ads), “The focus then was on the “perfect gentleman” and the ‘perfect shine’ on his shoes.” The idea of using a black-and-white background has not occurred to Cherry Blossom alone. Apple came out with an ad featuring black and white video footage and print ads featuring legends like Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso. The ad ended with the image of a young girl opening her eyes (as if)to see the possibilities before her. Everyday, the ad featured a different historic figure, with a small Apple logo and the ‘Think Different’ slogan. The idea was to convey that although the world may perceive these (historical icons) as rebels, troublemakers or crazy – Apple sees them as geniuses, because people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do – just what Apple does in its labs. The campaign, completely in line with Apple’s brand positioning, was a hit. The idea of using historical icons as ambassadors is catching on fast in India. State Bank of India, the nation’s largest public sector bank, recently launched a print campaign with pictures of its celebrated account holders in the distant past viz. Dadabhai Naoroji, J.R.D. Tata, J.C. Bose, among others. As per the agency, the idea is to establish SBI’s ‘legacy and reputation’ in the mind of modern consumers. For many, using historical icons as brand ambassadors is the safest bet (besides being economically cheaper), as there are little possibilities of controversies and criticism due to their present deeds. Remember, the quagmire that marketers found themselves in when Salman Khan drove his Land Cruiser over sleeping pavement dwellers in Mumbai or when Sanju Baba landed in jail. Millions of endorsement dollars riding on their backs gave sleepless nights to many. Guess it does pay sometimes to really go ahead and take Apple’s advice: ‘Think Different’!

 
 

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...    

us: racial profiling

Uncle Tom’s cabin!

Obama’s concerns over racism in US are well researched and well read

It was a debate of yesterday. It is still a debate of today and would remain so, even for tomorrow, cans of beer guzzled down the throat or not! Now, it’s not at all about the “stupid” act of Cambridge police in arresting Professor Henry Gates, but about Obama’s lateral comment (extremely intelligently put, we should say), “...there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.” Many Americans ostensibly were shocked by the statement; but they have very less justification.

For Obama was voted to power backed by his commitment to righting this disparity (We quote from his speech in the Congressional Caucus Democratic debate, “In our criminal justice system, African-Americans... [as compared to whites], for the same crime... are arrested/convicted at very different rates. That is something that we have to talk about.”). America has a long deep-rooted history of discrimination. It is a land where women witnessed discrimination and were not allowed to vote till 1920 (they were allowed only after the passage of the 19th Amendment to the constitution). The struggle of blacks for their rights is no more a jaw-dropping story. Going by Department of Justice data, by the mid of 2008, 4,777 black male inmates per 100,000 black males were held in prisons, compared to 727 white male inmates per 100,000 white males – this despite the fact that blacks make up only 13.4% of the US population.

Blacks experience disproportionate burden of health diseases, injury and death. Researches show that in 2002, HIV deaths amongst blacks were approximately 11 times more amongst whites. National Urban League’s 2006 annual report revealed that out of 580,000 blacks who are serving sentence in prison, a mere 6.89% males had a bachelor’s degree. Nearly 70% blacks in prison never completed their schooling. Likewise, in a 1994 Department of Justice survey of felony, it was found that blacks were in general more likely to receive prison sentences than whites. Between 1995-2000, out of 682 defendants facing death penalty, 48% were blacks, 29% were Hispanics, and 20% were whites. Following this, a study by Wake County found African Americans had bail set 18% higher than whites charged with similar crimes.

Even in terms of earnings, researches show that in 1964, African Americans’ income was 58% of white people’s income. In 1991, African Americans’ income was just 57% of income of whites. And in the US army, as per the recent data, while 62.7% are whites, 20% are blacks. At the commissioned officer level, the ratio is 12.4% blacks vs 73% whites.

The recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 27% of Americans think Professor Gates is more at fault for getting arrested than Sergeant Crowley! If you think that that percentage is fortunate for a change, don’t be hasty in passing the baton of goodness. Wrong judgements and hasty ‘Rodney King’ decisions by police force are not new phenomena. Some cutting cases – Amadou Diallo, an African immigrant, was shot dead in 1999 by police officers who mistook his taking out a wallet for a gun; he was shot 41 times. For a similar reason, Sean Bell was shot to death by NYPD in 2006 – shot 50 times. Omar Edwards, May 2009 – same result! The list is long...

The customary approach of whites on blacks clearly makes the case against James Crowley and in favour of Dr. Louis Henry Gates. President Obama is unquestionably right with his comments against Crowley. They’re damn well timed, and he must be gloating at the amount of media coverage his statements got. It was not always like this.

Take for instance, the 100th anniversary of the NAACP’s founding. In his concluding words, Obama frustratingly comments, “…I’ve noticed that when I talk about personal responsibility in the African American community, that gets highlighted… But then the whole other half of the speech, where I talked about government’s responsibility [towards it] ...that somehow doesn’t make news.” And working towards government’s responsibility is what Obama has done fanatically. While in power in Illinois, he introduced a bill that not only made it compulsory for officers to record the racial background of each person they stopped on the roads, but brilliantly, also forced police to video tape all criminal interrogations (to reduce forced confessions, torture and deaths in police custody).

