Charles Payne
Yesterday, BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India,
China, and South Africa) formally announced
the creation of a special reserve fund that will
rival the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
BRICS Fund in
Billions Country IMF in
Billions
$41 China $9.5
$18 Russia $5.9
$18 Brazil $4.3
$18 India $5.8
$5.5 S. Africa $1.9
In addition, a $50 billion Development Bank
(each nation contributing $10 billion) will be
created to help non-member nations build out
their infrastructure. Who knows, maybe
America could dip into the fund to help bridge
the gap in the financing needed to improve
highways and bridges by 2020. According to
the America Society of Civil Engineers,
governments (state and federal) will fall $1.6
trillion short of the $3.6 trillion needed.
Of course, that is not going to happen. In fact,
BRICS and other nations in developed
countries believe that the IMF, which made
draconian resources involving the decolonized
nations, have been overly generous to
European borrowers.
IMF
The IMF was created in July 1944, at the
Bretton Woods Conference. IMF Special
Drawing Rights (SDRs) are issued through the
General Resource Account (GRA) to borrowers:
117 Members
$302 Billion Total Assets
$3.2 Billion Gold
$142.7 Billion Currencies r Genl Resource
Account
General Resource
Account SDR % Outstanding
GRA
Africa 856 0.9
Asia/Pacific 1,640 1.8
Europe 80,373 89.2
ME/CA 5,931 6.6
Western Hemisphere 1,382 1.5
The move by BRICS is an extension of the
financial deals between them and other non-
western nations. It illustrates a determination
to eventually move away from the US dollar
and further mitigate America's influence. Part
of the issue is President Obama's waning
popularity; according to Pew, only South Korea
has a higher favorable opinion than in 2009.
The other part of the equation is the growing
economic clout of the emerging nations and
sleights felt through the large international
organizations like the World Bank and the
IMF.
Brazil, Russia, India
and China
% World
GDP
% IMF
Voting
24.5 10.3
Germany, France,
UK, Italy
% World
GDP
% IMF
Voting
13.4 10.6
Brazil, Russia, India and China
It's a good wake-up call for the United States,
which has to decide if it wants to bow out
(somewhat) gracefully or continue to be the
economy that stirs the global economic drink.
Economic Date and Corporate Earnings
Earnings beats from huge names turned equity
futures around, although there is a cautious
aura about them.
> Goldman Sachs $4.10, Street was looking
$3.05
> JP Morgan $1.46, Street was looking for
$1.30
> Johnson & Johnson $1.66, Street was looking
for $1.55
Retail Sales came in +0.2 against consensus of
+0.6, but April and May were both revised
higher. Out of the 13 total categories, 9
categories came in higher and the ex-auto was
+0.4, in-line with the Street consensus.
Retail sales might be stronger than
government data, in terms of moving the
market, as chain store sales are climbing
higher each week with strong year over year
changes.
16 Jul 2014
CULTIVATING A CURIOUS MIND
DR. Ben Carson
I recently returned home after two weeks of
engagements in New Zealand and Australia
focusing on empowerment through reading.
The Kiwis and Aussies are not very different
from Americans, even though they inhabit the
opposite side of the globe.
I was struck by the way many people
perceived the political atmosphere in the
United States. Although the well-educated
individuals who have access to all of the
American cable channels tend to be well
informed on the issues, most people had only
heard that America has finally repaired its
broken medical system with the advent of
Obamacare and now everyone, including the
indigent, has excellent health care. They were
under the impression that most Americans are
very happy with Obamacare and with their
wonderful president, who had ushered in a
great new day in America with his brilliance in
many areas.
Many people were shocked when I relayed the
facts about the deleterious effects of
Obamacare on employment, skyrocketing
insurance premiums and the displacement of
health care providers. Furthermore, they had
little knowledge about Benghazi, the Internal
Revenue Service scandal, the Veterans Affairs
debacle or the depth of our financial woes. In
other words, they were just like a multitude of
Americans who pay little attention to their
news sources and are not curious enough to
seek multiple sources and arm themselves
with enough historical knowledge to be able to
decipher truth from fiction.
Fortunately, I found that most of the people
Down Under are not nearly as dogmatic in
their beliefs as Americans have become. Our
people on either side of the political spectrum
tend to be more close-minded, partaking only
of news sources that align with their
ideological beliefs and in many cases engaging
in the demonization of other information
sources. This, of course, leads to intolerance
and ignorance, which are associated with a
whole cadre of societal problems. Frequently,
that narrow-mindedness is encouraged by
hyper-partisan individuals who actually call
out news outlets such as the Fox News
Channel for ridicule.
Such people might do well to ask themselves
what would become of our country if people
only heard what the government wanted them
to hear. If they could be honest with
themselves, I think they would have to admit
that they would be uncomfortable in that
setting. The mainstream media could provide a
great service to the American people, as well
as people around the world, by embracing
their duty to be objective investigators and
reporters of the news. I realize the likelihood
of that occurring is small, but hope springs
eternal.
I was delighted with the enthusiasm for
reading Down Under, and with the
understanding that virtually any young person,
regardless of their economic background, can
empower himself with the knowledge that
comes from reading. This acquisition of
knowledge is the antidote to the herd
mentality induced by an agenda-driven media.
Reading was emphasized so strongly among
the early settlers of America that anyone who
finished the second or third grade was
completely literate, as is borne out in the
beautiful prose that characterized the writing
style and letters of the Western frontiers of
America in the early 19th century. Many
Southern aristocrats also exhibited impressive
writing skills and understanding of the English
language.
Interestingly, the same highly educated rulers
forbade under enormous penalty the teaching
of slaves to read. They fully understood how
empowering education and knowledge are. It
is likely that Frederick Douglass fled the
plantation to escape the wrath of his master,
who was displeased that his slave was
learning to read. Slaves were supposed to be
obedient and grateful for the magnanimous
protection and provisions afforded them by
their "wonderful" masters.
Today many people in America slavishly
devote themselves to a political party without
engaging in critical analysis of whether the
philosophies of that party are really in sync
with their true values and with the betterment
of their position in society. If decades of such
devotion leads to more broken families, more
out-of-wedlock births, more involvement with
the criminal justice system, more poverty and
more dependency on government, maybe it is
time to ask whether such devotion is
warranted.
I was honored to be able to encourage many
of the disadvantaged young people of Australia
and New Zealand to take control of their own
destinies through education and reading. I was
thrilled by the trip sponsors' generous
financial contributions to the Carson Scholars
Fund, enabling us to reach more American
students and emphasize the acquisition of
knowledge and the development of
humanitarian qualities.
I am convinced that the dream of our
Founding Fathers of a free nation filled with
knowledgeable and caring people who trust in
God and accept personal responsibility is still
possible. Each of us has a role to play in the
realization of that dream. A big part of that
role is self-education. We need to read all
kinds of books and articles and experience a
variety of electronic media. We should not
engage in self-censorship, which creates a
proclivity for indoctrination. I am convinced
that a well-informed American populace will
not be manipulated into relinquishing a
beautiful American dream for all.
I recently returned home after two weeks of
engagements in New Zealand and Australia
focusing on empowerment through reading.
The Kiwis and Aussies are not very different
from Americans, even though they inhabit the
opposite side of the globe.
I was struck by the way many people
perceived the political atmosphere in the
United States. Although the well-educated
individuals who have access to all of the
American cable channels tend to be well
informed on the issues, most people had only
heard that America has finally repaired its
broken medical system with the advent of
Obamacare and now everyone, including the
indigent, has excellent health care. They were
under the impression that most Americans are
very happy with Obamacare and with their
wonderful president, who had ushered in a
great new day in America with his brilliance in
many areas.
Many people were shocked when I relayed the
facts about the deleterious effects of
Obamacare on employment, skyrocketing
insurance premiums and the displacement of
health care providers. Furthermore, they had
little knowledge about Benghazi, the Internal
Revenue Service scandal, the Veterans Affairs
debacle or the depth of our financial woes. In
other words, they were just like a multitude of
Americans who pay little attention to their
news sources and are not curious enough to
seek multiple sources and arm themselves
with enough historical knowledge to be able to
decipher truth from fiction.
Fortunately, I found that most of the people
Down Under are not nearly as dogmatic in
their beliefs as Americans have become. Our
people on either side of the political spectrum
tend to be more close-minded, partaking only
of news sources that align with their
ideological beliefs and in many cases engaging
in the demonization of other information
sources. This, of course, leads to intolerance
and ignorance, which are associated with a
whole cadre of societal problems. Frequently,
that narrow-mindedness is encouraged by
hyper-partisan individuals who actually call
out news outlets such as the Fox News
Channel for ridicule.
Such people might do well to ask themselves
what would become of our country if people
only heard what the government wanted them
to hear. If they could be honest with
themselves, I think they would have to admit
that they would be uncomfortable in that
setting. The mainstream media could provide a
great service to the American people, as well
as people around the world, by embracing
their duty to be objective investigators and
reporters of the news. I realize the likelihood
of that occurring is small, but hope springs
eternal.
I was delighted with the enthusiasm for
reading Down Under, and with the
understanding that virtually any young person,
regardless of their economic background, can
empower himself with the knowledge that
comes from reading. This acquisition of
knowledge is the antidote to the herd
mentality induced by an agenda-driven media.
Reading was emphasized so strongly among
the early settlers of America that anyone who
finished the second or third grade was
completely literate, as is borne out in the
beautiful prose that characterized the writing
style and letters of the Western frontiers of
America in the early 19th century. Many
Southern aristocrats also exhibited impressive
writing skills and understanding of the English
language.
Interestingly, the same highly educated rulers
forbade under enormous penalty the teaching
of slaves to read. They fully understood how
empowering education and knowledge are. It
is likely that Frederick Douglass fled the
plantation to escape the wrath of his master,
who was displeased that his slave was
learning to read. Slaves were supposed to be
obedient and grateful for the magnanimous
protection and provisions afforded them by
their "wonderful" masters.
Today many people in America slavishly
devote themselves to a political party without
engaging in critical analysis of whether the
philosophies of that party are really in sync
with their true values and with the betterment
of their position in society. If decades of such
devotion leads to more broken families, more
out-of-wedlock births, more involvement with
the criminal justice system, more poverty and
more dependency on government, maybe it is
time to ask whether such devotion is
warranted.
I was honored to be able to encourage many
of the disadvantaged young people of Australia
and New Zealand to take control of their own
destinies through education and reading. I was
thrilled by the trip sponsors' generous
financial contributions to the Carson Scholars
Fund, enabling us to reach more American
students and emphasize the acquisition of
knowledge and the development of
humanitarian qualities.
I am convinced that the dream of our
Founding Fathers of a free nation filled with
knowledgeable and caring people who trust in
God and accept personal responsibility is still
possible. Each of us has a role to play in the
realization of that dream. A big part of that
role is self-education. We need to read all
kinds of books and articles and experience a
variety of electronic media. We should not
engage in self-censorship, which creates a
proclivity for indoctrination. I am convinced
that a well-informed American populace will
not be manipulated into relinquishing a
beautiful American dream for all.
AFGHANISTAN AND REGIONAL SECURITY: AFTER ELECTIONS
The outcomes discussed are based on the paper,
‘Afghanistan’s Region: 2014 and Beyond’,
published by Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES). The
results of the preliminary elections have just been declared and the Afghan Security Forces ensured that they were relatively peaceful. They were able to do so because they have an upper hand with the Taliban. However, upon the imminent departure of the International Security Forces, there is bound to be a dip. Following this dip, there are two likely
scenarios. In the first scenario, the Taliban suffers a gradual decline, and the absence of foreign troops eliminates incentives for fighters to join their ranks, thus hindering recruitment. In the second scenario, security rapidly deteriorates with the Taliban establishing a de-facto state, but even this outcome does not anticipate the fall of Kabul.
There have been reports of rigging in the elections with prime candidate Abdullah Abdullah slipping in the race and this is problematic because the elections need to have legitimacy in the eyes of the Afghan public. It is also important that the Afghan Security Forces have access to economic resources
because they are a key factor in the determination of an outcome.
India’s primary interest in Afghanistan is to ensure
that it does not become a sanctuary for anti-India
militant outfits and that would include preventing a
takeover of the country by extremists. For this to
be possible, Afghanistan needs to become a viable
economic entity, and for this, India must establish
a corridor of trade through Central Asia since it is
not viable through Pakistan alone. India has been
providing aid but is not prepared to put boots on
the ground because of the inherent risk of NATO
troops pulling out early if it does so. India has not
been very successful in converting goodwill into
influence; there also needs to be greater focus on
the development of infrastructure in Afghanistan.
India should also be a little more discerning about
projects taken up in Afghanistan. There has been
slight favouritism when it comes to provinces
dominated by Pashtuns, and little work has been
done in former Northern Alliance states; this could
be remedied by partnering with NATO on some of
the projects. Afghanistan’s stability is in India’s
interest and India must do whatever is feasible in
order to achieve the desired outcome and when
NATO forces do pull out, India will have to
shoulder greater responsibility in Afghanistan.
There are three major issues in the current
relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan:
• Border Issues : The ghosts of the Salala incident
(November 2011) still haunt the relationship, and
despite mutual suspicion, superficial attempts at
cooperation have been loosely supervised by the
US Afghan Military delegations have been visiting
Pakistan in order to have discussions on border
machinations. Pakistan has requested the Afghans
to ensure that the provinces of Kunar and Nuristan
do not harbour any anti-Pakistan elements and
that there are no support attacks on any Pakistani
installations. In return for this, Pakistan will
restrain its support to the Afghan Taliban. Pakistan
will also expect assistance in the hunt for Maulana
Fazlullah. Expectations for improved relations are
low because of the lack of sincerity on both sides
and the lack of genuine intelligence sharing.
• Reconciliation with the Taliban: The Afghans want
to lead and be in control of the process while
Pakistan wants the exact opposite. Meanwhile,
there have been developments in the ‘Qatar
Process’ because the US has convinced moderate
elements in the Taliban based in Qatar to distance
themselves from Pakistan’s ISI. The ISI expressed
its disapproval by detaining the twin brothers of
Tayyab Agha for 15 days. The Afghan Taliban has
clearly made its bid for independence but Pakistan
will try to scuttle this effort through its own proxies
and will use limited violence to get what it wants.
• Trade Issues : Trade and transit issues have been
bedevilled right from the time of the first 1950
treaty, which gives Afghanistan access to the port
of Karachi. However, 80 per cent of the imports
come back into Pakistan even though they are
assigned for Afghanistan because they are brought
back in and sold at premium prices. There is an
adverse balance of trade. Afghanistan wants to be
able to send its goods to India via Pakistan and it
is currently impossible for Indian goods to make
their way to Afghanistan through Pakistan despite
the heavy demand for them. Another issue is the
corruption of Pakistani Customs, which has
completely looted the container cargo business and
causes frequent delays of perishable goods in
transit, rendering them useless.
Over 60 experts drafted the report over 2 years.
Iran, Turkey, China and the Central Asian Republics
also provided inputs. These were drafted from a
country point of view and the agreement on what
was required was unanimous. The report has been
launched in Kabul, Islamabad, Istanbul and Tehran.
It will soon be launched in New Delhi as well. There
was a great deal of movement in the selling of
these ideas and that is the essence of the report.
Key features:
•Confidence-building measures: To improve
bilateral relations between Afghanistan and
Pakistan, which have been clouded by mutual
distrust.
•The implementation of a non-interference
agreement: Everybody involved in the drafting of
the report supported this agreement with the
exception of the Pakistani Army and the ISI. The
code of conduct expected and punishments for
non-adherents has been spelt out.
•Policy of neutrality: A clause that was insisted on
by the Afghan Policy Group that drafted the report.
Discussion
•A situation that demands boots on the ground
should never arise.
•The Afghan Taliban wants independence from the
ISI and it is inexorable. Their inevitable
independence must therefore be factored into any
plans for the future.
•The Shia-Sunni dichotomy should also be taken
into account.
•The withdrawal of American troops is a vote-
catcher for President Obama and the Republican
Party cannot use it against him.
•Supporting any candidate in the election might not
have worked out for India and Ashraf Ghani is very
likely to come under US pressure. India would in
fact have been much happier with Zalmai Rasool
but he did not go past the first round.
•An academy to train the Afghan Security Forces
must be set up in Afghanistan itself.
•The worst-case scenario is either trifurcation or
civil war but all of this is based on whether
everyone abandons Afghanistan. Other actors react to the source of the threat and do not wait till it is knocking at the doorstep. It is time to start thinking about the abandonment situation and burden- sharing.
ZARB-E-AZB: THE DECISIVE STRIKE
Salma Malik
Operation Zarb-e-Azb, launched against militants in North Waziristan by the Pakistani military on 15 June is now entering the second phase of clearing and reclaiming lost spaces. A few days ago, Miranshah, an important city, was 80% reclaimed and for the first time since the launch of the operation, the press corps was allowed a guided tour of the place. The Operation was on the cards for a very long time and a recent interview of the previous military spokesperson in which he hinted an intentional delay by the previous military chief, has added to the list of controversies as to why this decision took so long to be set into motion.
The public sentiment was unanimously against the militants and terrorists and heavily in favour of a Sri Lanka type operation that brought down the Liberation Tigers of the Tamil Eelam, without realising the pros and cons of the problem.
Simultaneously, a faction comprising the clergy,
their supporters and empathisers as well as
political parties pitched dialogue with the angry
and disgruntled brethren as a means to appease
and bring them back in the mainstream.
