<b>US eyes big Pakistan, India arms sales</b> <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>INDIA AS CHINA HEDGE</b>
Separately, the United States is poised to push in the new year for major arms sales to India, a hedge against China's growing regional military clout and influence.
The Bush administration is weighing, among other things,<b> whether to let India buy a state-of-the-art radar system as part of a U.S. bid for a potential $5 billion contract to supply 126 multi-role fighters, Kohler said in the interview</b>.
The possible supply of Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar, or AESA, would boost U.S. prospects against expected competition from Sweden, France and Russia. The technology is meant to let U.S. fighters detect and destroy enemy aircraft at significantly longer ranges.
An Indian purchase of either the F-16 or the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet built by Boeing Co., the other U.S. fighter on offer, would cement a sea change in U.S.-Indian bilateral ties since the end of the Cold War.
<b>"Their pilots (would) come to our schools. We'll train with them. We will work very closely with their maintenance technicians,"</b> said Kohler, who has visited India three times in the past year. He said he may go back to New Delhi in March and was planning to send his deputy, Richard Millies, in late January or early February to coincide with an arms bazaar.
New Delhi's ultimate choice of its next fighter aircraft "will be a fairly significant political statement," he said.
<b>India is widely said to be interested also in a range of U.S. arms, including P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, PAC-3 anti-missile systems and electronic warfare systems.</b>
Analysts fear U.S. sales could fuel an arms race between India and Pakistan, which have fought three wars since the 1947 partition of British India.
If their rivalry flared anew, the United States could be on the hook to deliver sophisticated weaponry to a region on the brink of war, said Matt Schroeder of the Federation of American Scientists' arms sales monitoring project.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.americanhumane.org/site/D...f?docID=3 381
Child abuse and neglect are everywhere
In 2003, an estimated 906,000 children were reported and investigated to be
confirmed victims of actual abuse or neglect situations. In other cases, reports may have been made about possible abuse, but there may not have been enough information for substantiation (USDHHS, 2005).
It is estimated that 1,500 children died as a result of abuse or neglect in 2003. The majorityâalmost 79%âwere three years of age or younger. Neglect accounted for more than one-third (35.6%) of all fatalities (USDHHS, 2005).
Violent crime is a reality for many of our children
More than 25% of violent crime victims known to police are juveniles; children and young adults are nine times more likely to be victims of a violent crime than are older adults (CDF, 2004).
It is estimated that in 30% to 60% of households in which either domestic violence or child maltreatment is identified, it is likely that both forms of abuse
exist (Bragg, 2003).
In a study of 100 women who were victims of domestic violence, 54% reported that their partner had either hurt or killed the family pets, and 62% of this group reported that their children were exposed to their petsâ abuse (Ascione, 2000, as cited in Ascione, 2001).
In 2003, 2,911 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States
(CDF, 2004).
The lack of adequate health care affects the well-being of children 314,077 infants born in the United States in 2002 were of low birth weight (i.e., less than 5.5 pounds). Low birth-weight babies have a high probability of experiencing developmental problems (Annie E. Casey, 2005).
Although early prenatal care has increased significantly over the past five years, 17.3% of babies born in 2002 were to mothers who did not receive prenatal care (CDF, 2004).
In 2002, 27,500 babies in the United Stated died before their first birthday (CDF,2004).
In 2002, approximately 9.3 million children in this country had no health care insurance. This figure would be even higher if not for the State Childrenâs Health Insurance Program (CHIP) which insures 5.8 million children who do not have health insurance and do not qualify for Medicaid (CDF, 2004).
Childrenâs educational services are also falling short of expectations
Only three out of five eligible children in the U.S. are enrolled in Head Start programs (CDF, 2004). (my note: bush has since cut this program)
Only 31% of fourth graders can read at or above their grade level (CDF, 2004).
Poverty and homelessness are pervasive problems among Americaâs children.
In 2002, 12.1 million childrenâone in sixâlived in poverty, meaning their families lived below the federal poverty level of $18,392 per year for a fourperson family. Further, 1.6 million families live below the federal poverty level despite the fact that the head of the household had full-time, year-round employment (CDF, 2004).
Thirty-two percent of children in single-parent families were poor, compared to 7% of children in married-couple families (Annie E. Casey, 2005).