Everybody in the police department opposed it tooth and nail. The governor came on record to oppose it. Obama faced a scenario of being defeated massively in the 58 seat state assembly. But with conviction, and with the audacity of hope, Obama worked on getting people to his side. When the bill was finally introduced, it was passed 58-0!

We quote from Obama’s iconic Audacity of Hope, from an excerpt where he describes a particular incident sometime after he was trounced badly in the 2000 Congressional elections – “A year and a half later, the scars of that loss sufficiently healed, I had lunch with a media consultant who had been encouraging me for some time to run for statewide office... “You realize, don’t you, that the political dynamics have changed,” he [the media consultant] said as he picked at his salad.

“What do you mean?” I asked, knowing fully well what he meant. We both looked down at the newspaper beside him. There, on the front page, was Osama bin Laden.

“Hell of a thing, isn’t it?” he said, shaking his head. “Really bad luck. You can’t change your name, of course. Voters are suspicious of that kind of thing. Maybe if you were at the start of your career, you know, you could use a nickname or something. But now...” His voice trailed off and he shrugged apologetically before signalling the waiter to bring us the check.

I suspected he was right, and that realization ate away at me...”

Obama always knew that in white America, white Americans will never vote in majority for a black President... On November 4, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama won the US Presidential elections – 95% blacks voted for him; only 43% whites did...     

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?

G8 summit: Swiss alps, Disneyland tour also options...

Next G8: Star Cruise

The summit will also include paragliding, water sports, bungee lessons

With passing time, experts now concur that French premier, and (hyper)active G8 member Nicholas Sarkozy has started looking – and behaving – eerily similar to Sylvester Stallone [Go ahead, give it a try; identify sweet Nick in the photograph]. Funnily, this behavioural similarity extends to the whole G8 belt [US, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Canada, Italy, Russia and Ethiopia... er, alright, if you caught us on this, read on, you seem to be interested], with almost every member contributing his Shylockian best to behaving like a spoilt celebrity during every summit, finally achieving nothing. So we did what we do best [no no, not that; Bush does that better] – we analysed the progress report of the past few summits to decipher what exactly has been achieved in terms of contribution to least developed nations!

G8 summit in Birmingham, England, 1998: Protesters for the first time were formally allowed to give a written letter, which requested G8 to work on the heavy debt burden of the third world. Letter accepted, case dismissed! Nothing much was discussed, leave of course the letter.

Cologne, Germany, 1999: To prove that they were worried about poverty, an ‘officially’ undisclosed amount was sanctioned. According to World Bank, the ‘sanction’ was so small that it wasn’t enough to even provide five bread loaves per person per year per poor country.

Okinawa, Japan, 2000: Aid amount invested in projects: Close to nil; evidently because of billions spent on militarisation of north-east Asia.

Genoa, Italy, 2001: Progress on debt cancellation: Nil! Massive protests took the blame, rather than the G8 members.

Kananaskis, Canada, 2002: Among many important issues, NEPAD [New Partnership for Africa’s Development] was also on agenda. $64 billion was requested, but only $6 billion was sanctioned. The reason? Russia requested – and was presumably given – $20 billion for the upkeep of the Russian nuclear stockpiles.

Evian, France, 2003: “Iraq has WMDs! And everybody better contribute to kill that damn nuke-bomber Saddam!” We told you, Bush churns out gas better!

Georgia, USA, 2004: Main agenda: Extending the controversial Heavily In-debt Poor Countries [HIPC] initiative for debt-relief and to vaccines development. Achieved: Magnanimous relief to Iraq’s $120 billion debt on US insistence.

Gleneagles, Scotland, 2005: This summit, like all years before, was again aimed to provide $50 billion debt-relief to Africa [Nothing new! Nothing achieved!].

Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2006: For the first time in recent history, the G8 leaders proactively agreed on energy security, fighting diseases and encouraging education. Oh yes, it didn’t at all mention them providing any financial assistance!

Heiligendamm, Germany, 2007: Top agenda: Africa! Promises made in 2005 [in Scotland] of $50 billion aid to Africa: More or less overlooked!

Creditably, developed nations in all have donated around $2.5 trillion since 1960 to LDCs. However, official estimates confirm that even this falls short of the required – and so called ‘promised’ – aid amount by a mammoth $3.5 trillion. As per the World Bank, it will cost developed countries just 2.8 cents per person per week to meet the promise. But we believe the first world still hasn’t understood the cheapness of life’s existence for the poor.

Having said that, we have a strategy for poor beleaguered Nick. We suggest that instead of being uselessly exposed to global criticism year after year, the G8 should officially confirm that leaders would meet simply to have a good time. After that, hand over the event management to our team [please, we insist]! Disneyland, Star Cruise, bungee lessons, paragliding, you name it guys, we’ll have that for you. And what about least developed countries? Goddamn those Africans...