Though the collateral part couldn’t more be
accurate, since the 1980s Afghan war, Pakistan has undergone a drastic transformation, which has affected the entire socio-political, economic and cultural fabric of the society. The decision-makers of the Cold War days, judging the geopolitical developments, made critical but misinformed decisions which served well in short term but proved disastrous in the long term. Resultantly, two generations have paid a heavy price for the militancy and terrorism that haunts their daily lives. Therefore, the argument that this is not our war is as far from the truth as the US’ initial claims of innocence over state failure in Afghanistan.
The elected leadership initially favoured and opted
for an almost unconditional dialogue with the
Tehrik–i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) operating in the
concerned area alone, against stiff public uproar
and opposition from political parties and concerned
quarters. In one sense, the offer and opening a
channel for dialogue was a good tactical measure;
but it had two severe consequences: the military
lost precious time and the militants gained
advantage and crossed over to safer areas across
border or any other place of choice, with their men
and firepower. The militants, as they gained time,
took the inaction and a general lack of consensus
in the political ranks as a sign of weakness and
inflicted heavy damages which included the mass
killing of 26 captured security personnel, and
mounted attacks on Karachi Airport.
Any harboured illusions have since been laid to
rest and since mid-June, the Pakistani armed
forces are engaged in the military operation. With
30,000 troops committed to clear militant
sanctuaries, strongholds and hideouts from the two
main areas of Miranshah and Mirali, the task at
hand has been enormous. The timing was bad,
given that summer could not be more unsuitable
for the troops, compounded by the beginning of the
Islamic month of Ramzan within a fortnight of the
operation.
The herculean task of evacuation and safe passage
to the local population, whose numbers according
to the available data was around 500,000 but by
now the authorities have a registered a figure
around 833, 274 people. Furthermore, Pakistani
authorities, after repeated requests, managed to
secure the Hamid Karzai government in Kabul’s
cooperation in sealing the border – especially in
Nuristan and Kunar provinces, and also disallow
sanctuaries to fleeing militants on Afghan soil; but
this arrangement now appears in jeopardy after a
fatal strike from the Afghan side on a Pakistani
military patrol, claiming several lives.
The resolve with which the military is dealing this
decisive blow is evident to all, but not without
skeptics and criticism. The prime criticism is that
the military strike occurred too late in the day,
allowing an easy and timely escape to the main
culprits. Yet, the zero tolerance policy towards the
TTP and its local or foreign affiliates is what was
long needed. In the absence of an embedded
media, the only narrative available is the military’s.
In response, the military provided a guided tour of
the 80% cleared town of Miranshah to the media.
Will the military operation be sufficient in flushing
out the militants and the larger issue of terrorism?
Definitely not. This is just one aspect of the larger
nationwide effort, which needs to tackle militant
strongholds and nurseries in other parts of the
country; check the inflow of money and support
these actors receive from all quarters; maintain a
zero tolerance approach, and strengthen
governance, law and order as well as judicial
protocols in handling such issues. This won’t be
easy, given how despite a public demand for stiffer
security measures, the Protection of Pakistan
ordinance (POPO) has met with enormous
criticism. To date, the authorities remain indecisive
over the placement of the National Counter-
terrorism Authority.
At the moment, the greater challenge is the
assistance and finally rehabilitation and
resettlement of the Internally Displaced Persons,
supplemented by developing infrastructure and
self-sustaining institutional mechanisms for the
affected population. It is high time the government breaks old great game buffer myths, abolish the British made FCR, and accord full provincial status to the seven agencies. The success of the Operation will carry positive dividends for both Pakistan and Afghanistan. There is a need to stand united for a sustained, stable and peaceful future that can help assure prosperity and better regional relations.
Operation Zarb-e-Azb, launched against militants in North Waziristan by the Pakistani military on 15 June is now entering the second phase of clearing and reclaiming lost spaces. A few days ago, Miranshah, an important city, was 80% reclaimed and for the first time since the launch of the operation, the press corps was allowed a guided tour of the place. The Operation was on the cards for a very long time and a recent interview of the previous military spokesperson in which he hinted an intentional delay by the previous military chief, has added to the list of controversies as to why this decision took so long to be set into motion.
The public sentiment was unanimously against the militants and terrorists and heavily in favour of a Sri Lanka type operation that brought down the Liberation Tigers of the Tamil Eelam, without realising the pros and cons of the problem.
Simultaneously, a faction comprising the clergy,
their supporters and empathisers as well as
political parties pitched dialogue with the angry
and disgruntled brethren as a means to appease
and bring them back in the mainstream.
Though the collateral part couldn’t more be
accurate, since the 1980s Afghan war, Pakistan has undergone a drastic transformation, which has affected the entire socio-political, economic and cultural fabric of the society. The decision-makers of the Cold War days, judging the geopolitical developments, made critical but misinformed decisions which served well in short term but proved disastrous in the long term. Resultantly, two generations have paid a heavy price for the militancy and terrorism that haunts their daily lives. Therefore, the argument that this is not our war is as far from the truth as the US’ initial claims of innocence over state failure in Afghanistan.
The elected leadership initially favoured and opted
for an almost unconditional dialogue with the
Tehrik–i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) operating in the
concerned area alone, against stiff public uproar
and opposition from political parties and concerned
quarters. In one sense, the offer and opening a
channel for dialogue was a good tactical measure;
but it had two severe consequences: the military
lost precious time and the militants gained
advantage and crossed over to safer areas across
border or any other place of choice, with their men
and firepower. The militants, as they gained time,
took the inaction and a general lack of consensus
in the political ranks as a sign of weakness and
inflicted heavy damages which included the mass
killing of 26 captured security personnel, and
mounted attacks on Karachi Airport.
Any harboured illusions have since been laid to
rest and since mid-June, the Pakistani armed
forces are engaged in the military operation. With
30,000 troops committed to clear militant
sanctuaries, strongholds and hideouts from the two
main areas of Miranshah and Mirali, the task at
hand has been enormous. The timing was bad,
given that summer could not be more unsuitable
for the troops, compounded by the beginning of the
Islamic month of Ramzan within a fortnight of the
operation.
The herculean task of evacuation and safe passage
to the local population, whose numbers according
to the available data was around 500,000 but by
now the authorities have a registered a figure
around 833, 274 people. Furthermore, Pakistani
authorities, after repeated requests, managed to
secure the Hamid Karzai government in Kabul’s
cooperation in sealing the border – especially in
Nuristan and Kunar provinces, and also disallow
sanctuaries to fleeing militants on Afghan soil; but
this arrangement now appears in jeopardy after a
fatal strike from the Afghan side on a Pakistani
military patrol, claiming several lives.
The resolve with which the military is dealing this
decisive blow is evident to all, but not without
skeptics and criticism. The prime criticism is that
the military strike occurred too late in the day,
allowing an easy and timely escape to the main
culprits. Yet, the zero tolerance policy towards the
TTP and its local or foreign affiliates is what was
long needed. In the absence of an embedded
media, the only narrative available is the military’s.
In response, the military provided a guided tour of
the 80% cleared town of Miranshah to the media.
Will the military operation be sufficient in flushing
out the militants and the larger issue of terrorism?
Definitely not. This is just one aspect of the larger
nationwide effort, which needs to tackle militant
strongholds and nurseries in other parts of the
country; check the inflow of money and support
these actors receive from all quarters; maintain a
zero tolerance approach, and strengthen
governance, law and order as well as judicial
protocols in handling such issues. This won’t be
easy, given how despite a public demand for stiffer
security measures, the Protection of Pakistan
ordinance (POPO) has met with enormous
criticism. To date, the authorities remain indecisive
over the placement of the National Counter-
terrorism Authority.
At the moment, the greater challenge is the
assistance and finally rehabilitation and
resettlement of the Internally Displaced Persons,
supplemented by developing infrastructure and
self-sustaining institutional mechanisms for the
affected population. It is high time the government breaks old great game buffer myths, abolish the British made FCR, and accord full provincial status to the seven agencies. The success of the Operation will carry positive dividends for both Pakistan and Afghanistan. There is a need to stand united for a sustained, stable and peaceful future that can help assure prosperity and better regional relations.
15 Jul 2014
AND THE WORLD CHANGED
Bill Tatro
One might think that natural disasters, man-
made disasters or man’s inhumanity to man
would have nothing to do with the bull market
started on March 9 , 2009 and still continuing
to today. On the face of it you would be right.
However, when you look below the surface,
there are great similarities and therefore a
great lesson to be learned.
79A.D. was the year when peace had finally
come to the Roman town of Pompeii. After all
of the wars, taxes levied, and overall economic
disruption, I am certain the citizenry were
looking forward to a time that would bring a
degree of normality for all. Unfortunately a
temperamental volcano changed the lives of
20,000 people not only for the year ahead but
for all eternity. They just weren’t expecting it.
At 5:12 am April 18, 1906 certain plates in the
earth’s crust shifted. Four hundred and ten
thousand people who, less than twenty four
hours earlier, were not even aware of what a
seismic reading meant, saw their world change
forever. The San Francisco earthquake
potential had been discussed by many. Most
however believed that possible and probable
were simply words in the Knob Hill lexicon.
They just weren’t expecting it.
December 7 , 1941, “a day that will live in
infamy.” The Empire of Japan attacked the
United States of America and thus thrust us
into the Second World War. On December 6
most Americans were doing their Christmas
shopping, planning parties, or thinking about
who would be taken off the Christmas card list
this year. The sinking of the Arizona and the
deaths of thousands of soldiers and sailors was
the last thing on their mind. They just weren’t
expecting it.
Three hundred thousand people were
evacuated from the area surrounding
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant on March 11,
2011. It was perhaps the greatest nuclear
accident since Chernobyl. The finest minds had
concluded that such an event was not only
unthinkable but also almost impossible.
Therefore, the locals simply went about their
business, until they couldn’t. They just weren’t
expecting.
The markets continue to defy logic. Or do
they? As the usual gravitational pull seems to
be missing, there is something that is
happening right on cue. The so called
professionals are exiting in droves only to be
replaced by the man in the street who has
finally come to the conclusion that it is time to
get in. Of course, right on cue, the clueless
citizenry will look up to see lava pouring
down, plates shifting, bombs dropping, and a
core reactor melting down. All of which will
happen simultaneously as the markets finally
give way to one of the greatest man- made
Keynesian disasters of all time.
He of course will once again be decimated and
will respond “I just wasn’t expecting it.”
One might think that natural disasters, man-
made disasters or man’s inhumanity to man
would have nothing to do with the bull market
started on March 9 , 2009 and still continuing
to today. On the face of it you would be right.
However, when you look below the surface,
there are great similarities and therefore a
great lesson to be learned.
79A.D. was the year when peace had finally
come to the Roman town of Pompeii. After all
of the wars, taxes levied, and overall economic
disruption, I am certain the citizenry were
looking forward to a time that would bring a
degree of normality for all. Unfortunately a
temperamental volcano changed the lives of
20,000 people not only for the year ahead but
for all eternity. They just weren’t expecting it.
At 5:12 am April 18, 1906 certain plates in the
earth’s crust shifted. Four hundred and ten
thousand people who, less than twenty four
hours earlier, were not even aware of what a
seismic reading meant, saw their world change
forever. The San Francisco earthquake
potential had been discussed by many. Most
however believed that possible and probable
were simply words in the Knob Hill lexicon.
They just weren’t expecting it.
December 7 , 1941, “a day that will live in
infamy.” The Empire of Japan attacked the
United States of America and thus thrust us
into the Second World War. On December 6
most Americans were doing their Christmas
shopping, planning parties, or thinking about
who would be taken off the Christmas card list
this year. The sinking of the Arizona and the
deaths of thousands of soldiers and sailors was
the last thing on their mind. They just weren’t
expecting it.
Three hundred thousand people were
evacuated from the area surrounding
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant on March 11,
2011. It was perhaps the greatest nuclear
accident since Chernobyl. The finest minds had
concluded that such an event was not only
unthinkable but also almost impossible.
Therefore, the locals simply went about their
business, until they couldn’t. They just weren’t
expecting.
The markets continue to defy logic. Or do
they? As the usual gravitational pull seems to
be missing, there is something that is
happening right on cue. The so called
professionals are exiting in droves only to be
replaced by the man in the street who has
finally come to the conclusion that it is time to
get in. Of course, right on cue, the clueless
citizenry will look up to see lava pouring
down, plates shifting, bombs dropping, and a
core reactor melting down. All of which will
happen simultaneously as the markets finally
give way to one of the greatest man- made
Keynesian disasters of all time.
He of course will once again be decimated and
will respond “I just wasn’t expecting it.”
THE JEWISH STATE IN A MORALLY SICK WORLD
Dennis Prager
Let's drop the names "Hamas" and "Israel" and
make a list of the characteristics of two
imaginary warring entities. We'll call them
Entity A and Entity B.
Entity A:
--Declares that its raison d'etre is to annihilate
Entity B.
--Sends missiles to explode in the most
populated parts of Entity B in order to kill as
many civilians as possible.
--Uses families and individual civilians as
human shields to protect its own leaders from
attack.
--Tortures and kills domestic political
opponents.
--Has no political or religious freedom and has
no freedom of speech, press, or assembly, and
no independent judiciary.
--Is a theocracy.
--Violently oppresses gays.
--Saturates its education and airwaves with a
demonic hatred of Entity B.
--Rated a "6" by Freedom House in its 2013
report on freedom in the world. Seven is the
worst possible rating. Entity A ranks 6 in
freedom, 6 in civil liberties and 6 political
rights.
Entity B:
--Recognizes the right of Entity A to an
independent existence.
--Has never begun a war with Entity A.
--Has never targeted civilians in Entity A. In
fact, it has sacrificed soldiers in order to avoid
killing Entity A civilians.
--Domestic political opponents -- including
even supporters of Entity A -- not only have
freedom of assembly, press and expression;
they have political parties with representatives
in Entity B's parliament.
--Has freedom of the press, assembly, religion,
and a completely independent judiciary.
--Allows gays full civil rights.
--Has innumerable human rights groups
dedicated to the welfare of people belonging
to Entity A.
--Has no education or broadcasts comparable
to the daily hate in Entity A.
--Freedom House rating for 2014 is 1.5 in
freedom ("1" is best possible); 2 in civil
liberties; 1 in political liberties.
So, then, with which entity does nearly every
government in the world side? Entity A.
And what is the primary concern of the United
Nations, nearly all the world's media, and
nearly all the world's intellectuals? That Entity
B, while hundreds of missiles are launched at
its most populated cities, not kill any of the
civilians among whom Entity A's leaders hide.
The moral gulf between Israel, our Entity B,
and Hamas, our Entity A, is as clear and as
great as the one that existed between the Allies
and Nazi Germany. It is one of the few
instances in today's world when the Nazi
analogy is accurate.
It is clear that while free and democratic
countries such as those in Western Europe
value the freedoms of speech, assembly, and
press for themselves, the absence of these
freedoms among Israel's enemies means
nothing to the Europeans in morally assessing
the Middle East conflict.
The news media, too, have no moral focus.
They are preoccupied with Gazans who have
died, and with the disparity between the
number of Gazans killed and the number of
Israelis killed -- as if that is morally dispositive.
Imagine that during World War II, the Western
press had converged on German hospitals and
apartment buildings and repeatedly announced
the huge disparity between German civilian
deaths and British civilian deaths. More than
10 times the number of German civilians were
killed as were British -- but did that have
anything at all to do with the morality of the
British war against Germany?
The big question, then, is why? Why is decent,
free, democratic Israel not fully supported by
decent countries against the genocidal Islamist
regime of Gaza?
Is there any other example in history of a free
state and a police state at war in which the
free state was deemed morally equivalent to
the police state, or, even more implausibly,
deemed the aggressor? Last week, a New York
Times editorial put the equivalence this way:
"an atmosphere in which each side
dehumanizes the other."
Here, then, are some reasons:
1. The West has lost its way. Europe gave up
on its values after World War I. And the
American left, which dominates the media,
gave up on America's distinctive values after
the Vietnam War.
2. Unlike during World War II, there is a
United Nations today, and it is dominated by
over 50 Islamic countries, their dozens of
allies, and a Security Council on which sit
Russia and China as permanent members.
3. The current American president is a product
of the postwar leftist morality. Wherever the
left is in power, Israel is unpopular at best and
loathed at worst. Thus, Israel's best friend
today is the conservative government of
Canada.
4. The world's news media relentlessly show
images of wounded and dead Gazans. Israel, on
the other hand, though the target of mass-
killing missiles, has thus far been able to avoid
such casualties.
5. Israel is Jewish.
If there are more valid reasons for why the
world equates Israel and its morally primitive
enemies -- or actually deems Israel the villain
-- I have yet to hear them.
Let's drop the names "Hamas" and "Israel" and
make a list of the characteristics of two
imaginary warring entities. We'll call them
Entity A and Entity B.
Entity A:
--Declares that its raison d'etre is to annihilate
Entity B.
--Sends missiles to explode in the most
populated parts of Entity B in order to kill as
many civilians as possible.
--Uses families and individual civilians as
human shields to protect its own leaders from
attack.
--Tortures and kills domestic political
opponents.
--Has no political or religious freedom and has
no freedom of speech, press, or assembly, and
no independent judiciary.
--Is a theocracy.
--Violently oppresses gays.