The 2000 census indicates that 31 million children lived in financially stressed households which were paying at or above the federal unaffordable housing standard (i.e., housing costs should be no more than 1/3 of income). From 1997 to 2002, the number of low to moderate income working families paying more than half of their income for housing or living in substandard units, or both, rose from 3 million to 4.8 millionâa 60% increase (CDF, 2004).
In 2001, more than 23 million Americans sought emergency food assistance from food banks, church pantries, soup kitchens, meal sites, and shelters (Americaâs Second Harvest, 2001).
Of the 23.3 million needy people seeking emergency food assistance in the U.S., more than 9 million are children (Americaâs Second Harvest, 2001).
References:
Americaâs Second Harvest (2001). Hunger in America. Chicago: Author.
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2005). KIDS COUNT Data Book: State Profiles of Child Well-being. Retrieved from http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/sld/index.jsp
Ascione, F. (2001, September). Animal Abuse and Youth Violence: Juvenile Justice Bulletin.
Bragg, H. L. (2003). Child Abuse and Neglect User Manual Series: Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
Center on Hunger and Poverty (2003). Fast Facts about Hunger. Retrieved from http://www.centeronhunger.org/facts.html
Childrenâs Defense Fund. (2004). The State of Americaâs Children. Washington, DC:Author. National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Digest of Education Statistics, 2004.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d...res/fig_05.asp .
National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome. (2005). Medical Facts. Retrieved from http://www.dontshake.com/Audience.as...e=MedicalFacts
Answers.htm.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. (2005). Child Maltreatment 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. (1999). Blending Perspectives and Building Common Ground: A Report to Congress on Substance Abuse and Child Protection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Why the United States needs India</b>
January 02, 2006
<i>K Subrahmanyam, the legendary strategic affairs expert, begins an exclusive column.</i>
When international politics changes very fast and traditional diplomacy is inadequate to cope with those changes, statesmanly leadership would have to come up with imaginative statecraft to meet the challenge of a transformed world observes US Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice in her article in The Washington Post of December 11, 2005. Such statecraft will take time to find popular acceptability. Therefore the leadership has to exercise patience in order to bring about changes in popular perception.
In the US, it took both time and effort on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's part to convert the United States Congress which passed the Neutrality Act at the beginning of World War II to the position when it declared war on the side of the Allies.
Similarly, the policy of containment had to be pursued diligently and non-provocatively while there were great pressure on the US to confront the Communist bloc frontally. Then Secretary of State Dean Acheson is the acknowledged role model for Dr Rice. Henry Kissinger, President Richard M Nixon's national security adviser, had to plan his move for the US opening to China in utmost secrecy, even keeping then Secretary of State William Rogers out of the decision-making loop. Even after Kissinger and Nixon visited China in 1972 it took several years before formal diplomatic relations could be established between Washington and Beijing.
Dr Rice, following Acheson's example, is attempting to transcend the existing conventional doctrines and debates of the past and transform volatile status quos that no longer serve US interests. She recognises that the prospect of violent conflict between great powers is becoming ever more unthinkable.
Major States are increasingly competing in peace, not preparing for war. Therefore, the US is cultivating partnerships with Japan, Russia, the European Union, China and India. Thereby a more lasting and desirable form of global stability is being built leading to a balance of power that favours freedom. This development is unique in the history of the last 350 years.
To sustain US pre-eminence in this global balance of power and to win the peaceful competition with other powers, especially China and the European Union, the US needs India's partnership.
Secretary Rice and her colleagues consider India a natural partner, economic interaction with whom will enable the US tackle some of its long-term economic problems. The US and India have a convergence in terms of central security challenges they will face in the future such as terrorism, proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear technologies, international crime, narcotics, HIV/AIDS and climate change. Both countries are democratic, secular, multiethnic, multicultural and federal and pledged to the supremacy of civilian control over the armed forces.
In the light of the above worldview and perception about India, it is logical that under the leadership of Dr Rice, who has great influence over President George W Bush, the US has decided to help India in its moves to become a world class power in the 21st century. Her worldview envisages India as a crucial factor in the development of Asian balance of power and world balance of power.
