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.
Natural disasters interestingly have created huge political legacies (in some cases, destroyed them); an easy read on why some politicians perhaps desperately wait for a natural disaster to come back to power
If Moses had the plagues to help him reserve his following, if Noah played to the end of the world tune to deliver his Ark to fame, then modern day politicians have had various brilliantly timed natural disasters to catapult up their political fortunes; and in some cases, even destroy them due to their lack of tactical intent. The more intelligent ones have used disasters to not only cleanse their corrupt and tainted pasts but to decimate opposition too. Presenting a cross-continent easy read correlation review.
On December 23, 1972 an earthquake in central Managua, in Nicaragua, helped reveal the social rifts of the Somoza family dictatorship, who reportedly embezzled a huge pie of the foreign aid. This quake became the key excuse for people (underpinned by Sandinista revolution) to come together to topple down the Somoza dictatorship. Likewise in 1976, in China, Mao’s successor Hua Guofeng converted the earthquake to his benefit. He popularised the Tangshan earthquake as a symbolic event and used it as an image-building exercise to eventually destroy the opposition’s hold in the region. During the same period, in Guatemala, the military dictatorship overlooked the rehabilitation of rural areas (and only concentrated on the capital city) after a major quake, and this led to one of the biggest uprisings in the country’s history. Although in this case dictatorship was somehow able to crush the revolution using brute force, some years down the line, in 1985, the self help groups of Mexico ignited the independence movement post the infamous 1985 Mexico quake and succeeded in putting a full stop to the one party system of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional.
While tectonic shifts on the surface have done a lot to make or mar political fortunes, similar tremors below the sea level have been equally omnipresent on making or marring political fortunes. The tsunami, which occurred a few days before the eve of 2005, killed over 220,000 people in 11 countries across the Indian Ocean; but the way it fired up the destiny of Thailand’s embattled Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra is mind-boggling to say the least. For the uninitiated, the disaster happened a few months before the scheduled national parliamentary elections in Thailand. Thaksin – facing ignominious corruption charges – grabbed this opportunity. He did everything possible to make his voters believe that he was capable of handling the calamity. In the course of that endeavour, he denied the need for any international aid and executed a near-effective recovery plan. This bold effort of Thaksin decoded itself into greatly improved rating points.
His disaster reaction timing made him win the forthcoming polls too, despite his near to worse track record (He was overthrown a year later by military, but his party again won the elections in the post-coup elections). The tsunami also led to the concept of Wave Diplomacy in Indonesia. The tsunami reduced the city of Aceh,
in the island of Sumatra, to ruins. Historically, Aceh had been at war with the government for almost 29 years, but thanks to the tsunami, the Indonesian government and the separatist groups cracked an unexpected peace agreement. Separatist rebel groups gave up their demand for independence as they didn’t want any destruction.
Even Peru’s quake came as a silver lining for the President-in-term, Alan Garcia. A devastating 8.0 magnitude earthquake struck Peru’s central coast on August 15, 2007, just a year after Garcia was elected as the president. The president spent four straight nights sleeping by candlelight in Pisco, the most affected region. He moved to an air force base in the vicinity of the quake’s epicentre, and had all his cabinet meetings there itself. This act of his paid him well instantly as his approval ratings skyrocketed like never before. Garcia’s approval ratings, which had dropped from 63% to 35% by the end of his first year in office, post his quake efforts reached a resounding 76%.
However, some – it’s quite evident – don’t learn. Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in August 2005. Katrina almost destroyed the whole of New Orleans. George Bush, who had a golden opportunity to redeem his Iraq misadventures and his administration’s WMD lies, flopped without recourse. Not only was he unable to provide an immediate and effective response to the affected zones, his administration failed in various areas of post disaster work too. In January 2005, while Bush’s approval ratings among Republicans was 91%, it fell to 78% right after Katrina. And overall, across America, Bush’s ratings collapsed to 41% in October 2005 and a worse 38% in November 2005. Bush’s dismal ratings, for information, never recovered throughout his term – that is how long lasting the impact of one mismanaged disaster can be. But a Black man, it seems, is leading the learning curve pretty well. The recent Haiti earthquake gave the US president Barack Obama a fantastic opportunity to shore up his crashing ratings. Obama had earlier implemented an extremely strict policy of banning immigration from Haiti and had called for deporting back all such immigrants. To start with, he has temporarily cancelled this deportation program (Around 60% of Haiti’s budget depends on foreign aid and thus they need the remittances of those 30,000 people who work in the US). Secondly, Obama has pledged $100 million and many US troops for post quake relief efforts. Obama’s approval ratings have mystically started improving as if on cue, from 46% before the quake to 50% (CBS News Poll).