--Saturates its education and airwaves with a
demonic hatred of Entity B.
--Rated a "6" by Freedom House in its 2013
report on freedom in the world. Seven is the
worst possible rating. Entity A ranks 6 in
freedom, 6 in civil liberties and 6 political
rights.
Entity B:
--Recognizes the right of Entity A to an
independent existence.
--Has never begun a war with Entity A.
--Has never targeted civilians in Entity A. In
fact, it has sacrificed soldiers in order to avoid
killing Entity A civilians.
--Domestic political opponents -- including
even supporters of Entity A -- not only have
freedom of assembly, press and expression;
they have political parties with representatives
in Entity B's parliament.
--Has freedom of the press, assembly, religion,
and a completely independent judiciary.
--Allows gays full civil rights.
--Has innumerable human rights groups
dedicated to the welfare of people belonging
to Entity A.
--Has no education or broadcasts comparable
to the daily hate in Entity A.
--Freedom House rating for 2014 is 1.5 in
freedom ("1" is best possible); 2 in civil
liberties; 1 in political liberties.
So, then, with which entity does nearly every
government in the world side? Entity A.
And what is the primary concern of the United
Nations, nearly all the world's media, and
nearly all the world's intellectuals? That Entity
B, while hundreds of missiles are launched at
its most populated cities, not kill any of the
civilians among whom Entity A's leaders hide.
The moral gulf between Israel, our Entity B,
and Hamas, our Entity A, is as clear and as
great as the one that existed between the Allies
and Nazi Germany. It is one of the few
instances in today's world when the Nazi
analogy is accurate.
It is clear that while free and democratic
countries such as those in Western Europe
value the freedoms of speech, assembly, and
press for themselves, the absence of these
freedoms among Israel's enemies means
nothing to the Europeans in morally assessing
the Middle East conflict.
The news media, too, have no moral focus.
They are preoccupied with Gazans who have
died, and with the disparity between the
number of Gazans killed and the number of
Israelis killed -- as if that is morally dispositive.
Imagine that during World War II, the Western
press had converged on German hospitals and
apartment buildings and repeatedly announced
the huge disparity between German civilian
deaths and British civilian deaths. More than
10 times the number of German civilians were
killed as were British -- but did that have
anything at all to do with the morality of the
British war against Germany?
The big question, then, is why? Why is decent,
free, democratic Israel not fully supported by
decent countries against the genocidal Islamist
regime of Gaza?
Is there any other example in history of a free
state and a police state at war in which the
free state was deemed morally equivalent to
the police state, or, even more implausibly,
deemed the aggressor? Last week, a New York
Times editorial put the equivalence this way:
"an atmosphere in which each side
dehumanizes the other."
Here, then, are some reasons:
1. The West has lost its way. Europe gave up
on its values after World War I. And the
American left, which dominates the media,
gave up on America's distinctive values after
the Vietnam War.
2. Unlike during World War II, there is a
United Nations today, and it is dominated by
over 50 Islamic countries, their dozens of
allies, and a Security Council on which sit
Russia and China as permanent members.
3. The current American president is a product
of the postwar leftist morality. Wherever the
left is in power, Israel is unpopular at best and
loathed at worst. Thus, Israel's best friend
today is the conservative government of
Canada.
4. The world's news media relentlessly show
images of wounded and dead Gazans. Israel, on
the other hand, though the target of mass-
killing missiles, has thus far been able to avoid
such casualties.
5. Israel is Jewish.
If there are more valid reasons for why the
world equates Israel and its morally primitive
enemies -- or actually deems Israel the villain
-- I have yet to hear them.
LAWSUITS AND IMPEACHMENT
Thomas Sowell
Whenever Democrats are in real trouble
politically, the Republicans seem to come up
with something new that distracts the public's
attention from the Democrats' problems. Who
says Republicans are not compassionate?
With public opinion polls showing President
Obama's sinking approval rate, in the wake of
his administration's multiple fiascoes and
scandals -- the disgraceful treatment of
veterans who need medical care, the Internal
Revenue Service coverups, the tens of
thousands of children flooding across our open
border -- Republicans have created two new
distractions that may yet draw attention away
from the Democrats' troubles.
From the Republican establishment, Speaker of
the House John Boehner has announced plans
to sue Barack Obama for exceeding his
authority. And from the Tea Party wing of the
Republicans, former Governor Sarah Palin has
called for impeachment of the president.
Does President Obama deserve to be sued or
impeached? Yes! Is there a snowball's chance
in hell that either the lawsuit or an
impeachment will succeed? No!
Barack Obama's repeated disregard of the laws
that he is supposed to follow, and his blatantly
changing these laws passed by Congress, are a
threat to the whole Constitutional form of
government, on which all our freedoms
depend.
Once a president -- any president -- can create
his own laws unilaterally, we are on our way
to becoming a banana republic, where
arbitrary rule from the top replaces
representative government by "we the people."
Why not sue Barack Obama then, or impeach
him?
For the simplest of all reasons: Neither of
these actions is going to do anything to stop
Obama, or even discredit him -- and both can
create a distraction that draws attention away
from the Democrats' disasters during an
election year.
Either the lawsuit or an impeachment -- or
both -- can hurt the Republicans, by making it
look like they are playing Mickey Mouse
politics during an election year. President
Obama is already making a joke out of Speaker
Boehner's threatened lawsuit by saying, "So
sue me!"
Courts don't like to get involved in cases
where one branch of government is suing
another -- and the Supreme Court does not
have to take any case that it does not want to
take. Even a lower court can throw out
Boehner's lawsuit as a political issue that does
not belong in court. Then it will be the
Republicans who will have egg on their faces.
As for impeachment, the House of
Representatives can impeach any president
they want to. But an impeachment is
essentially just an indictment that leaves it up
to the Senate to decide whether to vote to
remove the president from office.
So long as the Democrats control the Senate,
impeachment of Barack Obama is guaranteed
to lose. And this too would leave the
Republicans with egg on their faces during an
election year.
The political fate of the Republican Party is not
something that those of us who are not
Republicans need to worry about. If they want
to shoot themselves in the foot again, so be it.
But all Americans have to worry -- and worry
big time -- about the fate of this country if
Republicans blow their chances of taking
control of the Senate.
If Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid continues his iron control, President
Obama can nominate whatever kinds of federal
judges he wants to, knowing that they will be
confirmed by the Senate.
Since federal judges have lifetime tenure, this
would in effect extend the Obama
administration long past the point when
Barack Obama leaves the White House. All he
needs to do is pack the federal courts with
judges who share his contempt for the
Constitution and his zeal to impose a far-left
agenda at all costs.
This year's elections -- especially the Senate
elections -- can decide the fate of this country
for a long time to come. That is why
Republicans' launching of foredoomed
symbolic actions like lawsuits and
impeachment is such an irresponsible self-
indulgence.
When the country is at a historic crossroads is
not the time for futile gestures like this, which
can create bigger disasters than we already
have.
Whenever Democrats are in real trouble
politically, the Republicans seem to come up
with something new that distracts the public's
attention from the Democrats' problems. Who
says Republicans are not compassionate?
With public opinion polls showing President
Obama's sinking approval rate, in the wake of
his administration's multiple fiascoes and
scandals -- the disgraceful treatment of
veterans who need medical care, the Internal
Revenue Service coverups, the tens of
thousands of children flooding across our open
border -- Republicans have created two new
distractions that may yet draw attention away
from the Democrats' troubles.
From the Republican establishment, Speaker of
the House John Boehner has announced plans
to sue Barack Obama for exceeding his
authority. And from the Tea Party wing of the
Republicans, former Governor Sarah Palin has
called for impeachment of the president.
Does President Obama deserve to be sued or
impeached? Yes! Is there a snowball's chance
in hell that either the lawsuit or an
impeachment will succeed? No!
Barack Obama's repeated disregard of the laws
that he is supposed to follow, and his blatantly
changing these laws passed by Congress, are a
threat to the whole Constitutional form of
government, on which all our freedoms
depend.
Once a president -- any president -- can create
his own laws unilaterally, we are on our way
to becoming a banana republic, where
arbitrary rule from the top replaces
representative government by "we the people."
Why not sue Barack Obama then, or impeach
him?
For the simplest of all reasons: Neither of
these actions is going to do anything to stop
Obama, or even discredit him -- and both can
create a distraction that draws attention away
from the Democrats' disasters during an
election year.
Either the lawsuit or an impeachment -- or
both -- can hurt the Republicans, by making it
look like they are playing Mickey Mouse
politics during an election year. President
Obama is already making a joke out of Speaker
Boehner's threatened lawsuit by saying, "So
sue me!"
Courts don't like to get involved in cases
where one branch of government is suing
another -- and the Supreme Court does not
have to take any case that it does not want to
take. Even a lower court can throw out
Boehner's lawsuit as a political issue that does
not belong in court. Then it will be the
Republicans who will have egg on their faces.
As for impeachment, the House of
Representatives can impeach any president
they want to. But an impeachment is
essentially just an indictment that leaves it up
to the Senate to decide whether to vote to
remove the president from office.
So long as the Democrats control the Senate,
impeachment of Barack Obama is guaranteed
to lose. And this too would leave the
Republicans with egg on their faces during an
election year.
The political fate of the Republican Party is not
something that those of us who are not
Republicans need to worry about. If they want
to shoot themselves in the foot again, so be it.
But all Americans have to worry -- and worry
big time -- about the fate of this country if
Republicans blow their chances of taking
control of the Senate.
If Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid continues his iron control, President
Obama can nominate whatever kinds of federal
judges he wants to, knowing that they will be
confirmed by the Senate.
Since federal judges have lifetime tenure, this
would in effect extend the Obama
administration long past the point when
Barack Obama leaves the White House. All he
needs to do is pack the federal courts with
judges who share his contempt for the
Constitution and his zeal to impose a far-left
agenda at all costs.
This year's elections -- especially the Senate
elections -- can decide the fate of this country
for a long time to come. That is why
Republicans' launching of foredoomed
symbolic actions like lawsuits and
impeachment is such an irresponsible self-
indulgence.
When the country is at a historic crossroads is
not the time for futile gestures like this, which
can create bigger disasters than we already
have.
FDI IN INDIAN DEFENCE : IMPLICATIONS OF RAISE IN THE CAP
Radhakrishna Rao
There is a need for in depth evaluation of the
possible long term political, geostrategic and
security fallouts of an increased FDI cap in the
defence production sector.
Specifically, the trade sanction and technological
embargo emanating from the US and its western
allies could deal a paralysing blow to a joint
venture involving a partnership of a US-based
defence company. Sufficient strategic safeguards
should need to be built into joint ventures involving
foreign participation. Otherwise the entire exercise
of enhancing FDI cap in India’s defence production
sector could prove counterproductive, with serious
consequences for the combat-readiness of the
Indian defence forces. Self reliance in defence
production should revolve round a long-term vision
of the security threat perception faced by the
country.he May 2014 change in the Indian leadership
where the National Democratic Alliance (NDA)
government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi took charge signalled a vastly stepped-up
commitment to India’s crisis prone defence sector with particular reference to attaining self reliance in the defence manufacturing. In fact, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) election manifesto had made a strong and specific commitment to end India’s dependence imported arms and ammunition
by boosting domestic production of high
performance fighting equipment. Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI) is already considered one of the ‘game changers’ for boosting India’s home-grown capability in the production of state-of-the art combat systems. In fact, the 26% FDI cap on defence sector that former Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government had failed to upwardly revise was considered far from an attractive proposition for the global defence and aerospace conglomerates to invest in India’s defence production sector. But then whether hiking the FDI cap to 49% by the NDA government in its maiden budget presented in the Indian parliament on 10 July would prod foreign investors to pass on their
latest genre technologies to Indian partners is not an easy guess at this moment.
Far from being a magic wand to help India build a home-grown defence industry based on indigenous expertise, an increased FDI could be considered no more than a catalyst for the Indian defence producers to face the challenges of designing and developing high-end, complex fighting equipment with domestic resources. In this context, Rahul Gangal, Principal, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants says, “I think this is a positive step though it may not be as much of a move forward as everyone was hoping. The treatment of the balance 51% will be critical .The earlier policy at 26% FDI required 51% to be held by one resident Indian entity. It would be interesting to note what the change in that is, if any.”
Indian Finance Minister and Defence Minister Arun
Jaitley, while presenting the budget for 2014-15,
did admit to the ignominious distinction India has
achieved as the ‘largest importer’ of arms and
fighting systems. That a country which has sent
probes to Moon and Mars continues to meet 2/3rd
of its defence requirements via imports stands out
as a far from edifying testimony to its “poor state
of defence industrial infrastructure,” said Jaitely.
“We are buying a substantial portion of our
defence requirements directly from foreign players.
Companies controlled by foreign governments and
foreign private sectors are supplying our defence
requirements to us at a considerable outflow of
foreign exchange,” he added.
Significantly, it has also been decided to continue
with the policy of permitting higher FDI cap beyond
the stipulated 49% in the event of a foreign investor
willing to part with the latest genre technologies at
his command. This, however, would be subject to
approval by the Cabinet Committee on Security on
a case-to-case basis. For quite some time now,
industry and trade bodies in India have been
lobbying for facilitating an increased FDI inflow in
the defence production sector. It was in 2001 that
India opened its defence production sector to
private participation. However, the view of the
Indian industrial sector active in defence
production is that it would be naïve to expect high
technology to flow into Indian industry simply
because foreign firms can invest more and
repatriate profits. One would therefore need to wait
and watch.
India should go about building a military-industrial
complex based on its long term strategic needs. At
present, much of the defence production activities
in India are centred on the facilities of the Defence
Public Sector Undertakings and Ordnance Factories
Board (OFB). Lack of direction and motivation as
well as interference meant that they could come
out with very few new and innovative products
featuring state of the art technologies. Conversely,
private sector companies, that have made a
modest foray into the defence production sector,
are not enthusiastic about investing in research
and development to build high-end fighting
systems. As such, the private sector in India’s
defence manufacturing would need to be
encouraged and incentivised to invest in research
and development through a slew of proactive
measures.
There is a need for in depth evaluation of the
possible long term political, geostrategic and
security fallouts of an increased FDI cap in the
defence production sector.
Specifically, the trade sanction and technological
embargo emanating from the US and its western
allies could deal a paralysing blow to a joint
venture involving a partnership of a US-based
defence company. Sufficient strategic safeguards
should need to be built into joint ventures involving
foreign participation. Otherwise the entire exercise
of enhancing FDI cap in India’s defence production
sector could prove counterproductive, with serious
consequences for the combat-readiness of the
Indian defence forces. Self reliance in defence
production should revolve round a long-term vision
of the security threat perception faced by the
country.
There is a need for in depth evaluation of the
possible long term political, geostrategic and
security fallouts of an increased FDI cap in the
defence production sector.
Specifically, the trade sanction and technological
embargo emanating from the US and its western
allies could deal a paralysing blow to a joint
venture involving a partnership of a US-based
defence company. Sufficient strategic safeguards
should need to be built into joint ventures involving
foreign participation. Otherwise the entire exercise
of enhancing FDI cap in India’s defence production
sector could prove counterproductive, with serious
consequences for the combat-readiness of the
Indian defence forces. Self reliance in defence
production should revolve round a long-term vision
of the security threat perception faced by the
country.he May 2014 change in the Indian leadership
where the National Democratic Alliance (NDA)
government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi took charge signalled a vastly stepped-up
commitment to India’s crisis prone defence sector with particular reference to attaining self reliance in the defence manufacturing. In fact, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) election manifesto had made a strong and specific commitment to end India’s dependence imported arms and ammunition
by boosting domestic production of high
performance fighting equipment. Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI) is already considered one of the ‘game changers’ for boosting India’s home-grown capability in the production of state-of-the art combat systems. In fact, the 26% FDI cap on defence sector that former Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government had failed to upwardly revise was considered far from an attractive proposition for the global defence and aerospace conglomerates to invest in India’s defence production sector. But then whether hiking the FDI cap to 49% by the NDA government in its maiden budget presented in the Indian parliament on 10 July would prod foreign investors to pass on their
latest genre technologies to Indian partners is not an easy guess at this moment.
Far from being a magic wand to help India build a home-grown defence industry based on indigenous expertise, an increased FDI could be considered no more than a catalyst for the Indian defence producers to face the challenges of designing and developing high-end, complex fighting equipment with domestic resources. In this context, Rahul Gangal, Principal, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants says, “I think this is a positive step though it may not be as much of a move forward as everyone was hoping. The treatment of the balance 51% will be critical .The earlier policy at 26% FDI required 51% to be held by one resident Indian entity. It would be interesting to note what the change in that is, if any.”
Indian Finance Minister and Defence Minister Arun
Jaitley, while presenting the budget for 2014-15,
did admit to the ignominious distinction India has
achieved as the ‘largest importer’ of arms and
fighting systems. That a country which has sent
probes to Moon and Mars continues to meet 2/3rd
of its defence requirements via imports stands out
as a far from edifying testimony to its “poor state
of defence industrial infrastructure,” said Jaitely.
“We are buying a substantial portion of our
defence requirements directly from foreign players.
Companies controlled by foreign governments and
foreign private sectors are supplying our defence
requirements to us at a considerable outflow of
foreign exchange,” he added.