In India's industrialisation and development as a world power, energy is a core issue. President Bush and Secretary Rice are of the view that for the energy problems of the 21st century for large energy consumers like the US, China and India there are no simple hydrocarbon solutions. Therefore, it is essential to unshackle India from the bondage of the Nonproliferation Treaty and allow it free access to civil nuclear energy as the world re-evaluates the role of nuclear energy and re-embarks on research on both new generation fission and fusion reactors.
This vision and statecraft implied to translate it into reality, in Dr Rice's words, are ambitious and even revolutionary. However, she asserts that it is not imprudent. As happened on earlier occasions her ideas will take time to win acceptability in view of the heavy overburden of conventional wisdom.
There are already voices in America which question whether her views are shared by other branches of the administration, especially the Pentagon. Others have serious doubts about her premise that American statecraft 'must now be guided by the undeniable truth that democracy is the only assurance of lasting peace and security between States.' Her consequent assertion that 'implicit within the goals of our statecraft are the limits of our power and the reasons for our humility' is bound to raise eyebrows all over the world.
If the logic of Dr Rice's worldview is not accepted then her statecraft would not make sense to people. One of the major problems in advancing the US-India partnership, which is derived from her worldview and statecraft, is the lack of credibility in her worldview and policies on the part of an overwhelming majority of both the Indian and US elite.
In India, there is lack of credibility in the US being able to remedy the 'Freedom deficit' in the 'broader Middle East.' Many would cite the US tolerance of General Pervez Musharraf and its inability to persuade Pakistan to advance towards moderate Islamic State status as proof of the impracticability of her strategy.
But Dr Rice has no illusions on this score. She herself says that at the end of her term in office 'no one will be able to know the full scope of what our statecraft has achieved.' At the same she asserts her abiding confidence 'that we will have laid a firm foundation of principle -â a foundation on which future generations will realise our nation's vision of a fully free democratic and peaceful world.'
It is in this spirit her moves in nurturing the India-US partnership needs to be interpreted. It may not succeed in yielding significant gains to both sides in the immediate future. Between the two countries there are shared values, common threat perceptions, mutuality of economic, technological and strategic interests.
Their shared vision was reflected in the joint statements of then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and then US President Bill Clinton and of President Bush and Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh. But they were not backed by the powerful logic of Dr Rice's worldview spelled out in her article.
On both sides widespread realisation is yet to dawn that in times of unprecedented change there must be transcending of doctrines and debates of the past to achieve transformation of volatile status quos that no longer serve one's purpose. In the US nuclear proliferation specialists are indulging in nitpicking on the basis of NPT logic which they insist should apply to India.
In India too, scenarios of Cold War and past US 'perfidy' are recalled to question the feasibility of the implementation of July 18, 2005 joint statement.
In India there is a small group which understands and goes along with Condoleezza Rice's logic. If the compulsions on the US and the stakes the US has in its partnership with India are understood properly then there will be enough confidence in the US that it means what it says when it declares its intention to help India in its moves to develop into a world class power in the 21st century.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/jan/02ks.htm
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Promise of Democratic Peace
Why Promoting Freedom Is the Only Realistic Path to Security
By Condoleezza Rice
Sunday, December 11, 2005; Page B07
Soon after arriving at the State Department earlier this year, I hung a portrait of Dean Acheson in my office. Over half a century ago, as America sought to create the world anew in the aftermath of World War II, Acheson sat in the office that I now occupy. And I hung his picture where I did for a reason.
Like Acheson and his contemporaries, we live in an extraordinary time -- one in which the terrain of international politics is shifting beneath our feet and the pace of historical change outstrips even the most vivid imagination. My predecessor's portrait is a reminder that in times of unprecedented change, the traditional diplomacy of crisis management is insufficient. Instead, we must transcend the doctrines and debates of the past and transform volatile status quos that no longer serve our interests. What is needed is a realistic statecraft for a transformed world.
President Bush outlined the vision for it in his second inaugural address: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." This is admittedly a bold course of action, but it is consistent with the proud tradition of American foreign policy, especially such recent presidents as Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan. Most important: Like the ambitious policies of Truman and Reagan, our statecraft will succeed not simply because it is optimistic and idealistic but also because it is premised on sound strategic logic and a proper understanding of the new realities we face.
Our statecraft today recognizes that centuries of international practice and precedent have been overturned in the past 15 years. Consider one example: For the first time since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the prospect of violent conflict between great powers is becoming ever more unthinkable. Major states are increasingly competing in peace, not preparing for war. To advance this remarkable trend, the United States is transforming our partnerships with nations such as Japan and Russia, with the European Union, and especially with China and India. Together we are building a more lasting and durable form of global stability: a balance of power that favors freedom.