Evidently, for politicians who understand the correlation coefficients well, natural disasters are boom times to build on popularity, but only through a committed and sincere focus on altruistic development. During such times, words matter, actions most. It’s a miserable irony that politicians have never understand that even poverty is a kind of natural disaster resulting in hunger, illnesses and millions of deaths globally
In road accidents; now, why doesn’t that rankle you?
On the one hand, Indian government recently gave a green signal to the draft legislation which will facilitate setting up of a national-level body that would recommend standards for design, construction and maintenance of highways, road safety standards for motor vehicles and trauma centres for the country. Then, on the other hand, the recent Global Status Report on Road Safety, released by the World Health Organisation, reveals that India leads a group of ten countries with a horrendous road safety record.
Massive road accidents are not a one time event in India but daily affairs. As per most recent government figures, about 1.2 lakh people lost their lives in 2007 due to road accidents. On an average, more than one lakh people lose their lives due to road accidents in India every year. This is in spite of the government allocating crores of rupees towards road safety every year. But like most projects, a large pie of this amount remains unused and unspent. Talking in numbers, in 2004-05, out of Rs.40 crore meant for road safety, only around Rs.35 crore was actually utilized; in 2005-06, Rs.30 crore of the Rs.43 crore allocated was used; while in 2006-07, only Rs.43 crore of the Rs.47 crore was used.
What’s most remarkable is that among those dying of road accidents, pedestrians and cyclists make up the majority. In spite of having a very low population to vehicles ratio, the mortality rate in India in road accidents is 8.7 per 100,000, compared to 5.6 in the UK and 6.7 in Japan. Going by an official report, the social cost of accidents in India is estimated to be around Rs.55,000 crore (in the years 1999-2000), which constituted 3% of the GDP for the year.
In the last few decades, a large part of the investment was directed towards making flyovers and better roads for motorists, but not much heed was given to pedestrians and cyclists. In short, every possible policy measure was adopted to make lives of motorist much safer. It’s only the recent years that have seen subways and dedicated cycle paths. More, of course, needs to be done.
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...
It has been routinely predicted that salvation will be found in tech- advancement; is all the government tech babble pure nonsense?
Considering that billions still live below the poverty line across the world, the fact that countries can justify raking up investments into so called futuristic tech-areas illustrating an unrealistic and impractical canvas of future technological development that would supposedly bring the advent of utopia, is not only ironic but cruelly criminal to those underprivileged billions. In this issue, the IIPM Think Tank analyses technologies that have either brought quasi revolutions or endangered the economic existence of nations.
Most of this Olympic tech-orientation can be attributed to developments that were being experienced in Japan in the early 20th century. But not without costs. Russia’s numerous failed space missions, the Chernobyl disaster, the infamous Three Mile Island nuclear accident (cleaning up cost around $975 million), the Ariane 5 explosion ($500 million) – all these and other incidents took economies of some countries a few years back.
But then, these are only totem pole examples. The ring leaders are others. Take for instance the money spent on space missions by the US during 1957-1975, which stood at $100 billion (USSR mirrored some facets of the insane spending; for example, by 1989, it was spending around $4 billion on space exploration annually). Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, started in 1983, was even more legendary, with costs of over $100 billion. Some experts opine that this space-race eventually gave birth to numerous fissures in the economies of both the countries.
But on the other hand, there are many countries surviving and even thriving on their hi-tech research and hi-tech exports, built through decades of previously seemingly useless tech investments – particularly Japan, followed by other Asian countries like China, Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, Israel.
The on-going technology rivalry spree (especially in China) can be encapsulated in the words of Friedman, who in one of his books writes, “In China today, Bill Gates is Britney Spears. In America today, Britney Spears is Britney Spears.” Talking in numbers, in 2008, China’s software service industry generated 757.3 billion yuan or $110 million in revenue. Israel’s economy is largely backed up by its high tech industry; the percentage of Israelis engaged in the technology sector, and the amount spent on R&D is amongst the highest in the world.