Significantly, it has also been decided to continue
with the policy of permitting higher FDI cap beyond
the stipulated 49% in the event of a foreign investor
willing to part with the latest genre technologies at
his command. This, however, would be subject to
approval by the Cabinet Committee on Security on
a case-to-case basis. For quite some time now,
industry and trade bodies in India have been
lobbying for facilitating an increased FDI inflow in
the defence production sector. It was in 2001 that
India opened its defence production sector to
private participation. However, the view of the
Indian industrial sector active in defence
production is that it would be naïve to expect high
technology to flow into Indian industry simply
because foreign firms can invest more and
repatriate profits. One would therefore need to wait
and watch.
India should go about building a military-industrial
complex based on its long term strategic needs. At
present, much of the defence production activities
in India are centred on the facilities of the Defence
Public Sector Undertakings and Ordnance Factories
Board (OFB). Lack of direction and motivation as
well as interference meant that they could come
out with very few new and innovative products
featuring state of the art technologies. Conversely,
private sector companies, that have made a
modest foray into the defence production sector,
are not enthusiastic about investing in research
and development to build high-end fighting
systems. As such, the private sector in India’s
defence manufacturing would need to be
encouraged and incentivised to invest in research
and development through a slew of proactive
measures.
There is a need for in depth evaluation of the
possible long term political, geostrategic and
security fallouts of an increased FDI cap in the
defence production sector.
Specifically, the trade sanction and technological
embargo emanating from the US and its western
allies could deal a paralysing blow to a joint
venture involving a partnership of a US-based
defence company. Sufficient strategic safeguards
should need to be built into joint ventures involving
foreign participation. Otherwise the entire exercise
of enhancing FDI cap in India’s defence production
sector could prove counterproductive, with serious
consequences for the combat-readiness of the
Indian defence forces. Self reliance in defence
production should revolve round a long-term vision
of the security threat perception faced by the
country.
14 Jul 2014
THE REVOLUTIONS OF JULY
David Stokes
On July 14, 1789, Thomas Jefferson was
serving as America’s Ambassador to France.
The author of the Declaration of Independence
in another July, thirteen-years earlier, was an
eyewitness to the political unrest leading to
the storming of a political prison called The
Bastille . Though the fortress housed only
seven inmates at the moment, including four
forgers, it remains the iconic symbol of the
beginning of The French Revolution.
Our Constitution had been ratified a year
earlier, and George Washington had recently
been inaugurated as our first President, so
there was great interest in America about
what was going on in France 225 years ago.
After all, the French had been extremely
helpful to us during our successful struggle to,
as Jefferson phrased it, “dissolve the political
bands” that connected us to the British
monarchy. Americans were therefore
understandably sympathetic with a movement
against monarchial tyranny in France.
The American and French Revolutions are
linked in history largely because of
chronology, but they were vastly different
affairs. One led to a new birth of freedom—the
other to terror and tyranny, becoming the
prototype for unspeakable horrors to come.
Most Americans are familiar with a phrase
from John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address on
January 20, 1961—that whole “Ask not…”
thing. But I think the most important thing JFK
said that day was this: “And yet the same
revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears
fought are still at issue around the globe—the
belief that the rights of man come not from the
generosity of the state, but from the hand of
God. We dare not forget today that we are the
heirs of that first revolution.” [Emphasis
added]
But what is happening in our nation right now
may resemble what happened in France in
1789 more than what happened in
Philadelphia in 1776. For many Americans,
especially those on the left, the cry of “Liberty
– Equality – Fraternity” is much more resonant
than the one about “Life – Liberty – and the
Pursuit of Happiness.”
It is in the parsing of those vitally important
words that we find the keys to understanding
where we came from, where we are, and
where we are going. One revolution was about
individual rights and dreams. The other was
about “the people” as a group and the highest
virtue being “the greater good.”
When Thomas Jefferson wrote about “life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the
Declaration of Independence, he was
borrowing from 17th century English
philosopher John Locke who wrote about “life,
liberty, and the pursuit of property.” Jefferson’s
use of this language was clearly designed to
describe the rights of individual people to live
free, be free, and pursue their dreams in a free
marketplace. Those thoughts were very much
present in that Philadelphia birthing room.
The French Revolution, on the other hand—
though similar to what happened here in
America, in the sense of changing things and
breaking free from an old order—had little to
do with individual rights.
It was all about collectivism .
And in many ways, the French Revolution is
the ancestor of all totalitarian systems to
follow. Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Lenin, and
all other political gangsters were heirs of
Robespierre, and later Napoleon. Those
tyrannical manifestations were not misguided
aberrations—distortions of something that
started out good (as in, “Lenin was cool, too
bad Stalin messed it all up”)—the seeds of the
horror were present at the beginning. Jean-
Jacques Rousseau, 18th century Enlightenment
philosopher, wrote about volonté générale or
“general will,” and the Jacobins, followed by
others, ran with it. In their thinking, “the will
of the people” could only be expressed by
enlightened leaders.
Yes, our revolution indeed drew a measure of
strength from the Enlightenment, but it was of
the earlier Lockean variety. America’s use of
Enlightenment concepts was tempered by
something else; something that set it apart
from what happened in France—a spiritual
foundation.
Vive la revolution - Vive la difference .
The French not only declared war on the
monarchy, they also attacked Christianity,
replacing it with a religion of the state and
introducing the worship of secularism. Sound
familiar?
In America, it was very different. I am not one
of those who spends a lot of time trying to
prove the Christian bona fides of every
founding father, but I do believe that the
influence of what was called The Great
Awakening, which ended about twenty years
before the shot heard around the world was
fired, was still very much a part of our
national fabric.
And another such movement, often referred to
as the Second Great Awakening, began while
the French were unsuccessfully trying to
figure out how to be free. To ignore those
religious and cultural movements in America is
to miss an important piece of the puzzle. The
very concepts of liberty, equality, and
fraternity sound nice and make for great
propaganda. But in the end, without virtue
born of something deeper and greater, even
the best rhetoric is mocked by what actually
happens when human nature runs amuck. This
is why all totalitarian regimes like to call their
realms things like The People’s Republic of
China , or Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, or The People’s Commonwealth of
Massachusetts .
We need to beware of those who share our
vocabulary but use a different dictionary.
The reason it has all worked and endured so
well in this land is because we are a nation
“under God.” There, I said it. There is no real
liberty without that. All attempts at actual
freedom end up moving toward tyranny
without some sense of higher purpose and
power. I believe firmly in the separation of
church and state. But minus positive religious
influence, a nation cannot long remain free.
C. S. Lewis said it very well in The Screwtape
Letters 70 years ago: “Hidden in the heart of
this striving for Liberty there was also a deep
hatred of personal freedom. That invaluable
man Rousseau first revealed it. In his perfect
democracy, only the state religion is permitted,
slavery is restored, and the individual is told
that he has really willed (though he didn't
know it) whatever the Government tells him to
do. From that starting point, via Hegel
(another indispensable propagandist on our
side), we easily contrived both the Nazi and
the Communist state. Even in England we
were pretty successful. I heard the other day
that in that country a man could not, without
a permit, cut down his own tree with his own
axe, make it into planks with his own saw,
and use the planks to build a tool shed in his
own garden.”
Sound familiar?
On July 14, 1789, Thomas Jefferson was
serving as America’s Ambassador to France.
The author of the Declaration of Independence
in another July, thirteen-years earlier, was an
eyewitness to the political unrest leading to
the storming of a political prison called The
Bastille . Though the fortress housed only
seven inmates at the moment, including four
forgers, it remains the iconic symbol of the
beginning of The French Revolution.
Our Constitution had been ratified a year
earlier, and George Washington had recently
been inaugurated as our first President, so
there was great interest in America about
what was going on in France 225 years ago.
After all, the French had been extremely
helpful to us during our successful struggle to,
as Jefferson phrased it, “dissolve the political
bands” that connected us to the British
monarchy. Americans were therefore
understandably sympathetic with a movement
against monarchial tyranny in France.
The American and French Revolutions are
linked in history largely because of
chronology, but they were vastly different
affairs. One led to a new birth of freedom—the
other to terror and tyranny, becoming the
prototype for unspeakable horrors to come.
Most Americans are familiar with a phrase
from John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address on
January 20, 1961—that whole “Ask not…”
thing. But I think the most important thing JFK
said that day was this: “And yet the same
revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears
fought are still at issue around the globe—the
belief that the rights of man come not from the
generosity of the state, but from the hand of
God. We dare not forget today that we are the
heirs of that first revolution.” [Emphasis
added]
But what is happening in our nation right now
may resemble what happened in France in
1789 more than what happened in
Philadelphia in 1776. For many Americans,
especially those on the left, the cry of “Liberty
– Equality – Fraternity” is much more resonant
than the one about “Life – Liberty – and the
Pursuit of Happiness.”
It is in the parsing of those vitally important
words that we find the keys to understanding
where we came from, where we are, and
where we are going. One revolution was about
individual rights and dreams. The other was
about “the people” as a group and the highest
virtue being “the greater good.”
When Thomas Jefferson wrote about “life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the
Declaration of Independence, he was
borrowing from 17th century English
philosopher John Locke who wrote about “life,
liberty, and the pursuit of property.” Jefferson’s
use of this language was clearly designed to
describe the rights of individual people to live
free, be free, and pursue their dreams in a free
marketplace. Those thoughts were very much
present in that Philadelphia birthing room.
The French Revolution, on the other hand—
though similar to what happened here in
America, in the sense of changing things and
breaking free from an old order—had little to
do with individual rights.
It was all about collectivism .
And in many ways, the French Revolution is
the ancestor of all totalitarian systems to
follow. Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Lenin, and
all other political gangsters were heirs of
Robespierre, and later Napoleon. Those
tyrannical manifestations were not misguided
aberrations—distortions of something that
started out good (as in, “Lenin was cool, too
bad Stalin messed it all up”)—the seeds of the
horror were present at the beginning. Jean-
Jacques Rousseau, 18th century Enlightenment
philosopher, wrote about volonté générale or
“general will,” and the Jacobins, followed by
others, ran with it. In their thinking, “the will
of the people” could only be expressed by
enlightened leaders.
Yes, our revolution indeed drew a measure of
strength from the Enlightenment, but it was of
the earlier Lockean variety. America’s use of
Enlightenment concepts was tempered by
something else; something that set it apart
from what happened in France—a spiritual
foundation.
Vive la revolution - Vive la difference .
The French not only declared war on the
monarchy, they also attacked Christianity,
replacing it with a religion of the state and
introducing the worship of secularism. Sound
familiar?
In America, it was very different. I am not one
of those who spends a lot of time trying to
prove the Christian bona fides of every
founding father, but I do believe that the
influence of what was called The Great
Awakening, which ended about twenty years
before the shot heard around the world was
fired, was still very much a part of our
national fabric.
And another such movement, often referred to
as the Second Great Awakening, began while
the French were unsuccessfully trying to
figure out how to be free. To ignore those
religious and cultural movements in America is
to miss an important piece of the puzzle. The
very concepts of liberty, equality, and
fraternity sound nice and make for great
propaganda. But in the end, without virtue
born of something deeper and greater, even
the best rhetoric is mocked by what actually
happens when human nature runs amuck. This
is why all totalitarian regimes like to call their
realms things like The People’s Republic of
China , or Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, or The People’s Commonwealth of
Massachusetts .
We need to beware of those who share our
vocabulary but use a different dictionary.
The reason it has all worked and endured so
well in this land is because we are a nation
“under God.” There, I said it. There is no real
liberty without that. All attempts at actual
freedom end up moving toward tyranny
without some sense of higher purpose and
power. I believe firmly in the separation of
church and state. But minus positive religious
influence, a nation cannot long remain free.
C. S. Lewis said it very well in The Screwtape
Letters 70 years ago: “Hidden in the heart of
this striving for Liberty there was also a deep
hatred of personal freedom. That invaluable
man Rousseau first revealed it. In his perfect
democracy, only the state religion is permitted,
slavery is restored, and the individual is told
that he has really willed (though he didn't
know it) whatever the Government tells him to
do. From that starting point, via Hegel
(another indispensable propagandist on our
side), we easily contrived both the Nazi and
the Communist state. Even in England we
were pretty successful. I heard the other day
that in that country a man could not, without
a permit, cut down his own tree with his own
axe, make it into planks with his own saw,
and use the planks to build a tool shed in his
own garden.”
Sound familiar?
BIAFRA INDEPENDENCE 2014
Terry Paulson
What would you say to the Founding Fathers
who gathered in Philadelphia to craft the
Declaration of Independence knowing that it
would mean war with England? Would you
have told them to wait, to keep trying
diplomacy, or to wait for England to leave
them alone? Would you support their taking
up arms to protect their people and their
rights? Thank God, they justified and
supported the war for independence that made
America free.
While the world is once again preoccupied
with tensions in the Middle East and in the
Ukraine, there is a growing call for
independence for Biafra. Nnamdi Kanu , the
Director of Radio Biafra, is the world-wide
voice for the indigenous people of Biafra
(IPOB) in the south and southeast of Nigeria.
They are weary of seeing their women raped,
their churches burned, and their villages
bombed and terrorized.
They remember the 1967-1970 Biafra-Nigeria
Civil War that resulted in the genocide of over
3 million IPOB Christians while the world was
focused on Vietnam and the conflict in the
Middle East. Once again, they're seeing buses
of Muslim terrorists/cattle herdsmen
vandalizing their farms and villages.
Thankfully, six have been arrested when two
bombs were found and defused at the Living
Faith Church,popularly known as Winners'
Chapel, in Owerri, Nigeria.
Enough is enough. The IPOB are ready to
defend themselves. To the largely Christian
population in Biafra, the concept of a Holy
War is not a theoretical discussion; it is a
matter of survival and freedom from the
Islamic Caliphate that is sweeping the Middle
East and Africa. But they know that any
declaration of Independence is but a piece of
paper; independence must be earned.
Why focus on Nigeria when ISIS has
aggressively secured a beachhead in Syria and
Iraq for their self-proclaimed Islamic caliphate
united under Sharia Law? The Middle East is
but the tip of the iceberg in the drive for an
Islamic caliphate. For years, Africa has been a
target of the extremists' dream of a unified
Africaunder Islamic control.
The brazen attacks on Christians and moderate
Muslims by Boko Haram in Nigeria have been
happening for years. In 2012, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton had been reluctant to
label them a Foreign Terrorist Organization
(FTO) for fear of cutting them off from
diplomatic contact.
Only the reported abduction and threat to sell
200 young Nigerian women into slavery or
forced marriage has awakened the western
media. The comments by video in May of Boko
Haram's leader, Imam Abubakar Shekau ,
speaks of their all too public mission:
"You infidels of the world, you have met a
trouble, we must follow Allah, and you should
die with bitterness. Brethren cut out infidels
from their necks, brothers you should capture
slaves; just because I took girls in western
school they are worried. I said they should
even desert the school, they should go and
marry. Nonsense, I am the one that captured
your girls and I will sell them in the market. I
have my own market of selling people; it is the
owner that instructed me to sell. Yes, I will
sell the girls people, I am selling the girls like
Allah said until we soak the ground of Nigeria
with infidels blood and so called Muslims
contradicting Islam. After we have killed,
killed, killed and get fatigue and wondering on
what to do with smelling of their corpses,
smelling of Obama, Bush, Putin and Jonathan
worried us then we will open prison and be
imprisoned the rest. Infidels have no value. It
is Jonathan's daughter that I will imprison;
nothing will stop this until you convert. If you
turn to Islam then you will be saved."
When Britain laid out the borders in Africa for
the breakup of its empire, countries were not
formed to help build viable nations. Nigeria
was formed as a dysfunctional colony that
combined naturally competing peoples in a
way that would sow perpetual discord and
allow Western companies to freely take
advantage of the natural resources they
treasured.
As Nigerian Ambassador Bola Dada asserted,
"Our problem is not leadership, it's our weak
foundation. No one can govern Nigeria
successfully now because of the faulty
foundation. So the foundation has to be pulled
down before we can see any way out."
The current Christian President, Goodluck
Jonathan, has been neutered. He wants a
united Nigeria, but he has no real power.
Under the alleged support of sponsors like
General Babangida, known as IBB, Islamic
extremists have infiltrated the armed services,
police departments and the political
administration. Their mission is clear--protect
Islamic extremists and Boko Haram. It's no
wonder that Islamic terrorists are expanding
their attacks throughout Nigeria.
This demand for the independence of Biafra is
far from new. In March 2008, 145 countries
voted to support the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
People . Although not supported by President
George W. Bush, President Obama endorsed
UNDRIP in 2010.
The people of Biafra want independence and
are asking for help around the world. The IPOB
can trace their roots in Judeo-Christian
heritage to the lineage of Jacob, one of the
founding patriarchs of both faith communities.
The fight for Biafra independence provides a
tangible way to thwart the drive for an Islamic
caliphate in Africa. It's time once again to
support a people whose time for independence
has come. It's not our fight, but, with UN
justification, it's a fight we should support.
What would you say to the Founding Fathers
who gathered in Philadelphia to craft the
Declaration of Independence knowing that it
would mean war with England? Would you
have told them to wait, to keep trying
diplomacy, or to wait for England to leave
them alone? Would you support their taking
up arms to protect their people and their
rights? Thank God, they justified and
supported the war for independence that made
America free.
While the world is once again preoccupied
with tensions in the Middle East and in the
Ukraine, there is a growing call for
independence for Biafra. Nnamdi Kanu , the
Director of Radio Biafra, is the world-wide
voice for the indigenous people of Biafra
(IPOB) in the south and southeast of Nigeria.