This unprecedented change has supported others. Since its creation more than 350 years ago, the modern state system has always rested on the concept of sovereignty. It was assumed that states were the primary international actors and that every state was able and willing to address the threats emerging from its territory. Today, however, we have seen that these assumptions no longer hold, and as a result the greatest threats to our security are defined more by the dynamics within weak and failing states than by the borders between strong and aggressive ones.
The phenomenon of weak and failing states is not new, but the danger they now pose is unparalleled. When people, goods and information traverse the globe as fast as they do today, transnational threats such as disease or terrorism can inflict damage comparable to the standing armies of nation-states. Absent responsible state authority, threats that would and should be contained within a country's borders can now melt into the world and wreak untold havoc. Weak and failing states serve as global pathways that facilitate the spread of pandemics, the movement of criminals and terrorists, and the proliferation of the world's most dangerous weapons.
Our experience of this new world leads us to conclude that the fundamental character of regimes matters more today than the international distribution of power. Insisting otherwise is imprudent and impractical. The goal of our statecraft is to help create a world of democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system. Attempting to draw neat, clean lines between our security interests and our democratic ideals does not reflect the reality of today's world. Supporting the growth of democratic institutions in all nations is not some moralistic flight of fancy; it is the only realistic response to our present challenges.
In one region of the world, however, the problems emerging from the character of regimes are more urgent than in any other. The "freedom deficit" in the broader Middle East provides fertile ground for the growth of an ideology of hatred so vicious and virulent that it leads people to strap suicide bombs to their bodies and fly airplanes into buildings. When the citizens of this region cannot advance their interests and redress their grievances through an open political process, they retreat hopelessly into the shadows to be preyed upon by evil men with violent designs. In these societies, it is illusory to encourage economic reform by itself and hope that the freedom deficit will work itself out over time.
Though the broader Middle East has no history of democracy, this is not an excuse for doing nothing. If every action required a precedent, there would be no firsts. We are confident that democracy will succeed in this region not simply because we have faith in our principles but because the basic human longing for liberty and democratic rights has transformed our world. Dogmatic cynics and cultural determinists were once certain that "Asian values," or Latin culture, or Slavic despotism, or African tribalism would each render democracy impossible. But they were wrong, and our statecraft must now be guided by the undeniable truth that democracy is the only assurance of lasting peace and security between states, because it is the only guarantee of freedom and justice within states.
Implicit within the goals of our statecraft are the limits of our power and the reasons for our humility. Unlike tyranny, democracy by its very nature is never imposed. Citizens of conviction must choose it -- and not just in one election. The work of democracy is a daily process to build the institutions of democracy: the rule of law, an independent judiciary, free media and property rights, among others. The United States cannot manufacture these outcomes, but we can and must create opportunities for individuals to assume ownership of their own lives and nations. Our power gains its greatest legitimacy when we support the natural right of all people, even those who disagree with us, to govern themselves in liberty.
The statecraft that America is called to practice in today's world is ambitious, even revolutionary, but it is not imprudent. A conservative temperament will rightly be skeptical of any policy that embraces change and rejects the status quo, but that is not an argument against the merits of such a policy. As Truman once said, "The world is not static, and the status quo is not sacred." In times of extraordinary change such as ours, when the costs of inaction outweigh the risks of action, doing nothing is not an option. If the school of thought called "realism" is to be truly realistic, it must recognize that stability without democracy will prove to be false stability, and that fear of change is not a positive prescription for policy.
After all, who truly believes, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that the status quo in the Middle East was stable, beneficial and worth defending? How could it have been prudent to preserve the state of affairs in a region that was incubating and exporting terrorism; where the proliferation of deadly weapons was getting worse, not better; where authoritarian regimes were projecting their failures onto innocent nations and peoples; where Lebanon suffered under the boot heel of Syrian occupation; where a corrupt Palestinian Authority cared more for its own preservation than for its people's aspirations; and where a tyrant such as Saddam Hussein was free to slaughter his citizens, destabilize his neighbors and undermine the hope of peace between Israelis and Palestinians? It is sheer fantasy to assume that the Middle East was just peachy before America disrupted its alleged stability.