South Korea is ranked first in the world in the Digital Opportunity Index, and first among major economies in the Global Innovation Index; likewise, Taiwan, Hong Kong and many other emerging economies are on a tech-spree to boost their economy. Malaysia is promoting its Multimedia Super Corridor topped up with tax perks and lenient censorship policies since long; Vietnam is all set to develop a local “knowledge economy”, while Myanmar is concentrating on connecting all its key industries on a single IT platform.
There have been amusing fallouts of tech-advancements too. Way back in the 1980s, the generally ‘walled’ East German government allowed access of West German television programmes to its citizens as their studies showed that East Germans who watched West German television were more satisfied with life in the communist regime.
In the last few years, Twitter, Facebook, search engines and similar media are playing a huge role in political and administrative mobilization and apparently hold the strength to raise the hackles of ‘the powers that be’; but these and similar sites also clearly traverse controversial waters as not only do they openly host porn gateways, but also despicably allow slanderous, libellous and defamatory content almost without restrictions in the garb of ‘free speech’. In the same breath, thanks to social networking, Iran’s Green Movement has found its space into numerous contending debate forums. Extending this thought to even nationalism and extremism, Hezbollah and Islamist extremists (and other fundamentalists) are very active online.
All in all, this whole wave of multi-level technology orientation towards building the “biggest, fastest, tallest and mightiest” innovation somehow never talks about how many billions, who currently defecate in the open, will get a self respecting place to stay in. Obama too seems to be playing to the rote. Even though he announced in early 2010 that he planned to eliminate funding for NASA’s manned moon missions, he increased NASA funding by $5.9 billion annually. For $5.9 billion, we estimate Obama could have built 30 million toilets in India’s most underdeveloped regions, catering to 600 million destitute Indians. Imagine how amazing a gesture of goodwill that move could have been!
They say ICT4D helps; we say too
The saga of the dot-com bust would have been enough to kill the initial frenzy of Information and Communication Technologies aka ICT, but for the fact that someone somewhere along the line most intelligently raised the concept of ICT to ICT4D (Information and Communications Technologies for Development). Supported even by profit seeking entities, ICT4D allowed a considerable part of Africa, parts of Asia, Latin America, and other developing & underdeveloped nations to leapfrog over many developed nations and their prevailing, slow and archaic infrastructure with a focus on social and economic development.
If Singapore was a developed nation revamping its administration using ICT4D to an extent where public participation in government touched new heights, India was a developing nation where a cigarette major initiated an iconic concept educating villagers how to retail their produce through the Internet; they call the forums e-Choupals. The All China Women’s Federation used ICT4D to help rural women get access to updated health information online and to provide them secret counselling on rape and abuse. Cuba is practicing online health initiatives while Egypt is using ICT4D to encourage rural education. In countries like China with a massive rural population, newspapers are using ICT4D to go on-line and reach larger sections.
There are macro advantages too. Going by official reports, Egypt’s overall economy grew by 4.7%, pumped up by investments in ICT4D, which experienced a 14.6% growth. The computer and semi-conductor industry supporting ICT4D today forms the back-bone of economies like China, Taiwan and a few other Asian economies. Many developed nations are relying on continuous development in third world countries like India and China for their own future growth. And that is possible only if the purchasing powers of the disadvantaged billions living in these countries (more in India) is increased. If that needs to be double quick, then ICT4D is a social re-engineering process we cannot ignore.
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?
Give me my legal right this time - The Return of the Last Samuri...
Ex-President Pervez Musharraf’s desire to enter Pakistan’s politics, again, has some good and some bad with it. However, the good seems to surpass the bad at the moment
Few were ready to denote General Pervez Musharraf’s Presidential exit and his unannounced exile as his walk into the sunset; the general view was that he would return to fight another day. It seems that the time has come, as he seeks the company’s top post again, albeit via the democratic route this time. In his address on Feburary 16, 2010, to the Chatham House think-tank, he said, “I love my country and I would do anything for Pakistan. However, it is for the people of Pakistan who need to decide… I have to come through the political process, through the process of elections. But I think it’s very good, it’s very good because I think I will have that legitimacy, which I never had…” This remark of Musharraf shows that he still lives in the belief that this reign (rather eight year long dictatorial regime) was the most successful political period in the history of Pakistan. In addition, he expects the Pakistani people to now vote for him and bring him back to power. And as he admits himself, being a dictator wasn’t helping his cause either.