They are weary of seeing their women raped,
their churches burned, and their villages
bombed and terrorized.
They remember the 1967-1970 Biafra-Nigeria
Civil War that resulted in the genocide of over
3 million IPOB Christians while the world was
focused on Vietnam and the conflict in the
Middle East. Once again, they're seeing buses
of Muslim terrorists/cattle herdsmen
vandalizing their farms and villages.
Thankfully, six have been arrested when two
bombs were found and defused at the Living
Faith Church,popularly known as Winners'
Chapel, in Owerri, Nigeria.
Enough is enough. The IPOB are ready to
defend themselves. To the largely Christian
population in Biafra, the concept of a Holy
War is not a theoretical discussion; it is a
matter of survival and freedom from the
Islamic Caliphate that is sweeping the Middle
East and Africa. But they know that any
declaration of Independence is but a piece of
paper; independence must be earned.
Why focus on Nigeria when ISIS has
aggressively secured a beachhead in Syria and
Iraq for their self-proclaimed Islamic caliphate
united under Sharia Law? The Middle East is
but the tip of the iceberg in the drive for an
Islamic caliphate. For years, Africa has been a
target of the extremists' dream of a unified
Africaunder Islamic control.
The brazen attacks on Christians and moderate
Muslims by Boko Haram in Nigeria have been
happening for years. In 2012, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton had been reluctant to
label them a Foreign Terrorist Organization
(FTO) for fear of cutting them off from
diplomatic contact.
Only the reported abduction and threat to sell
200 young Nigerian women into slavery or
forced marriage has awakened the western
media. The comments by video in May of Boko
Haram's leader, Imam Abubakar Shekau ,
speaks of their all too public mission:
"You infidels of the world, you have met a
trouble, we must follow Allah, and you should
die with bitterness. Brethren cut out infidels
from their necks, brothers you should capture
slaves; just because I took girls in western
school they are worried. I said they should
even desert the school, they should go and
marry. Nonsense, I am the one that captured
your girls and I will sell them in the market. I
have my own market of selling people; it is the
owner that instructed me to sell. Yes, I will
sell the girls people, I am selling the girls like
Allah said until we soak the ground of Nigeria
with infidels blood and so called Muslims
contradicting Islam. After we have killed,
killed, killed and get fatigue and wondering on
what to do with smelling of their corpses,
smelling of Obama, Bush, Putin and Jonathan
worried us then we will open prison and be
imprisoned the rest. Infidels have no value. It
is Jonathan's daughter that I will imprison;
nothing will stop this until you convert. If you
turn to Islam then you will be saved."
When Britain laid out the borders in Africa for
the breakup of its empire, countries were not
formed to help build viable nations. Nigeria
was formed as a dysfunctional colony that
combined naturally competing peoples in a
way that would sow perpetual discord and
allow Western companies to freely take
advantage of the natural resources they
treasured.
As Nigerian Ambassador Bola Dada asserted,
"Our problem is not leadership, it's our weak
foundation. No one can govern Nigeria
successfully now because of the faulty
foundation. So the foundation has to be pulled
down before we can see any way out."
The current Christian President, Goodluck
Jonathan, has been neutered. He wants a
united Nigeria, but he has no real power.
Under the alleged support of sponsors like
General Babangida, known as IBB, Islamic
extremists have infiltrated the armed services,
police departments and the political
administration. Their mission is clear--protect
Islamic extremists and Boko Haram. It's no
wonder that Islamic terrorists are expanding
their attacks throughout Nigeria.
This demand for the independence of Biafra is
far from new. In March 2008, 145 countries
voted to support the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
People . Although not supported by President
George W. Bush, President Obama endorsed
UNDRIP in 2010.
The people of Biafra want independence and
are asking for help around the world. The IPOB
can trace their roots in Judeo-Christian
heritage to the lineage of Jacob, one of the
founding patriarchs of both faith communities.
The fight for Biafra independence provides a
tangible way to thwart the drive for an Islamic
caliphate in Africa. It's time once again to
support a people whose time for independence
has come. It's not our fight, but, with UN
justification, it's a fight we should support.
INDIA - BANGLADESH: UNCLOS AND THE SEA BOUNDARY DISPUTE
Harun ur Rashid
Bangladesh went to the Permanent Court of
Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague on 08 October
2009 seeking judgment under the dispute clause of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS). The submission of documents and oral hearings from both India and Bangladesh was concluded in December 2013 and the Court
officially conveyed the result to both parties on 7
July 2014.
The judgment is final and cannot be appealed
against. Among the five arbitrators only the Indian
arbitrator delivered a dissenting judgment. India
accepted the judgment and reportedly said that the
judgment would further enhance goodwill between
the two countries by putting an end to a long
standing issue. It went in favour of Bangladesh
because Bangladesh has been awarded 19,467 sq
km of the total 25,602 sq km sea area (76 per
cent), leaving 6,135 sq km (24 per cent) to India.
The judgment also allows Bangladesh a 200-mile
exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf
beyond the 200-mile economic zone and access to
the open sea, thus preventing it from turning into a
‘sea-locked country’. Bangladesh’s awarded area
reportedly includes 10 off-shore blocs in the west
which were in dispute with India; 10 per cent of the
six blocs went to India. It is noted that the disputed
maritime area of 25,602 sq km in the Bay of
Bengal with Bangladesh constitutes probably only
about 3-5 per cent of the maritime area of India’s
vast coastline, stretching east from the Bay of
Bengal, the Indian Ocean and to the Arabian Sea in
the west. For Bangladesh, the area in the west with
India is 100 per cent because there is no other
maritime area available for Bangladesh to its west
and it is vital for Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal
to have this area under its jurisdiction.
The first session on Indo-Bangladesh sea boundary
talks took place in 1974 in Dhaka at the official
level. Later, several meetings took place at the
level of Foreign Secretaries. When the Foreign
Secretaries could not resolve the differences
because of the methods of delimiting the boundary
between the two sides, it was elevated to the
Foreign Ministers’ level in 1975 but remained
inconclusive. It was reported that at the
Commonwealth Summit in Jamaica in May 1975,
Bangladesh President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
proposed arbitration to resolve the issue to Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi but India rejected it.
Although the sea boundary talks were renewed in
1978, 1982, 2008 (under the caretaker
government), and in March 2009 under the Hasina
government, it could not be resolved because of
the differences over boundary delimitations. When
the Hasina government found that the talks had
stalled, it had no option but to look out for the
involvement of a third party to resolve the dispute.
Finally the Hasina government decided to lodge the
dispute with the Court of Arbitration under Article
287 (the dispute machinery clause) of UNCLOS.
India had ratified the UN Convention in 1995 and
Bangladesh in 2001, and are both therefore bound
by the provisions of the UNCLOS.
The judgment stands out for several following
reasons. First, both Bangladesh and India have
settled the maritime boundary through the legal
mechanism under the UNCLOS, which
demonstrates that the two countries are committed
to the peaceful settlement of disputes. It is not a
complete victory for Bangladesh because India has
won on some issues. It is however a victory for
fairness and justice. The judgment is a win for
international law which both countries have always
respected. Second, the judgment substantially
contributes to the development of maritime
international law. There was an apprehension
among some jurists that judgment by the Court of
Arbitration under UNCLOS would lead to the
fragmentation of maritime law, but this has been
found to be unfounded. Rather, the judgment
reflects the great advantages of consistency and
transparency by adhering to judicial precedents.
Third, the peaceful and amicable settlement of the
maritime dispute between Bangladesh and India
could be an example in the international arena at a
time when in many parts of the world maritime
disputes are emerging as major flash points. For
example, in the South China Sea, disputed maritime
boundaries between China and its neighbours,
Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines, and in the
East China Sea, between South Korea and Japan
and Japan and China, are causing grave tension.
Finally, the judgment may assist Bangladesh to
concretise the Japanese proposal for a Bay of
Bengal Industrial Growth Belt (BIG-B) initiative
with India and Myanmar for Japanese trade and
investment. It can usher in a new era of
cooperation between maritime neighbours in the Bay of Bengal.
Bangladesh went to the Permanent Court of
Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague on 08 October
2009 seeking judgment under the dispute clause of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS). The submission of documents and oral hearings from both India and Bangladesh was concluded in December 2013 and the Court
officially conveyed the result to both parties on 7
July 2014.
The judgment is final and cannot be appealed
against. Among the five arbitrators only the Indian
arbitrator delivered a dissenting judgment. India
accepted the judgment and reportedly said that the
judgment would further enhance goodwill between
the two countries by putting an end to a long
standing issue. It went in favour of Bangladesh
because Bangladesh has been awarded 19,467 sq
km of the total 25,602 sq km sea area (76 per
cent), leaving 6,135 sq km (24 per cent) to India.
The judgment also allows Bangladesh a 200-mile
exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf
beyond the 200-mile economic zone and access to
the open sea, thus preventing it from turning into a
‘sea-locked country’. Bangladesh’s awarded area
reportedly includes 10 off-shore blocs in the west
which were in dispute with India; 10 per cent of the
six blocs went to India. It is noted that the disputed
maritime area of 25,602 sq km in the Bay of
Bengal with Bangladesh constitutes probably only
about 3-5 per cent of the maritime area of India’s
vast coastline, stretching east from the Bay of
Bengal, the Indian Ocean and to the Arabian Sea in
the west. For Bangladesh, the area in the west with
India is 100 per cent because there is no other
maritime area available for Bangladesh to its west
and it is vital for Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal
to have this area under its jurisdiction.
The first session on Indo-Bangladesh sea boundary
talks took place in 1974 in Dhaka at the official
level. Later, several meetings took place at the
level of Foreign Secretaries. When the Foreign
Secretaries could not resolve the differences
because of the methods of delimiting the boundary
between the two sides, it was elevated to the
Foreign Ministers’ level in 1975 but remained
inconclusive. It was reported that at the
Commonwealth Summit in Jamaica in May 1975,
Bangladesh President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
proposed arbitration to resolve the issue to Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi but India rejected it.
Although the sea boundary talks were renewed in
1978, 1982, 2008 (under the caretaker
government), and in March 2009 under the Hasina
government, it could not be resolved because of
the differences over boundary delimitations. When
the Hasina government found that the talks had
stalled, it had no option but to look out for the
involvement of a third party to resolve the dispute.
Finally the Hasina government decided to lodge the
dispute with the Court of Arbitration under Article
287 (the dispute machinery clause) of UNCLOS.
India had ratified the UN Convention in 1995 and
Bangladesh in 2001, and are both therefore bound
by the provisions of the UNCLOS.
The judgment stands out for several following
reasons. First, both Bangladesh and India have
settled the maritime boundary through the legal
mechanism under the UNCLOS, which
demonstrates that the two countries are committed
to the peaceful settlement of disputes. It is not a
complete victory for Bangladesh because India has
won on some issues. It is however a victory for
fairness and justice. The judgment is a win for
international law which both countries have always
respected. Second, the judgment substantially
contributes to the development of maritime
international law. There was an apprehension
among some jurists that judgment by the Court of
Arbitration under UNCLOS would lead to the
fragmentation of maritime law, but this has been
found to be unfounded. Rather, the judgment
reflects the great advantages of consistency and
transparency by adhering to judicial precedents.
Third, the peaceful and amicable settlement of the
maritime dispute between Bangladesh and India
could be an example in the international arena at a
time when in many parts of the world maritime
disputes are emerging as major flash points. For
example, in the South China Sea, disputed maritime
boundaries between China and its neighbours,
Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines, and in the
East China Sea, between South Korea and Japan
and Japan and China, are causing grave tension.
Finally, the judgment may assist Bangladesh to
concretise the Japanese proposal for a Bay of
Bengal Industrial Growth Belt (BIG-B) initiative
with India and Myanmar for Japanese trade and
investment. It can usher in a new era of
cooperation between maritime neighbours in the Bay of Bengal.
STRIFE ON THE GLOBAL COMMONS
Vijay Shankar
The run up to the Peloponnesian War (431-404
BC) was marked by a debate held in Sparta
amongst the Peloponnesian allies to determine
whether war against the aggressive seapower
Athens and the maritime Delian League was to be waged. The leadership of the war-like alliance lay with the powerful yet reluctant Spartan king Archidamus, a man of both intelligence and moderation. He questioned, “What sort of a war, then, are we going to fight? If we can neither defeat them at sea nor control the resources on which their navy depends, we shall do ourselves more harm than good.” To Archidamus, clearly, the inability to access and control the Global Commons of his era presaged defeat.
Global Commons is a term typically used to
describe international, supranational, and global
common pool resource domains. Global Commons
include the earth's shared resources, such as the
oceans, the atmosphere, outer space and the Polar
Regions. Cyberspace also meets the definition, but
for this examination will focus on the hydrosphere.
The parameters for enquiry necessarily include
physical tangibles of height, width, depth and the
awkward intangible of human history.
Mahan in “The Influence of Seapower upon
History” underscored three prescient perspectives
relating to the Commons. First, competition for
materials and markets is intrinsic to an ever
trussed global system. Second, the collaborative
nature of commerce on the one hand deters war,
while on the other engenders friction. Third, the
Global Commons require to be secured against
disruption and rapacious exploitation.
An understanding of the Commons must not suffer
from any delusions that explicit and recognised
conventions have evolved over the centuries. On
the contrary, till the middle of the last century what
passed for a principle was Hugo Grotius’ 1609
notion of Mare Liberum ; freedom of the seas. The
concept that the sea was international territory and
all nations were free to use it. The free-for-all
state of the Commons becomes evident in the fact
of the seaward limit of national sovereignty being
defined by the cannon-shot decree which would
suggest that it was the ability to control that
defined dominio n. By the middle of the twentieth
century the collapse of colonial empires and the
birth of new nations set into motion a dynamic that
demanded a change from cannon-shot rules and
lawlessness to equitability and responsibilities in
the Commons along with demarcation of territorial
and economic zones. The United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II &
III) met 1954 to 1982 to hammer out and define
rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of
the world’s oceans. The deliberations concluded in
1982 and became functional in 1994. Recognising
that that the sea bed is the repository of vast and
unguaged quantities of minerals, the Convention
provided for a regime relating to minerals on the
seabed outside any state's territorial waters or
Exclusive Economic Zone. It established an
International Seabed Authority to regulate seabed
mining and control distribution of royalties. To date
it has been ratified by 165 nations. Significantly,
the US Senate has snubbed the UNCLOS. What
critically mars the compact is its imprecision, its
illusory demand for the supranational and the
absence of a structure to secure the Global
Commons against disruption and rapacious
exploitation.
The current distressed state of the Commons is
discernible by the impact that globalisation has
had; strains of multi-polarity, anarchy of
expectations and the increasing tensions between
the demands for economic integration and the
stresses of fractured political divisions are
symptoms. Nations are persistently confronted by
the need to reconcile internal pressures with
intrusive external impulses at a time when the
efficacy of Power to bring on political outcomes is
in question. While most nations have sought
resolution and correctives within the framework of
the existing international order, China emerges as
an irony that has angled for and conspired to re-
write the rule book.
China’s rising comprehensive power has generated
an internal impulse to military growth and
unilateral intervention in its immediate
neighbourhood in the South and East China Sea
and its extended regions of economic interests. It
has developed and put in place strategies that
target the Commons to assure a favourable
consequence to what it perceives to be a strategic
competition for resources and control of the
seaways that enable movement. The consequences
of China activising artifices such as the Anti-
Access and Area Denial strategy and geo-political manoeuvres to establish the String of Pearls in the Indian Ocean Region evokes increasing shared anxieties and resistance by players in the same strategic milieu. Particularly at a time when the North Eastern Passage through the Arctic is emerging as receding ice cuts the Asia-Europe route via the Suez by half (from 23000 km to 11500 km) and technology opens the Antarctic to economic exploitation. The paradoxical effects of China’s contrivances are to undermine its own strategic standing, hasten counter-balancing alignments and urge a global logic of cooperative politics over imperious strategies.
The run up to the Peloponnesian War (431-404
BC) was marked by a debate held in Sparta
amongst the Peloponnesian allies to determine
whether war against the aggressive seapower
Athens and the maritime Delian League was to be waged. The leadership of the war-like alliance lay with the powerful yet reluctant Spartan king Archidamus, a man of both intelligence and moderation. He questioned, “What sort of a war, then, are we going to fight? If we can neither defeat them at sea nor control the resources on which their navy depends, we shall do ourselves more harm than good.” To Archidamus, clearly, the inability to access and control the Global Commons of his era presaged defeat.
Global Commons is a term typically used to
describe international, supranational, and global
common pool resource domains. Global Commons
include the earth's shared resources, such as the
oceans, the atmosphere, outer space and the Polar
Regions. Cyberspace also meets the definition, but
for this examination will focus on the hydrosphere.
The parameters for enquiry necessarily include
physical tangibles of height, width, depth and the
awkward intangible of human history.
Mahan in “The Influence of Seapower upon
History” underscored three prescient perspectives
relating to the Commons. First, competition for
materials and markets is intrinsic to an ever
trussed global system. Second, the collaborative
nature of commerce on the one hand deters war,
while on the other engenders friction. Third, the
Global Commons require to be secured against
disruption and rapacious exploitation.