Had we believed this, and had we done nothing, consider all that we would have missed in just the past year: A Lebanon that is free of foreign occupation and advancing democratic reform. A Palestinian Authority run by an elected leader who openly calls for peace with Israel. An Egypt that has amended its constitution to hold multiparty elections. A Kuwait where women are now full citizens. And, of course, an Iraq that in the face of a horrific insurgency has held historic elections, drafted and ratified a new national charter, and will go to the polls again in coming days to elect a new constitutional government.
At this time last year, such unprecedented progress seemed impossible. One day it will all seem to have been inevitable. This is the nature of extraordinary times, which Acheson understood well and described perfectly in his memoirs. "The significance of events," he wrote, "was shrouded in ambiguity. We groped after interpretations of them, sometimes reversed lines of action based on earlier views, and hesitated long before grasping what now seems obvious." When Acheson left office in 1953, he could not know the fate of the policies he helped to create. He certainly could never have predicted that nearly four decades later, war between Europe's major powers would be unthinkable, or that America and the world would be harvesting the fruits of his good decisions and managing the collapse of communism. But because leaders such as Acheson steered American statecraft with our principles when precedents for action were lacking, because they dealt with their world as it was but never believed they were powerless to change it for the better, the promise of democratic peace is now a reality in all of Europe and in much of Asia.
When I walk past Acheson's portrait upon departing my office for the last time, no one will be able to know the full scope of what our statecraft has achieved. But I have an abiding confidence that we will have laid a firm foundation of principle -- a foundation on which future generations will realize our nation's vision of a fully free, democratic and peaceful world.
<i>The writer is secretary of state.</i>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5120901711.html
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are Indians trekking back home from USA?
Indian AmericansWASHINGTON, DEC 31: Is the US, the land of opportunity, really facing a "reverse brain drain" of Indians?
If some media reports are to be believed, Indians in the US are increasingly returning to their home country, attracted by the rising opportunities. However, analysts here differ on how much of such relocation is really taking place.
As for most Indian Americans, reassured by a resurgent American economy combined with a stable personal future, the idea of relocating is far from their minds.
But, for those who came here with temporary visas or find the ideal job long in coming, the galloping Indian economy has opened up another channel of opportunity not available before.
Kanwal Rekhi, the doyen among Indian American entrepreneurs from Silicon Valley, said the trend of Indians trekking back to their homeland "is very real".
"The numbers I am hearing are pretty astounding," Rekhi told IANS. "As much as 100,000 since the bust in 2001."
Of this number, he said some 30,000 to 35,000 were from California's Silicon Valley, the Mecca for Indian IT professionals and entrepreneurs a decade or more ago.
"Bangalore is the new Silicon Valley," Rekhi contends, a city where engineers, entrepreneurs and even venture capitalists are taking their capital -- and themselves.
But economist Anirban Basu, chairman and CEO of Sage Policy Group based near here, said he had seen no data indicating that droves of Indians were leaving the US.
"The trend is not so recognisable. I don't think it's that common. I think it happens in situations where the visa has expired or if there are family reasons," he said.
The 100,000 figure, he said, had to be treated with caution and one would have to subtract from it those who went back because their visas expired or for family reasons.
But Rekhi, who has just returned from India, said: "When I was there I met quite a few people from Silicon Valley."
Bangalore, according to him, has fancy, California-style housing and shopping malls that provide the returnees living conditions mirroring what they left behind in America.
"With lots of opportunities there (India), it means you don't have to do what we had to do - come to the US to find high-end jobs. Those are now becoming available in India," Rekhi maintained.
Moreover, there was the added value of being close to extended family, he said.
"But people who are rooted here like us are not going back," he conceded. If the kids are young and people had come here within the last 10 to 15 years, they were more mobile and prone to relocate, he contended.
Basu agreed that opportunities in India were rising exponentially. "Which is why more and more of young Indians are choosing to stay in India and educate themselves there."
But he added: "I suspect that a better part of Indian Americans have no thought of leaving the American job market. The American job market is very strong. The nation added two million jobs in 2005, most of them white-collar."
Unemployment is at an all time low at five percent nationally, he pointed out.
"And it is much lower than that in the states that have very large Indian American populations -- New Jersey, Washington state, California, Virginia, Maryland."