There is no denial to the fact that Pakistan, today, is in a process of utter disintegration. A brief recall of Pakistan’s past will make it clear that the ground for Pakistan’s disintegration was all set during Musharraf’s presidency. It was actually during Musharraf’s time that corruption found its new highs within the whole bureaucratic hierarchy. Today, Musharraf stays in one of London’s most expensive areas. Covertly and overtly supporting terrorist and extremist blocks and even manipulating their actions against India, Musharraf is an excellent example of how shrewd scheming and manipulation can be diplomatically window dressed in hyperbole words.
Musharraf has himself admitted boldly that the Kashmiri insurgency was fathered in Pakistan. But in the same voice, he also says that the Indian Muslim youth are increasingly feeling alienated. Strangely, one doesn’t hear him commenting on Pakistani Muslim youth that much. While stating his desire to return to power – and commenting that the Pakistani people need to decide on the issue – Musharraf forgets that it’s the same people who want him to be punished for the mammoth money laundering case that is still pending against him.
But then, Pakistan also saw something remarkable in Musharraf’s time. Between 1999 to 2007, Pakistan’s economy, revenue, per capita income, exports grew by 100% while foreign reserves, stock exchange, foreign direct investment grew by a jaw dropping 500%. The country also saw marked reductions in poverty and illiteracy levels. In 2006, Pakistan was the 3rd fastest growing economy of the world and a preferred destination for investment and also saw its ranking in almost all international lists improving. This dictator also gave licenses to almost 50 TV channels to operate.
But then, the current gloomy future of Pakistan is not safe for India’s internal security. Undoubtedly, if Pakistan disintegrates, the probability of the power and nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extremists will be quite high. In the given situation, would Musharraf be a good choice for India to support as the President? That’s a choice between the Devil and the DeepSea, as India stands a loser whichever way the Pakistani cookie crumbles. Irrespective of any person in power in Pakistan, India would be seen as a legacy enemy and a violator of the rights of Kashmir. To that end, the American hold over Pakistan – however managed – is not only to India’s benefit, but to the whole region as well.
A joke in Pakistan goes like this. With 50% of Pakistani citizens illiterate, at any given moment only half of them make sensible statements. Musharraf qualifies on that statistic pretty well. He makes sense only half the time.
'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.
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.
2009 was been a busy year for all those who battled against human rights violations. Human rights activists were busy campaigning for a range of issues; from people harassed in places like Gaza and Sri Lanka to illegal prisons, genocides and bonded labour.
Amidst all these, there was a ‘ray of hope’ in the form of America’s new President. Obama’s promises like closing Guantanamo Bay’s prison, bringing peace in Central Asia, decreasing troops in Iraq, et al brought in some good news for the activists. But by the end of 2009, all this has turned out to be more or less a service of the lip. To worsen matters, many other human rights scandals like BlackWater (in Iraq), sexual harassments of Tamil women in refugee camps, debate over arrest warrant of Omar Bashir (the Sudanese president) and the recent news of resurfacing of ‘Blood Diamond’ activities have shamed the world. According to recent reports by various NGOs, blood diamonds are still trading freely and smuggling is quite rampant. Both Human Rights Watch and UN’s Kimberley Process want such countries to be suspended out of diamond trade; but unfortunately, no concrete action has been ordered so far. While the beginning of 2009 gave some hope to human rights activists, they have found themselves back to square one in 2010 – rather, a few steps backward. Since no major breakthrough happened in 2009, the whole of 2010 will obviously be a busy season for both the activists and abusers. Issues regarding war crimes and illegal prisons will continue to be paramount. Even numerous pending and ignored cases at the International Court of Justice are expected to be closed due to huge media pressure. In addition, 2010 is anticipated to be a year where the residual factors (war crimes) of war and conflicts will take centre stage.
domestic violence
Closed doors...
Over the past few decades, the laws regarding domestic violence have grown from being mere laws to providing safety for victims. Many countries have seen a surge in deployment of special and dedicated teams of police, advocates, courts and experts; thus making the fight against domestic violence a priority. However, prosecution of repeated violators is not being handled properly.