An understanding of the Commons must not suffer
from any delusions that explicit and recognised
conventions have evolved over the centuries. On
the contrary, till the middle of the last century what
passed for a principle was Hugo Grotius’ 1609
notion of Mare Liberum ; freedom of the seas. The
concept that the sea was international territory and
all nations were free to use it. The free-for-all
state of the Commons becomes evident in the fact
of the seaward limit of national sovereignty being
defined by the cannon-shot decree which would
suggest that it was the ability to control that
defined dominio n. By the middle of the twentieth
century the collapse of colonial empires and the
birth of new nations set into motion a dynamic that
demanded a change from cannon-shot rules and
lawlessness to equitability and responsibilities in
the Commons along with demarcation of territorial
and economic zones. The United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II &
III) met 1954 to 1982 to hammer out and define
rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of
the world’s oceans. The deliberations concluded in
1982 and became functional in 1994. Recognising
that that the sea bed is the repository of vast and
unguaged quantities of minerals, the Convention
provided for a regime relating to minerals on the
seabed outside any state's territorial waters or
Exclusive Economic Zone. It established an
International Seabed Authority to regulate seabed
mining and control distribution of royalties. To date
it has been ratified by 165 nations. Significantly,
the US Senate has snubbed the UNCLOS. What
critically mars the compact is its imprecision, its
illusory demand for the supranational and the
absence of a structure to secure the Global
Commons against disruption and rapacious
exploitation.
The current distressed state of the Commons is
discernible by the impact that globalisation has
had; strains of multi-polarity, anarchy of
expectations and the increasing tensions between
the demands for economic integration and the
stresses of fractured political divisions are
symptoms. Nations are persistently confronted by
the need to reconcile internal pressures with
intrusive external impulses at a time when the
efficacy of Power to bring on political outcomes is
in question. While most nations have sought
resolution and correctives within the framework of
the existing international order, China emerges as
an irony that has angled for and conspired to re-
write the rule book.
China’s rising comprehensive power has generated
an internal impulse to military growth and
unilateral intervention in its immediate
neighbourhood in the South and East China Sea
and its extended regions of economic interests. It
has developed and put in place strategies that
target the Commons to assure a favourable
consequence to what it perceives to be a strategic
competition for resources and control of the
seaways that enable movement. The consequences
of China activising artifices such as the Anti-
Access and Area Denial strategy and geo-political manoeuvres to establish the String of Pearls in the Indian Ocean Region evokes increasing shared anxieties and resistance by players in the same strategic milieu. Particularly at a time when the North Eastern Passage through the Arctic is emerging as receding ice cuts the Asia-Europe route via the Suez by half (from 23000 km to 11500 km) and technology opens the Antarctic to economic exploitation. The paradoxical effects of China’s contrivances are to undermine its own strategic standing, hasten counter-balancing alignments and urge a global logic of cooperative politics over imperious strategies.
U.S. IN SOUTH ASIA: DECLINING INFLUENCE
Chintamani Mahapatra
The US’ influence in South Asia is fast diminishing
and this trend is likely to continue deep into the
future. In the aftermath of World War II, South Asia
was considered a strategic backwater by the US
policymakers. Additionally, South Asia offered little
economic opportunities to the US corporate sector.
With the solitary exception of turning Pakistan into
an alliance partner, the US cared little about this
region.
Even in the realm of alliance politics, the US had
little to offer Pakistan. Pakistan’s membership in
the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization and the
Central Treaty Organization, and the US’ military
assistance to Pakistan was ineffective during
Pakistan’s military misadventures against India. It
was only after the late 1970s’ Soviet military
intervention in Afghanistan that Washington got
critically involved in South Asia.
The US’ interest in South Asia deepened in the
post-Cold War era in view of Indian economic
reforms, nuclearisation of the region and the
pivotal role Afghanistan played in the terrorist
attack on the US in September 2001. As the US
once again turned Pakistan into an alliance partner
in the war against terrorism and established an
extraordinary strategic understanding with India,
South Asia occupied substantial priority in the US
national security agenda.
The US’ war in Afghanistan that began in 2001 is
about to come to a close. The US troop withdrawal
from this country is indisputable. Irrespective of
debates over the probable level of US engagement
in Afghan affairs post 2014, it is almost certain
that the closure of billions of dollars worth of war
in Afghanistan will trim Washington’s influence in
South Asia. The resilience of the Afghan Taliban
and limitation of a superpower’s abilities to
confront non-state-actors will question the US’
credibility in the region.
Secondly, the US leverage over Pakistan in the
post-Afghan war phase will dry down with an
almost automatic cut in the US military and
economic assistance to Islamabad. History will
unquestionably repeat and the US-Pakistan alliance
will terminate, as was the case after the Soviet
withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989.
Thirdly, the US’ influence over India, resulting from
an innovative “strategic partnership” project during
former US President George Bush’s era may not
survive his successor Barack Obama’s
administration. The enthusiasm of the first Obama
administration to further elevate this partnership
was short-lived and the second Obama
administration has paid less than modest attention
to India.
There is no doubt that the election victory of the
Bharatiya Janata Party under the leadership of now
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with a strong
popular mandate, has generated sizeable
excitement in Washington. Hope of revival of the
earlier impetus in the Indo-US strategic partnership
has been rekindled. Obama’s invitation to Modi to
visit Washington, Assistant Secretary of State
Nisha Biswal Desai’s trip to India soon after the
new government assumed office, visits by
influential Senator John McCain and Deputy
Secretary of State William J Burns to prepare the
ground for the Indo-US strategic dialogue between
Secretary of State John Kerry and Indian Foreign
Minister Sushma Swaraj are all signals of
Obama’s renewed interest in India.
But Prime Minister Modi appears less animated to
visit the US, more involved in constructing a
peaceful neighbourhood, more focused on reviving
the national economy and less enthralled to project
India as a global leader. About ten months have
passed since the Devyani Khobragade episode
begot a psychological divide in the New Delhi-
Washington bond. Repairing the mind-set is not
going to be easy even for the new Indian
government.
The Obama administration’s relationships with
other smaller South Asian countries – especially
Bangladesh and Sri Lanka – have also soured in
the recent years. Washington was hesitant to do
business with the Awami League government after
the January 2014 elections, criticised Dhaka’s
handling of human trafficking problems, and
reduced import of garments after a deadly fire in a
garment factory.
The US’ efforts to hold the Sri Lankan government
responsible for severe human rights violations
during the closing weeks of anti-Liberation Tigers
of the Tamil Eelam operations have widened the
political divide between Colombo and Washington.
The Sri Lankan government has demonstrated
bitterness over the US double standard in
combating terrorism—one standard for itself and
another for other countries.
Significantly, India’s smaller South Asian
neighbours are fast moving towards developing
closer relationships with China. Although this is
generally perceived as an anti-India phenomenon,
the reality is that Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are
looking up to China as a new guarantor of help in
the face of the US’ heavy-handed approach
towards them.
It is also a fact that the US has enhanced its
engagement with Nepal in response to fast growing
Chinese economic presence and political influence
in that country. But compared to China,
Washington’s influence in Nepal is minimal. It is
almost certain that the drop in Washington’s
political weight will further augment Chinese
leverage over Islamabad as well. It is time to
ponder over the diminished US and rising Chinese profile in the region.
The US’ influence in South Asia is fast diminishing
and this trend is likely to continue deep into the
future. In the aftermath of World War II, South Asia
was considered a strategic backwater by the US
policymakers. Additionally, South Asia offered little
economic opportunities to the US corporate sector.
With the solitary exception of turning Pakistan into
an alliance partner, the US cared little about this
region.
Even in the realm of alliance politics, the US had
little to offer Pakistan. Pakistan’s membership in
the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization and the
Central Treaty Organization, and the US’ military
assistance to Pakistan was ineffective during
Pakistan’s military misadventures against India. It
was only after the late 1970s’ Soviet military
intervention in Afghanistan that Washington got
critically involved in South Asia.
The US’ interest in South Asia deepened in the
post-Cold War era in view of Indian economic
reforms, nuclearisation of the region and the
pivotal role Afghanistan played in the terrorist
attack on the US in September 2001. As the US
once again turned Pakistan into an alliance partner
in the war against terrorism and established an
extraordinary strategic understanding with India,
South Asia occupied substantial priority in the US
national security agenda.
The US’ war in Afghanistan that began in 2001 is
about to come to a close. The US troop withdrawal
from this country is indisputable. Irrespective of
debates over the probable level of US engagement
in Afghan affairs post 2014, it is almost certain
that the closure of billions of dollars worth of war
in Afghanistan will trim Washington’s influence in
South Asia. The resilience of the Afghan Taliban
and limitation of a superpower’s abilities to
confront non-state-actors will question the US’
credibility in the region.
Secondly, the US leverage over Pakistan in the
post-Afghan war phase will dry down with an
almost automatic cut in the US military and
economic assistance to Islamabad. History will
unquestionably repeat and the US-Pakistan alliance
will terminate, as was the case after the Soviet
withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989.
Thirdly, the US’ influence over India, resulting from
an innovative “strategic partnership” project during
former US President George Bush’s era may not
survive his successor Barack Obama’s
administration. The enthusiasm of the first Obama
administration to further elevate this partnership
was short-lived and the second Obama
administration has paid less than modest attention
to India.
There is no doubt that the election victory of the
Bharatiya Janata Party under the leadership of now
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with a strong
popular mandate, has generated sizeable
excitement in Washington. Hope of revival of the
earlier impetus in the Indo-US strategic partnership
has been rekindled. Obama’s invitation to Modi to
visit Washington, Assistant Secretary of State
Nisha Biswal Desai’s trip to India soon after the
new government assumed office, visits by
influential Senator John McCain and Deputy
Secretary of State William J Burns to prepare the
ground for the Indo-US strategic dialogue between
Secretary of State John Kerry and Indian Foreign
Minister Sushma Swaraj are all signals of
Obama’s renewed interest in India.
But Prime Minister Modi appears less animated to
visit the US, more involved in constructing a
peaceful neighbourhood, more focused on reviving
the national economy and less enthralled to project
India as a global leader. About ten months have
passed since the Devyani Khobragade episode
begot a psychological divide in the New Delhi-
Washington bond. Repairing the mind-set is not
going to be easy even for the new Indian
government.
The Obama administration’s relationships with
other smaller South Asian countries – especially
Bangladesh and Sri Lanka – have also soured in
the recent years. Washington was hesitant to do
business with the Awami League government after
the January 2014 elections, criticised Dhaka’s
handling of human trafficking problems, and
reduced import of garments after a deadly fire in a
garment factory.
The US’ efforts to hold the Sri Lankan government
responsible for severe human rights violations
during the closing weeks of anti-Liberation Tigers
of the Tamil Eelam operations have widened the
political divide between Colombo and Washington.
The Sri Lankan government has demonstrated
bitterness over the US double standard in
combating terrorism—one standard for itself and
another for other countries.
Significantly, India’s smaller South Asian
neighbours are fast moving towards developing
closer relationships with China. Although this is
generally perceived as an anti-India phenomenon,
the reality is that Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are
looking up to China as a new guarantor of help in
the face of the US’ heavy-handed approach
towards them.
It is also a fact that the US has enhanced its
engagement with Nepal in response to fast growing
Chinese economic presence and political influence
in that country. But compared to China,
Washington’s influence in Nepal is minimal. It is
almost certain that the drop in Washington’s
political weight will further augment Chinese
leverage over Islamabad as well. It is time to
ponder over the diminished US and rising Chinese profile in the region.
13 Jul 2014
KILLING JOY
Derek Hunter
Remember when you could have fun at
someone else’s expense? Not in a mean-
spirited way, but in a fun way. Ribbing your
friends, your enemies, and just about anyone
you had a funny comment about was a time-
tested way of having a little fun in life. It
wasn’t personal, and nothing and no one was
off limits. That day is done.
The political correctness movement ruined
honest political discourse, funny movies and
decent sitcoms, and now it’s sucking the joy
out of everyday life for people uninvolved in
any of those things.
It may seem like a lifetime ago, but it was only
the 1970s when “Blazing Saddles” was made
and embraced by a culture simply looking to
laugh. It was offensive. It was silly. But most
of all it was funny. Same goes for “Airplane!”
Richard Pryor and George Carlin were mocking
people and cultures, and it was hilarious. Now
we are no longer ready to laugh; we’re ready
to be offended. No, we seem to crave being
offended.
Maybe there were a bunch of people in the
pre-Internet age with hair-triggers to outrage,
but licking a stamp and the speed of the U.S.
Post Office didn’t allow for them to mobilize
and terrorize people easily enough for it to
matter. But I somehow doubt it. Political
correctness had not yet sucked the fun out of
life, and people could laugh at themselves. But
the Internet has empowered these pathetic
loners to unite, connect with like-minded
parents’- basement dwellers, and form a cabal
of “thought policers” to demand subordination
and get it.
Plus, and most importantly, there wasn’t a
major political philosophy built on the concept
of dividing people to obtain power.
As progressives went from an unwashed few
in coffee shops in Manhattan and Berkeley to
unwashed hordes in elected offices,
newsrooms and tenured professorships, they
forged an Outrage Industrial Complex ready to
be offended on behalf of others. They were
quick to cry racism at any joke that involved
someone with different amounts of melanin.
They were quick to cry homophobia if the
target was gay. Actually, they’re just quick to
cry – and cry loudly enough to scare anyone
who simply heard crying and didn’t want to be
blamed for causing it.
Progressives took a nation that was getting
along pretty well and highlighted differences.
Rather than focus on what we all have in
common, they demanded we “celebrate
diversity. That celebration has mutated into a
club with which to pound anyone who steps
out of the line they’ve placed us in.
Political correctness was weaponized, then
monetized, and now it is the Sword of
Damocles hanging over everyone’s head, ready
to drop if we don’t use their approved
nomenclature.
There is an entire industry in the United States
of people who make a lot of money being
offended on behalf of others. Media Matters
for America employs an army of sad, lonely
people paid to spend their days consuming
media they despise in the hope they can find
something they can twist into a slight against
some victim group progressives have created.
Every ethnicity, sexual proclivity, religion,
body shape, etc., has a well-funded
organization claiming the mantle of leadership
on its behalf ready to jump (and fundraise)
should someone string together words in an
unapproved order. It’s pathetic.
There’s an effort to alter the First Amendment
moving through the Senate right now, but
there’s really no need for it. We, as a society,
have voluntarily forfeited the reason for it
already. The horse is dead; stop kicking it.
If you don’t use the proper hyphenate before
speaking of someone not sharing your skin
tone, you’re worse than Hitler. If you don’t
marinate in guilt over injustices committed
before your birth, and govern your life and
vocabulary accordingly, you might as well
tattoo “History’s Greatest Monster” on your
forehead.
Remember, “live and let live? It’s been
murdered. The “celebrate diversity” crowd
demands conformity of thought and language
and wields enough power to make life hell for
anyone who strays from the reservation.
I don’t hunt, despite my last name. I don’t get
those who do. That’s what grocery stores are
for.
But I respect those who hunt and eat what
they kill. And even though I don’t get it, I
realize I don’t have to. As such, I don’t
understand the idea of big-game hunting. I’ve
never looked at a beautiful animal and
thought, “I want to fly to the other side of the
planet and shoot one.” But again, I’m not
forced to engage in it. But the Outrage
Industrial Complex not only can’t fathom why
other people hunt, it won’t accept that they do
and it demands they stop.
Kendall Jones, a Texas college student, loves
hunting big game and spends a lot of money
flying to Africa to take part. I don’t get it, I’d
never do it, and I think it a rather bizarre
compulsion—even though the meat went to
others. But it’s her life and money.
That didn’t stop others from attacking her for
what she likes to do. They even started a
Facebook page calling for her to be killed . She
exists differently than I do or would, but it
would never occur to me to demand she not
live that way. But I don’t make my living
feigning outrage over things with which I am
not involved.
Axelle Despiegelaere is the latest target of the
Outrage Industrial Complex. She’s not a
politician or public figure, or even an
American. She’s just a Belgian soccer fan. The
attractive 17-year-old was photographed at the
World Cup and landed a modeling contract
with L’Oreal. An amazing story, right?
Well, it was. Now Axelle is yet another
cautionary tale.
Seems the 17-year-old beauty also is a hunter
and posted a picture of her over one of her
conquests to Facebook before the USA vs
Belgium game saying, “ready to hunt
Americans today haha.” Clearly a joke, but
joking isn’t allowed anymore.
The media has always found joy in building
people up, then knocking them down, but
they’ve never done it with such speed. Media-
created “outrage” over the photo already has
cost Axelle her gig with L’Oreal.
Live “wrong” and the Outrage Industrial
Complex will make sure your life is hell. Live
under their boot or else. It’s disgusting but not
at all surprising.
We live in a time of dichotomy. We’ve never
had more access to information and greater
ability to communicate our thoughts, but
we’ve never had more forces aligned against
us ready to destroy us for simply being
individuals.
I suspect this flirtation with fascism will be
temporary, that there will be a line crossed
that will have the vast majority of Americans
rebelling against it in the name of liberty. I
just hope that comes before the Outrage
Industrial Complex does kill the First
Amendment and codifies its will into law.
Remember when you could have fun at
someone else’s expense? Not in a mean-
spirited way, but in a fun way. Ribbing your
friends, your enemies, and just about anyone
you had a funny comment about was a time-
tested way of having a little fun in life. It
wasn’t personal, and nothing and no one was
off limits. That day is done.
The political correctness movement ruined
honest political discourse, funny movies and
decent sitcoms, and now it’s sucking the joy
out of everyday life for people uninvolved in
any of those things.