As for the perceived Silicon Valley "brain drain," Basu said it was possible some relocation was taking place because US multinationals have created hubs in India. But that would merely mean some Indian American employees relocating but still remaining with an American company.
"By and large most (Indian Americans) are quite content to be here. The fact is America remains the land of opportunity and 2006 is predicted to be another year of solid economic expansion in the US," he said. (Source: webindia123)
\
http://www.despardes.com/Diaspora/2006/010...tm#trekkingback
"No more birthright citizenship in USA"
By Masood Haider
NEW YORK DEC 10. A group of 92 conservative US lawmakers will attempt next week to force a vote on legislation that would revoke the principle of "birthright citizenship," part of a broader effort to discourage illegal immigration ,said the Los Angeles Times in a report Saturday.
For nearly 140 years, any child born on U.S. soil, even to an illegal immigrant, has been given American citizenship according a US law. But conservatives believe that many women from mostly developing countries come to the United States to have children just to secure American citizenship for their children.
The newspaper said that the push to change the citizenship policy is backed by some conservative activists and academics. But it could cause problems for the White House and the Republican Party, which have been courting Latino voters. GOP officials fear the effort to eliminate birthright citizenship will alienate a key constituency, even if the legislation ultimately is rejected by Congress or the courts.
The principle at issue rests on the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to guarantee the rights of emancipated slaves: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
Some US lawmakers advocating tougher immigration laws contend that the amendment has been misinterpreted for decades. Conservatives maintain that although illegal immigrants are subject to criminal prosecution and are expected to abide by U.S. laws and regulations, they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States in the full sense intended by the amendment's authors â and their children therefore fall outside the scope of its protection.
Those who want to change the interpretation acknowledge that illegal immigration is largely driven by the hunger for jobs at U.S. wages. But they also say that for some immigrants, automatic citizenship provides another compelling incentive to cross the border. They note that the United States is one of few major industrialized nations that grant birthright citizenship with no qualifications.
"Illegal immigrants are coming for many different reasons," said Rep. Lamar Smith, (a republican), one of the lawmakers pushing for the House measure. "Some are coming for jobs. Some are coming to give birth. Some are coming to commit crimes. Addressing this problem is needed if we're going to try to combat illegal immigration on all fronts."
"This is about attempting to deal with a serious policy problem by going after people's babiesâ¦. It doesn't have to become law for this kind of proposal to offend people," Cecilia Muñoz, vice president for policy of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino advocacy group told LAT. "This one really hits a nerve."
The 92-member House Immigration Reform Caucus, headed by Rep. Tom Tancredo, a republican from Colorado , wants to attach an amendment revoking birthright citizenship to a broader immigration bill scheduled to be taken up sometime next week, the newspaper said.
Although several revocation bills have been introduced in the House, the most likely one to move forward would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.
The newspaper noted there is no official tally of the number of children born to illegal immigrants; unofficial estimates range from 100,000 to 350,000 a year. Smith and other critics of current immigration law say that 1 in 10 U.S. births â and 1 in 5 births in California â are to women who have entered the country illegally.
Upon reaching the age of 18, a U.S.-born child of illegal immigrants can petition to obtain permanent legal residency for his or her parents and siblings. Although it generally takes years for such requests to be approved or rejected, parents who receive visas then can begin the process of applying for full citizenship.
Because of the length of time involved, some immigration experts say that birthright citizenship is not a major incentive for the vast majority of illegal entrants.
However, the supporters of birthright citizenship expressed hope that they could head off the revocation measure in the House, or failing that, on the other side of Capitol Hill.
"There is no support for the concept in the Senate," said Sen. Judd Gregg , a republican from New Hampshire . "There are certain things that we have done as a nation for a long time that I don't think we're going to change. Rolling back the clock is not going to solve the problem of immigration."
-------------
Americans wary of immigrants: Gallup poll
NEW JERSEY, DEC 16: More Americans are wary of foreigners now than they were prior to Sept 11, a Gallup poll suggests.
However, Asia and Africa are comparatively welcoming of immigrants, but Europe, the Middle East, and Central and South America make it difficult for foreigners to settle.
In the U.S., the most favored destination of migrants, 51 percent said yes to immigrants, and while 44 percent said no. But the proportion of those hostile to foreigners has shot up since a Gallup poll in June 2001, right before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, in which 62 percent said they were for and only 31 percent against.