Talking in terms of numbers, domestic violence has seen a rise, during the last decade, especially in the ‘developed’ western countries. Moreover, along with cases of domestic violence against women, even issues regarding domestic violence towards men have surfaced. Between 1989 and 2004, around 9000 men died in domestic violence. Many international bodies under the aegis of UNICEF, like ‘The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women’, ‘Convention on the Rights of the Child’, and ‘the Platform for Action adopted at the Fourth International Conference on Women’, are trying to fight this social malaise at their level. But the progress seems to be snail-paced due to lack of effective mechanisms at a global level. A WHO multi-country study reflects, “Between 10% & 52% of women reported being physically abused by an intimate partner... between 10% & 30% said they had experienced sexual violence by an intimate partner. Between 10% & 27% of women and girls reported having been sexually abused...” Even today, many African and Asian countries (like Angola, Nigeria & Bangladesh) don’t have laws safeguarding women from domestic violence. Only a few third world countries (like Hong Kong) have adopted laws on same-sex domestic violence while most third world countries are yet to accept the existence of such relationships.
With the battle not even half won, the fight against this problem will be a prominent issue at all socio-global forums in 2010. With an increasing number of women entering political and economic chambers, we should hopefully see some progress this year.
water scarcity
The new gold
With the water table depleting, agricultural land is losing its fertility as dangerously – if not faster. Almost all developed and developing countries are leaving no stone unturned to save water and keep the land arable. In 2007, the Spanish government fined citizens caught watering their plants with 9,000 euros. Cyprus is buying water from Greece, and Australian cities are buying water to help their farmers. On one hand, China is planning to redirect Himalayan water, and on the other, California is planning a water-rationing system.
Presently, around ten corporate magnates dominate the global drinking water industry. This whole business model of purchasing ‘water laden land’ is not as simple as it seems. Rich countries have started a land-grabbing process. Countries like China, Kuwait and Sweden are snapping up vast tracts of agricultural land in third world nations (mainly in Africa) under the veil of outsourcing their agriculture, but actually, they are eying the vast reserves of water these lands contain! Recently, Korean company Daewoo also plunged into this business by considering a 99-year lease on 1.3 million hectares of Madagascar land. Middle-East countries, which have huge drinking water problems, are well into this business. While Qatar is trying to grab 40,000 hectares in Kenya, UAE is targeting 30,000 hectares in Sudan. And the common feature among all these deals is that these lands contain huge water reserves. With the global bottled water market slated to have a value of $86.4 billion by 2011, grabbing fertile land serves a dual purpose – using the land to produce extra crops to mitigate the food crisis and also creating a potential market for bottled water, especially in third world countries. By 2025, over 1.4 billion people in 36 countries will be without adequate drinking water.
Water is being deemed as the ‘new oil’; and war over water would be no surprise in 2010. It seems that the gold rush is only waiting for a sequel. The new gold is sans any colour or lustre; but it’s definitely far more precious!
When it comes to mass transportation, green options are being developed aplenty, but almost all are failing the economic viability test. The IIPM Think Tank analyses the economic and social benefit of contemporary machines that will be green, clean and fast – but not necessarily in the same order of priority!
Ice Age, Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age... one would think that we should have come of age after going through these multiple bouts of evolution. But then, mankind has had the penchant for reinventing itself every now and then.
We have displayed that ability exceptionally well with respect to our transport system. The invention of the wheel started it all. Evolution kept ‘happening’, till the time when the entire connotation of transport took a whole new meaning with the invention of the internal combustion engine (that used petrol and petroleum by-products), which laid the foundation stone of modern transportation and gave birth to a huge population of fuel-guzzlers and carbon-emitting machines. It also gave us the concept of black gold; for which many wars have been fought, apart from the spectre of pollution – that has not only contributed to global warming, but also has been the leading reason for cancer.
In the late 20th century, countries started to re-calculate the negative effect of mass transportation on the environment. The focus on power and speed started getting replaced with a focus on green transportation, at least in policy circles, to an extent that the vision of having green transport systems became no longer confined to a few developed countries (In most developed countries, on an average, transport systems consume between 20-25% of total energy – an issue that is motivating the developed nations faster towards alternative less energy consuming systems). Despite all the hullaballoo about the ecological benefits, the clear fact is that the economic benefits of the so called ‘green’ alternatives are absent, and in many cases, too prohibitive for Third World nations (the costs to implement such eco-friendly systems is beyond logical levels and extraordinarily huge – this is an insurmountable impediment considering that even at the current level, almost all public transport systems, irrespective of which nations we consider, are more or less running on losses).