It may seem like a lifetime ago, but it was only
the 1970s when “Blazing Saddles” was made
and embraced by a culture simply looking to
laugh. It was offensive. It was silly. But most
of all it was funny. Same goes for “Airplane!”
Richard Pryor and George Carlin were mocking
people and cultures, and it was hilarious. Now
we are no longer ready to laugh; we’re ready
to be offended. No, we seem to crave being
offended.
Maybe there were a bunch of people in the
pre-Internet age with hair-triggers to outrage,
but licking a stamp and the speed of the U.S.
Post Office didn’t allow for them to mobilize
and terrorize people easily enough for it to
matter. But I somehow doubt it. Political
correctness had not yet sucked the fun out of
life, and people could laugh at themselves. But
the Internet has empowered these pathetic
loners to unite, connect with like-minded
parents’- basement dwellers, and form a cabal
of “thought policers” to demand subordination
and get it.
Plus, and most importantly, there wasn’t a
major political philosophy built on the concept
of dividing people to obtain power.
As progressives went from an unwashed few
in coffee shops in Manhattan and Berkeley to
unwashed hordes in elected offices,
newsrooms and tenured professorships, they
forged an Outrage Industrial Complex ready to
be offended on behalf of others. They were
quick to cry racism at any joke that involved
someone with different amounts of melanin.
They were quick to cry homophobia if the
target was gay. Actually, they’re just quick to
cry – and cry loudly enough to scare anyone
who simply heard crying and didn’t want to be
blamed for causing it.
Progressives took a nation that was getting
along pretty well and highlighted differences.
Rather than focus on what we all have in
common, they demanded we “celebrate
diversity. That celebration has mutated into a
club with which to pound anyone who steps
out of the line they’ve placed us in.
Political correctness was weaponized, then
monetized, and now it is the Sword of
Damocles hanging over everyone’s head, ready
to drop if we don’t use their approved
nomenclature.
There is an entire industry in the United States
of people who make a lot of money being
offended on behalf of others. Media Matters
for America employs an army of sad, lonely
people paid to spend their days consuming
media they despise in the hope they can find
something they can twist into a slight against
some victim group progressives have created.
Every ethnicity, sexual proclivity, religion,
body shape, etc., has a well-funded
organization claiming the mantle of leadership
on its behalf ready to jump (and fundraise)
should someone string together words in an
unapproved order. It’s pathetic.
There’s an effort to alter the First Amendment
moving through the Senate right now, but
there’s really no need for it. We, as a society,
have voluntarily forfeited the reason for it
already. The horse is dead; stop kicking it.
If you don’t use the proper hyphenate before
speaking of someone not sharing your skin
tone, you’re worse than Hitler. If you don’t
marinate in guilt over injustices committed
before your birth, and govern your life and
vocabulary accordingly, you might as well
tattoo “History’s Greatest Monster” on your
forehead.
Remember, “live and let live? It’s been
murdered. The “celebrate diversity” crowd
demands conformity of thought and language
and wields enough power to make life hell for
anyone who strays from the reservation.
I don’t hunt, despite my last name. I don’t get
those who do. That’s what grocery stores are
for.
But I respect those who hunt and eat what
they kill. And even though I don’t get it, I
realize I don’t have to. As such, I don’t
understand the idea of big-game hunting. I’ve
never looked at a beautiful animal and
thought, “I want to fly to the other side of the
planet and shoot one.” But again, I’m not
forced to engage in it. But the Outrage
Industrial Complex not only can’t fathom why
other people hunt, it won’t accept that they do
and it demands they stop.
Kendall Jones, a Texas college student, loves
hunting big game and spends a lot of money
flying to Africa to take part. I don’t get it, I’d
never do it, and I think it a rather bizarre
compulsion—even though the meat went to
others. But it’s her life and money.
That didn’t stop others from attacking her for
what she likes to do. They even started a
Facebook page calling for her to be killed . She
exists differently than I do or would, but it
would never occur to me to demand she not
live that way. But I don’t make my living
feigning outrage over things with which I am
not involved.
Axelle Despiegelaere is the latest target of the
Outrage Industrial Complex. She’s not a
politician or public figure, or even an
American. She’s just a Belgian soccer fan. The
attractive 17-year-old was photographed at the
World Cup and landed a modeling contract
with L’Oreal. An amazing story, right?
Well, it was. Now Axelle is yet another
cautionary tale.
Seems the 17-year-old beauty also is a hunter
and posted a picture of her over one of her
conquests to Facebook before the USA vs
Belgium game saying, “ready to hunt
Americans today haha.” Clearly a joke, but
joking isn’t allowed anymore.
The media has always found joy in building
people up, then knocking them down, but
they’ve never done it with such speed. Media-
created “outrage” over the photo already has
cost Axelle her gig with L’Oreal.
Live “wrong” and the Outrage Industrial
Complex will make sure your life is hell. Live
under their boot or else. It’s disgusting but not
at all surprising.
We live in a time of dichotomy. We’ve never
had more access to information and greater
ability to communicate our thoughts, but
we’ve never had more forces aligned against
us ready to destroy us for simply being
individuals.
I suspect this flirtation with fascism will be
temporary, that there will be a line crossed
that will have the vast majority of Americans
rebelling against it in the name of liberty. I
just hope that comes before the Outrage
Industrial Complex does kill the First
Amendment and codifies its will into law.
THE LEFT OFFICIALLY DECLARES WAR ON GOD
Steve Deace
The meltdowns, lawlessness, and crises are
coming so “fast and furious” now you can’t
keep track of them all, which is why many of
you probably missed a recent development
that may actually be the biggest threat of them
all to our constitutional republic.
This week, the same people who booed God at
the 2012 Democrat National Convention openly
declared war on their own Maker. For instead
of repenting of their attempted tyranny, the
statist/Marxist Left’s response to last week’s
Supreme Court opinion in favor of Hobby
Lobby (i.e. the First Amendment) was to
remove any pretense whatsoever they still
believe in the U.S. Constitution.
After previously lying…err...claiming that
they’d never do anything to stop you from
practicing your religion in your church “where
it belongs,” the statist/Marxist Left has openly
declared war on God and those who still
believe what the Word of God has to say about
moral matters.
The ACLU and other anti-American groups
announced they are withdrawing their support
for a heinous piece of legislation known as
ENDA. Because with a scant 5-4 majority of
the U.S. Supreme Court still believing in the
First Amendment, it’s obvious to them that
ENDA in its current form wasn’t heinous
enough. ENDA, which stands for the
“Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” is the
unholy grail of the moral depravity lobby. The
immorality peddlers have been peddling
various versions of this bill for years, but the
end result is always the same—you will be
made to care.
The intent of this legislation is for the federal
government to once and for all make
someone’s private sexual behavior a publicly
protected class in all of Obama’s 57 states, and
thus also silence once and for all any moral or
religious dissent to their depravity. Oh, sure,
the version passed out of the Democrat-
controlled U.S. Senate last year included so-
called “religious exemptions.” But absolutely
no one smarter than Joe Biden believes the
same people who think the Feds can order the
“Little Sister of the Poor” to pay for baby-
murder, also believes these people are serious
about protecting religious liberty.
Now that the High Court they’ve relied on so
many times before to impose their statist
edicts on the American people by fiat actually
sided against them for a change, these anti-
American groups on the statist/Marxist Left
aren’t even going to pay lip service to liberty
anymore. So they will no longer support any
legislation that doesn’t tell religious
institutions they have to obey man and not
God.
Nero would be proud.
That means if you’re a Christian school with a
teacher/administrator living an immoral life
that undermines your mission, you can’t fire
them. Like this example courtesy of Denny
Burk at the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary:
Last year, Azusa Pacific University (a Christian
school) asked a female theology professor to
leave after she began to assume a transgender
identity. “Gender identity” is protected under
ENDA. If ENDA were the law of the land with
no religious exemptions, then it would have
been illegal for this Christian school to dismiss
this professor. Under ENDA, Azusa would have
been in violation of federal law if they were to
follow Christianity’s teaching about gender.
Burk correctly concludes:
These Leftist groups are pursuing a zero-sum
strategy against religious groups and
individuals. They have declared an all-out
culture war and will offer no quarter to sincere
religious dissenters. They are ready to use the
coercive power of the state to trample the
religious consciences of their countrymen. This
is radical and chilling.
If you’re a Democrat that takes their faith
seriously and you think guys like Burk and I
are taking fringe elements of your party too
seriously, consider the fact the Democrat
majority in the U.S. Senate has “fast-tracked”
legislation that would seek to undo the Hobby
Lobby opinion. The bill would demand a
company pay for abortifacients and baby-
murder as Obamacare originally demanded.
Elected Democrats in the U.S. Senate are not
the fringe of their party. They are the party.
This is who this party has become.
The decades-long right-of-center/left-of-center
argument we’ve had since the New Deal about
just how much government should be used to
even the odds is over now. When Democrat
Zell Miller got up and spoke at the 2004
Republican National Convention that was
symbolically the end of the old Democrat
Party. A party that once claimed to represent
the values of working-class and middle-class
Americans, as well as ethnic and racial
minorities, who believed they needed
government as a check-and-balance against
corporatism.
The generation of Democrats who gave us the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act 20 years
ago, which the Supreme Court used as the
basis for its ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, is
mostly gone now. Replaced by what David
Horowitz calls “the New Left.” This “New Left”
is not mere liberals. They are flat-out Leftists.
They don’t want to grow government as much
as they want to change it. They are Social
Reconstructionists, whose goal is to empower
government to replace our Judeo-Christian
ideals of liberty and morality with what
amounts to Cultural Marxism.
And they won’t stop until the American
Exceptionalism they either don’t understand
or loathe is eradicated once and for all. That’s
why their ultimate goal is silencing the church,
as all tyrants in history have tried to do,
because the church has always been the chief
obstacle to statism in a culture.
For the church says that God alone is God, and
government is not.
Not to mention with God out of the way, so
are your God-given rights, which makes you a
de facto ward of the state and not a free
person. As Chesterton once said, “Whenever
the government removes the god the
government then becomes the god.”
You can’t share a culture with people who
won’t share it with you. There is no
negotiating with these people. You can only
convert or defeat them.
The meltdowns, lawlessness, and crises are
coming so “fast and furious” now you can’t
keep track of them all, which is why many of
you probably missed a recent development
that may actually be the biggest threat of them
all to our constitutional republic.
This week, the same people who booed God at
the 2012 Democrat National Convention openly
declared war on their own Maker. For instead
of repenting of their attempted tyranny, the
statist/Marxist Left’s response to last week’s
Supreme Court opinion in favor of Hobby
Lobby (i.e. the First Amendment) was to
remove any pretense whatsoever they still
believe in the U.S. Constitution.
After previously lying…err...claiming that
they’d never do anything to stop you from
practicing your religion in your church “where
it belongs,” the statist/Marxist Left has openly
declared war on God and those who still
believe what the Word of God has to say about
moral matters.
The ACLU and other anti-American groups
announced they are withdrawing their support
for a heinous piece of legislation known as
ENDA. Because with a scant 5-4 majority of
the U.S. Supreme Court still believing in the
First Amendment, it’s obvious to them that
ENDA in its current form wasn’t heinous
enough. ENDA, which stands for the
“Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” is the
unholy grail of the moral depravity lobby. The
immorality peddlers have been peddling
various versions of this bill for years, but the
end result is always the same—you will be
made to care.
The intent of this legislation is for the federal
government to once and for all make
someone’s private sexual behavior a publicly
protected class in all of Obama’s 57 states, and
thus also silence once and for all any moral or
religious dissent to their depravity. Oh, sure,
the version passed out of the Democrat-
controlled U.S. Senate last year included so-
called “religious exemptions.” But absolutely
no one smarter than Joe Biden believes the
same people who think the Feds can order the
“Little Sister of the Poor” to pay for baby-
murder, also believes these people are serious
about protecting religious liberty.
Now that the High Court they’ve relied on so
many times before to impose their statist
edicts on the American people by fiat actually
sided against them for a change, these anti-
American groups on the statist/Marxist Left
aren’t even going to pay lip service to liberty
anymore. So they will no longer support any
legislation that doesn’t tell religious
institutions they have to obey man and not
God.
Nero would be proud.
That means if you’re a Christian school with a
teacher/administrator living an immoral life
that undermines your mission, you can’t fire
them. Like this example courtesy of Denny
Burk at the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary:
Last year, Azusa Pacific University (a Christian
school) asked a female theology professor to
leave after she began to assume a transgender
identity. “Gender identity” is protected under
ENDA. If ENDA were the law of the land with
no religious exemptions, then it would have
been illegal for this Christian school to dismiss
this professor. Under ENDA, Azusa would have
been in violation of federal law if they were to
follow Christianity’s teaching about gender.
Burk correctly concludes:
These Leftist groups are pursuing a zero-sum
strategy against religious groups and
individuals. They have declared an all-out
culture war and will offer no quarter to sincere
religious dissenters. They are ready to use the
coercive power of the state to trample the
religious consciences of their countrymen. This
is radical and chilling.
If you’re a Democrat that takes their faith
seriously and you think guys like Burk and I
are taking fringe elements of your party too
seriously, consider the fact the Democrat
majority in the U.S. Senate has “fast-tracked”
legislation that would seek to undo the Hobby
Lobby opinion. The bill would demand a
company pay for abortifacients and baby-
murder as Obamacare originally demanded.
Elected Democrats in the U.S. Senate are not
the fringe of their party. They are the party.
This is who this party has become.
The decades-long right-of-center/left-of-center
argument we’ve had since the New Deal about
just how much government should be used to
even the odds is over now. When Democrat
Zell Miller got up and spoke at the 2004
Republican National Convention that was
symbolically the end of the old Democrat
Party. A party that once claimed to represent
the values of working-class and middle-class
Americans, as well as ethnic and racial
minorities, who believed they needed
government as a check-and-balance against
corporatism.
The generation of Democrats who gave us the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act 20 years
ago, which the Supreme Court used as the
basis for its ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, is
mostly gone now. Replaced by what David
Horowitz calls “the New Left.” This “New Left”
is not mere liberals. They are flat-out Leftists.
They don’t want to grow government as much
as they want to change it. They are Social
Reconstructionists, whose goal is to empower
government to replace our Judeo-Christian
ideals of liberty and morality with what
amounts to Cultural Marxism.
And they won’t stop until the American
Exceptionalism they either don’t understand
or loathe is eradicated once and for all. That’s
why their ultimate goal is silencing the church,
as all tyrants in history have tried to do,
because the church has always been the chief
obstacle to statism in a culture.
For the church says that God alone is God, and
government is not.
Not to mention with God out of the way, so
are your God-given rights, which makes you a
de facto ward of the state and not a free
person. As Chesterton once said, “Whenever
the government removes the god the
government then becomes the god.”
You can’t share a culture with people who
won’t share it with you. There is no
negotiating with these people. You can only
convert or defeat them.
THE INVISIBLE EMPLOYEES
Bob Goldman
Do you ever feel people at your job don't know
you exist?
Do you sit through long meetings where no
one asks your opinion? Do you walk through
the halls and no one asks, "How you doing?"
Does workplace life swirl all around you,
leaving you in a vacuum of silence and
isolation?
If you answer, "yes, indeed" to these
questions, I have news for you -- you're not
being ignored or insulted. You, my friend, are
an Invisible.
Invisible, as it turns out, is not a terrible thing
to be. As Richard Eisenberg writes in a recent
article in Forbes, "Invisibles at Work, Take a
Bow," Invisibles may be unseen and
unheralded, but they are important. So
important, in fact, that author David Zweig, a
somewhat shadowy figure himself, has written
an entire book about the subject, "Invisibles:
The Power of Anonymous Work in an Age of
Relentless Self-Promotion."
According to Zweig, Invisibles are "highly
regarded people whose work is really critical
to their endeavor." In other words, they're
skilled professionals who are vital to the
successful operation of their companies, yet no
one knows they exist. Nor is anyone likely to
ever know they exist. That's because, for most
Invisibles, "the better they do their job, the
more they disappear. It's only if something
goes wrong that they're ever thought of. If
they do their job perfectly, they are
unnoticed."
Since doing your job perfectly is something
that is never going to happen, it is unlikely you
will always wear that comfy cloak of
invisibility. But should you make total
invisibility a goal? That's an interesting
question. The answer seems to depend on
certain personal beliefs you may or may not
bring to the workplace.
For example, are you one of those weirdoes
who like to get credit for your work? If so, you
are unlikely to enjoy being an Invisible. But
maybe you are wrong about the benefits of
being noticed. As author Zweig writes in
"Invisibles," "receiving outward credit for your
work is overrated." (You wouldn't know
whether this were true or not, since you so
rarely receive credit, outward or inward or
sideways. This is partially because you do so
little work, of course. It is also because your
managers are narcissistic jerks.)
Another important aspect of becoming an
Invisible is a willingness to hop off the self-
promotion bandwagon. Invisibles don't have a
"personal brand." They are not Tiffany & Co.,
and they are not Kmart. They are not tweeting
their brand personality on Twitter. and they
have a negative number of friends on
Facebook. Even people who don't know them
unfriend them!
This makes Invisibles unusual. "We live in a
culture where attention seems to be valued
above everything else," explains Zweig,
"where people are willing to humiliate
themselves to get on a reality TV show."