The last decade saw the growth of numerous green systems. But most of them, by the turn of the decade, did not find takers. The much touted hybrids are a key example. A conservative estimate shows that the sale of hybrid vehicles, after so many years of promotion, constitutes just about 2.9% of total automobile sales. Similarly, usage of vehicles using natural gas (called CNG in some countries) is largely confined to transit buses and a few other modes of public transport. Hydrogen fuelled vehicles, even today, remain limited due to lack of a proper fuel distribution network. Electric vehicles have not caught the customer’s fancy due to high battery costs and recharge issues. Even though auto giants are already working on prototype cars powered by fuel cells like Mitsubishi i-MiEV and Nissan Leaf, their time will be tested only when they’re introduced. And the lesser said about the concept of high-speed railways and green air transport systems, the better (even though the bio-fuel based Virgin Galactic airline does stand out in its promise of making the carbon cost of each flight come down to 60% of a conventional aircraft’s).
Strangely, a few initiatives to reduce emissions from current mass transport systems have worked better than the ‘green’ lot, especially considering the fact that oil reserves – by recent estimates – are perhaps never going to get depleted in the near future (or even far, for that matter). In France, pollution-free nuclear electricity has helped trains reduce the carbon emission rate. Researchers are en route to developing more efficient and effective catalytic converters that would further break down the toxicity of vehicle emissions. Auto manufacturers are even focussed on bettering mileages on automobiles with every passing year. For example, as per US Department of Energy data, while the Toyota Landcruiser gave 12 miles per gallon (mpg) on the highway in 1985, the 2010 model gives 18 mpg. The Camary is better, giving close to 35 mpg in 2010!
It’s evident that rather than attempting to invest magnanimously in green spheres that have very less or almost no guarantee of succeeding, there’s heavier credence for attempting to improve what can be done in a short time – the mpg example of Toyota being a totem pole. Can the world stand up to that?
Let’s just fly a lot lower
High speed railway systems have the potential to bring about rapid progress in the war against warming
Many countries are readily investing in environment friendly mode of transport. In this long list of green transport initiatives, countries are going ga-ga over the latest high-speed railway system aka HSR. This craziness makes for good social sense; especially after analysing the recent Eurostar research. The study by Eurostar shows that the train to Paris from London, cuts CO2 emissions per passenger by a jaw dropping 90% when compared to flying on the same route. Going beyond numbers, the environmental benefit due to HSR is more than what any empirical research reveals. As airliners emit their CO2 directly into the upper atmosphere, the impact on environment is much severe.
While the Manchester City Council within UK was an early starter in the HSR revolution – precisely to tap on the increase in efficiency and its environment friendly attributes – most of the developed countries (mostly European) like France, Spain and Germany are already supporting the HSR concept. A few other European countries have also decided to join the HSR network, thus linking the UK and Europe with HSR network in near future.
Reducing the amount of CO2 is just one aspect of HSR as it also comes with added benefits. To a large extent, it solves traffic congestion and air pollution problems. Comprehending this fact, Japan has extended its bullet train network by 76%, thus linking almost all its cities. Europe has decided to add an extra 1,711 more miles by 2010 under a similar program. Thanks to HSR, the air travel frequency between Paris-to-Brussels has almost disappeared after opening up of the HSR link.
What is most astounding is that this HSR model can be emulated in developing countries too. Third world countries will not only benefit due to ‘technology-leapfrogging’ but will also experience a boost in other sectors. They will obviously have a second mover advantage and can reduce loss (by analysing the success model of HSR already in place) and customise the model as per requirement and infrastructure. Implementation of HSR will augment their infrastructure and employment. Besides this, if HSR links the urban and rural areas, it will also decrease urban migration (urban sprawl) and help bridge the rural-urban divide. With proper planning, HSR can give rise to mid-sized cities and satellite towns in developing (and highly populated) Asian nations. Proper planning can surely make HSR a successful socially beneficial model and a landmark social initiative in the third world. Green HSR is, without even an iota of apprehension, a credible answer to carbon emitting short distance air travel.
But governments have to be clear about the fact that private investment would be far and few, as the ‘business’ model, for lack of a better term, doesn’t exist. That the HSR concept would be loss making is a surety from day one. Therefore, the government has to take the initiative. For example, the Chinese government has recently launched the fastest HSR (CRH3) on the planet – trains with an average speed of 217 mph covering a total distance of 663 miles connecting over 20 cities (connecting less developed regions to the metros) and is further planning to expand it to 42 more HSR lines by 2012.