This is a wonderful insight. Your co-workers
have always wondered why you act so
strangely, and now we know. You're not a
freak; you're auditioning for a spot on "Duck
Dynasty."
Finally, to be an Invisible, you have to be the
kind of person who is satisfied by "intrinsic
rewards." That means you don't care about
getting recognition from your peers, attaboys
from your boss or even receiving big fat raises,
bonuses and over-the-top perks like free, all-
expense weekends living in luxury in the back
seat of your boss's Jaguar.
If you're an Invisible, what gets your juices
flowing is "the value of your work, not the
volume of your praise."
This is a lovely thought, but I think you will
agree that to be an Invisible, you also need an
active fantasy life; the chief fantasy being that,
sooner or later, all the good work you do will
suddenly become recognized, and your
admirable, selfless, invisible self will become
visible.
The authors insist that "the research seems to
show that good work does get recognized," but
in my experience, all those years of Invisibility
can end up in only one way -- with a highly
visible pink slip. Doing all that wonderful
work that nobody notices may be highly
honorable and inwardly rewarding but will
definitely put you in the line of firing the next
time a reduction in staff is contemplated.
Can't you just hear your boss now?
"I have no idea who that person is or what he
does," she is saying as your cloak of invisibility
comes off and you can be seen in all your
selfless wonderfulness. "Let's fire him first."
Do you ever feel people at your job don't know
you exist?
Do you sit through long meetings where no
one asks your opinion? Do you walk through
the halls and no one asks, "How you doing?"
Does workplace life swirl all around you,
leaving you in a vacuum of silence and
isolation?
If you answer, "yes, indeed" to these
questions, I have news for you -- you're not
being ignored or insulted. You, my friend, are
an Invisible.
Invisible, as it turns out, is not a terrible thing
to be. As Richard Eisenberg writes in a recent
article in Forbes, "Invisibles at Work, Take a
Bow," Invisibles may be unseen and
unheralded, but they are important. So
important, in fact, that author David Zweig, a
somewhat shadowy figure himself, has written
an entire book about the subject, "Invisibles:
The Power of Anonymous Work in an Age of
Relentless Self-Promotion."
According to Zweig, Invisibles are "highly
regarded people whose work is really critical
to their endeavor." In other words, they're
skilled professionals who are vital to the
successful operation of their companies, yet no
one knows they exist. Nor is anyone likely to
ever know they exist. That's because, for most
Invisibles, "the better they do their job, the
more they disappear. It's only if something
goes wrong that they're ever thought of. If
they do their job perfectly, they are
unnoticed."
Since doing your job perfectly is something
that is never going to happen, it is unlikely you
will always wear that comfy cloak of
invisibility. But should you make total
invisibility a goal? That's an interesting
question. The answer seems to depend on
certain personal beliefs you may or may not
bring to the workplace.
For example, are you one of those weirdoes
who like to get credit for your work? If so, you
are unlikely to enjoy being an Invisible. But
maybe you are wrong about the benefits of
being noticed. As author Zweig writes in
"Invisibles," "receiving outward credit for your
work is overrated." (You wouldn't know
whether this were true or not, since you so
rarely receive credit, outward or inward or
sideways. This is partially because you do so
little work, of course. It is also because your
managers are narcissistic jerks.)
Another important aspect of becoming an
Invisible is a willingness to hop off the self-
promotion bandwagon. Invisibles don't have a
"personal brand." They are not Tiffany & Co.,
and they are not Kmart. They are not tweeting
their brand personality on Twitter. and they
have a negative number of friends on
Facebook. Even people who don't know them
unfriend them!
This makes Invisibles unusual. "We live in a
culture where attention seems to be valued
above everything else," explains Zweig,
"where people are willing to humiliate
themselves to get on a reality TV show."
This is a wonderful insight. Your co-workers
have always wondered why you act so
strangely, and now we know. You're not a
freak; you're auditioning for a spot on "Duck
Dynasty."
Finally, to be an Invisible, you have to be the
kind of person who is satisfied by "intrinsic
rewards." That means you don't care about
getting recognition from your peers, attaboys
from your boss or even receiving big fat raises,
bonuses and over-the-top perks like free, all-
expense weekends living in luxury in the back
seat of your boss's Jaguar.
If you're an Invisible, what gets your juices
flowing is "the value of your work, not the
volume of your praise."
This is a lovely thought, but I think you will
agree that to be an Invisible, you also need an
active fantasy life; the chief fantasy being that,
sooner or later, all the good work you do will
suddenly become recognized, and your
admirable, selfless, invisible self will become
visible.
The authors insist that "the research seems to
show that good work does get recognized," but
in my experience, all those years of Invisibility
can end up in only one way -- with a highly
visible pink slip. Doing all that wonderful
work that nobody notices may be highly
honorable and inwardly rewarding but will
definitely put you in the line of firing the next
time a reduction in staff is contemplated.
Can't you just hear your boss now?
"I have no idea who that person is or what he
does," she is saying as your cloak of invisibility
comes off and you can be seen in all your
selfless wonderfulness. "Let's fire him first."
OBAMA: MUSLIM HERO
Jeff Crouere
According to a six month Gallup survey,
President Obama is very popular with only one
group of Americans, Muslims, registering an
astounding 72% approval rating. It is a much
different story among all Americans as the
President scores a weak 43% approval rating.
This new data is from a survey of Americans
with religious affiliations that compiled
information from 88,000 interviews over the
January 1-June 30, 2014 time period. Among
all Americans, even Muslims, the President’s
approval rating has dropped between five and
seven percentage points in the past six months
compared to his five year average.
Whereas the vast majority of Muslims love
President Obama, Mormons are very
disapproving of his leadership and give him
only an 18% approval rating. Overall,
Christians are not very supportive of the
President’s agenda with Catholics giving
Obama a 44% approval rating and Protestants
only registering 37% support.
It is a different story with Jewish voters with
55% approving of President Obama. While this
is strong Jewish support, it does reflect a
decline of 7 percentage points from his five
year average.
In general, the President does much better
with non-Christian voters than with Christian
voters. Even though the President has
professed his Christian faith, it is obvious that
many Christians do not believe his policies are
in line with the teachings of their church.
In contrast, Muslims, strongly support the
President, even though he has denied
following Islam. Muslim Americans have seen
the President demonstrate unwavering support
for the Palestinian cause, advocate the Arab
Spring uprising in Egypt and other countries
and show support for the Muslim Brotherhood
in Egypt.
He clearly supported the overthrow of
American ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and
lunatic Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Whereas
the Muslim Brotherhood installed a religious
dictatorship in Egypt and plunged the country
into turmoil, chaos erupted in Libya and the
country is still lawless today.
Muslim Americans have obviously been
heartened by the President’s statements
regarding their faith. During his speech to the
Turkish Parliament on April 6, 2009, the
President said that, “The United States has
been enriched by Muslim Americans.” On June
4, 2009, the President addressed students at
Cairo University. He said, “I’m a Christian, but
my father came from a Kenyan family that
includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I
spent several years in Indonesia and heard the
call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at
the fall of dusk.” He also remarked that he
knew “Islam on three continents before
coming to the region where it was first
revealed.”
In a 2007 interview with the New York Times ,
Nicholas Kristof wrote that “Mr. Obama
recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to
prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent.
In a remark that seemed delightfully
uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart
attacks); Mr. Obama described the call to
prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth
at sunset."
Finally, Americans Muslims have surely not
forgotten Obama’s famous speech to the
Sojourners on June 28, 2007. He said that
“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a
Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also
a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist
nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of
nonbelievers.”
All together, Barack Obama’s actions, speeches
and interviews paint the picture of a much
different President than this country has ever
known. While Muslims are very supportive of
his policies, a strong majority of Christians are
unhappy. Since America is still 75% Christian,
the President’s overall approval rating will not
improve until he starts to score better with
Christian voters. This rocky relationship does
not show any signs of improving any time
soon.
According to a six month Gallup survey,
President Obama is very popular with only one
group of Americans, Muslims, registering an
astounding 72% approval rating. It is a much
different story among all Americans as the
President scores a weak 43% approval rating.
This new data is from a survey of Americans
with religious affiliations that compiled
information from 88,000 interviews over the
January 1-June 30, 2014 time period. Among
all Americans, even Muslims, the President’s
approval rating has dropped between five and
seven percentage points in the past six months
compared to his five year average.
Whereas the vast majority of Muslims love
President Obama, Mormons are very
disapproving of his leadership and give him
only an 18% approval rating. Overall,
Christians are not very supportive of the
President’s agenda with Catholics giving
Obama a 44% approval rating and Protestants
only registering 37% support.
It is a different story with Jewish voters with
55% approving of President Obama. While this
is strong Jewish support, it does reflect a
decline of 7 percentage points from his five
year average.
In general, the President does much better
with non-Christian voters than with Christian
voters. Even though the President has
professed his Christian faith, it is obvious that
many Christians do not believe his policies are
in line with the teachings of their church.
In contrast, Muslims, strongly support the
President, even though he has denied
following Islam. Muslim Americans have seen
the President demonstrate unwavering support
for the Palestinian cause, advocate the Arab
Spring uprising in Egypt and other countries
and show support for the Muslim Brotherhood
in Egypt.
He clearly supported the overthrow of
American ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and
lunatic Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Whereas
the Muslim Brotherhood installed a religious
dictatorship in Egypt and plunged the country
into turmoil, chaos erupted in Libya and the
country is still lawless today.
Muslim Americans have obviously been
heartened by the President’s statements
regarding their faith. During his speech to the
Turkish Parliament on April 6, 2009, the
President said that, “The United States has
been enriched by Muslim Americans.” On June
4, 2009, the President addressed students at
Cairo University. He said, “I’m a Christian, but
my father came from a Kenyan family that
includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I
spent several years in Indonesia and heard the
call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at
the fall of dusk.” He also remarked that he
knew “Islam on three continents before
coming to the region where it was first
revealed.”
In a 2007 interview with the New York Times ,
Nicholas Kristof wrote that “Mr. Obama
recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to
prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent.
In a remark that seemed delightfully
uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart
attacks); Mr. Obama described the call to
prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth
at sunset."
Finally, Americans Muslims have surely not
forgotten Obama’s famous speech to the
Sojourners on June 28, 2007. He said that
“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a
Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also
a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist
nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of
nonbelievers.”
All together, Barack Obama’s actions, speeches
and interviews paint the picture of a much
different President than this country has ever
known. While Muslims are very supportive of
his policies, a strong majority of Christians are
unhappy. Since America is still 75% Christian,
the President’s overall approval rating will not
improve until he starts to score better with
Christian voters. This rocky relationship does
not show any signs of improving any time
soon.
12 Jul 2014
QUIT PLAYING POLITICS WITH KIDS
Linda Chavez
Some 50,000 unaccompanied minors have
crossed our borders in recent months, and
those capable of helping resolve the crisis
won't even talk to each other much less come
up with a decent plan. This week, President
Obama asked Congress for supplemental
appropriations to deal with processing the
minors and to discourage more from coming,
but House Republicans so far have balked at
considering the request. "We are not giving the
president a blank check," House Speaker John
Boehner declared. Republicans want the
administration to do more to stop the flow of
kids into the U.S., which is reasonable.
So why don't the two men sit down and work
it out? That's their job. Instead, both sides
seem more worried about their political bases
than they do about solving the problem.
Obama worries that if he pushes too tough of a
line by seeking changes to the law that would
allow for expedited removal of the kids, he'll
alienate Hispanic voters. And besides, GOP
recalcitrance to provide money to properly
house these kids makes Republicans look
mean, which helps Democrats with more
moderate voters, especially women, in the
months leading up to the midterm elections.
Republican leaders worry that anything that
looks like being soft on illegal immigration --
even if it means providing decent beds and
meals to little kids -- will enrage the small
fraction of the GOP base that stokes the fires
on this issue. What's more, releasing these
children to relatives in the U.S. while they
await deportation proceedings likely
encourages more kids to come.
Last year, fewer than 4,500 unaccompanied
minors were deported or allowed to leave
voluntarily after hearings before immigration
judges. Republicans argue -- not without
justification -- that the low odds that
unaccompanied minors will be sent home send
the message to families that all they have to do
is get their kids across the border to keep them
safe.
But none of these reasons justifies doing
nothing. Republicans should take up bills to
appropriate money to provide proper shelter to
the kids, as well as to hire more immigration
judges so that their cases can be adjudicated as
required by law. But the administration must
do more to close loopholes in current law that
allow unaccompanied minors from Central
America to be treated differently than Mexican
kids -- who are processed expeditiously and
sent home with the agreement of their
government.
And immigrant advocates need to step up, as
well. The huge influx of unaccompanied
minors this year virtually guaranteed that the
House would not take up sensible changes in
law to admit more immigrants legally.
Immigration opponents have been claiming for
years that our borders are not secure, and this
influx -- erroneously -- seems to prove the
point. Never mind that illegal immigration is
lower now than it has been in decades. Never
mind that the Obama administration has, in
fact, deported more illegal immigrants than
any administration in history. The kids aren't
sneaking across the border; they walk up to
border patrol agents and plead: "Apprehend
me."
Nonetheless, immigration reform advocates --
as I surely am -- need to make it clear that we
want the kids to stop coming. It is dangerous
for them and an unfair burden on American
taxpayers. And, from a purely pragmatic
position, the continued migration makes
comprehensive reform far less likely. The anti-
reform crowd couldn't have come up with a
more effective strategy to derail immigration
reform than to send a children's crusade
across our southern border.
Solving the border crisis is not rocket science.
The long-term solution requires changes to
U.S. law that would allow more immigrants
and guest workers to come here legally. We
need their skills (high and low), they boost our
economy, and it is who we are: a nation built
by immigrants.
But right now, our elected officials need to
quit playing politics. They need to feed, shelter
and care for the kids who are already here in
proper, humanitarian fashion -- as required by
U.S. law. But they must also discourage more
kids from coming, and like it or not, that
means sending the new arrivals home as
quickly (and humanely) as legally feasible.
Both of these actions require the White House
and Congress to work out their differences. It's
time to stop playing politics with the kids.
Some 50,000 unaccompanied minors have
crossed our borders in recent months, and
those capable of helping resolve the crisis
won't even talk to each other much less come
up with a decent plan. This week, President
Obama asked Congress for supplemental
appropriations to deal with processing the
minors and to discourage more from coming,
but House Republicans so far have balked at
considering the request. "We are not giving the
president a blank check," House Speaker John
Boehner declared. Republicans want the
administration to do more to stop the flow of
kids into the U.S., which is reasonable.
So why don't the two men sit down and work
it out? That's their job. Instead, both sides
seem more worried about their political bases
than they do about solving the problem.
Obama worries that if he pushes too tough of a
line by seeking changes to the law that would
allow for expedited removal of the kids, he'll
alienate Hispanic voters. And besides, GOP
recalcitrance to provide money to properly
house these kids makes Republicans look
mean, which helps Democrats with more
moderate voters, especially women, in the
months leading up to the midterm elections.
Republican leaders worry that anything that
looks like being soft on illegal immigration --
even if it means providing decent beds and
meals to little kids -- will enrage the small
fraction of the GOP base that stokes the fires
on this issue. What's more, releasing these
children to relatives in the U.S. while they
await deportation proceedings likely
encourages more kids to come.
Last year, fewer than 4,500 unaccompanied
minors were deported or allowed to leave
voluntarily after hearings before immigration
judges. Republicans argue -- not without
justification -- that the low odds that
unaccompanied minors will be sent home send
the message to families that all they have to do
is get their kids across the border to keep them
safe.
But none of these reasons justifies doing
nothing. Republicans should take up bills to
appropriate money to provide proper shelter to
the kids, as well as to hire more immigration
judges so that their cases can be adjudicated as
required by law. But the administration must
do more to close loopholes in current law that
allow unaccompanied minors from Central
America to be treated differently than Mexican
kids -- who are processed expeditiously and
sent home with the agreement of their
government.
And immigrant advocates need to step up, as
well. The huge influx of unaccompanied
minors this year virtually guaranteed that the
House would not take up sensible changes in
law to admit more immigrants legally.
Immigration opponents have been claiming for
years that our borders are not secure, and this
influx -- erroneously -- seems to prove the
point. Never mind that illegal immigration is
lower now than it has been in decades. Never
mind that the Obama administration has, in
fact, deported more illegal immigrants than
any administration in history. The kids aren't
sneaking across the border; they walk up to
border patrol agents and plead: "Apprehend
me."
Nonetheless, immigration reform advocates --
as I surely am -- need to make it clear that we
want the kids to stop coming. It is dangerous
for them and an unfair burden on American
taxpayers. And, from a purely pragmatic
position, the continued migration makes
comprehensive reform far less likely. The anti-
reform crowd couldn't have come up with a
more effective strategy to derail immigration
reform than to send a children's crusade
across our southern border.
Solving the border crisis is not rocket science.
The long-term solution requires changes to
U.S. law that would allow more immigrants
and guest workers to come here legally. We
need their skills (high and low), they boost our
economy, and it is who we are: a nation built
by immigrants.
But right now, our elected officials need to
quit playing politics. They need to feed, shelter
and care for the kids who are already here in
proper, humanitarian fashion -- as required by
U.S. law. But they must also discourage more
kids from coming, and like it or not, that
means sending the new arrivals home as
quickly (and humanely) as legally feasible.
Both of these actions require the White House
and Congress to work out their differences. It's
time to stop playing politics with the kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)