There are presently 35.2 million foreign-born people living in the U.S. â about 12.1 percent of the population, pushing the percentage of the U.S. population born in other countries to the highest point in nearly 100 years, according to Center for Immigration Studies.
Among French people made wary by recent immigrant riots, 50 percent said they would not welcome immigrants, while only 30 percent would, according to Gallup.
Amid recent racial turmoil in France and Australia and rising concern about immigrants worldwide, Gallup International conducted a survey of 55,000 people in 70 countries to mark the UN's proclamation of Dec. 18 as International Migrantâs Day. It found a global tendency to be wary of outsiders, as some 47 percent of respondents did not want foreigners to immigrate to their countries, while 43 percent did.
However, a substantial majority in Africa (63 percent), Asia (56 percent), and North America (54 percent) felt positively about immigration, while the majority in the Middle East (67 percent), Eastern Europe (61 percent), and Central and South America (53 percent), and some 50 percent in Western Europe were against immigrants.
The countries statistically most favorable to foreign influx were Israel and the Philippines (87 percent), Malaysia (80 percent), Nigeria (76 percent), and Canada (74 percent). The least welcoming was Turkey (7 percent), followed by Bulgaria (10 percent), and countries created after ethnic strife in former Yugoslavia, Serbia-Montenegro (10 percent) and Bosnia-Herzegovina (12 percent). In Korea, 57 percent favored foreign immigrants and 23 percent did not, which is about average for Asian countries.
------------
Indiaâs changing image abroad
NRIsNEW JERSEY, DEC 23: The rising profile of Indian professionals abroad is directly related to the growing culture and thirst for education, now one of the fastest growing activities in India, says the editor, India Focus.
In an article in The Financial Express, India focus editor Subhash Agrawal, says that India's middle class is saving, borrowing and toiling for the right academic opportunity for its children as never before, even though a good degree can be very expensive for the average family.
Going abroad for studies has now become such a standard practice that every year more than 50,000 Indian students join foreign universities. In fact, by the end of 2002, India already surpassed China as the leading country of origin for international students in the United States. For every one student China sends to university, India sends six, according to Agrawal.
In fact, nowhere is Indiaâs educational profile more in the spotlight than via its diaspora community of engineers, doctors, writers, academics and management gurus. Generally speaking, and with perhaps the exception of Gulf countries, where the bulk of Indian expatriates are low-skilled workers on short-term contracts, the vast majority of ethnic Indians living abroad tend to be very well educated, if not very well paid, observes Agrawal.
As per the last official census in the UK, the average income of Indian living in Britain was about 15% higher than the national average, while in Canada it was 20% higher.
In the US, where this has been meticulously documented by a report 'We the People: Asians in the United States', that was issued by the government some time ago and was based on the 2000 census, emigre Indians have the highest per capita income of any ethnic group, including the Chinese.
This report found that Indian migrants had higher incomes and educational levels than not just the average US family but also virtually every other Asian community. For example, 64% of Indians held a bachelorâs degree or more, as compared to 48% among Chinese or 54% among Pakistanis.
So far so good, but education remains tightly controlled and poorly supervised by the government in India, in effect reducing both quantity and quality in one stroke.
U.S. Faces Severe Worker Shortage in Future
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 18 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The United States faces a severe worker shortage in the near future, the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce said Wednesday in advocating better education for Americans and changes in immigration law to allow in more foreign workers.
Chamber President and CEO Thomas Donohue, at a news conference outlining business prospects in 2006, said the country is ill-prepared to deal with the impending retirement of 77 million baby boomers.
"We have yet to secure an adequate supply of working taxpayers to run a growing economy and support an explosion of retirees," he said in his organization's report on the state of U.S. business.
Donohue said that working to pass new immigration law that includes a guest worker program will be among the Chamber's top legislative priorities in the new year. He said the Chamber opposed a bill passed by the House in December, which tightens border security and requires employers to verify the legal status of workers but does not address the guest worker issue.
He dismissed as a "crummy argument" criticisms that the business community wants a guest worker program to secure access to cheap labor. "What American companies want is labor, and we are going to be significantly without it," Donohue said.
The Senate is expected to take up the immigration issue next month, and Donohue said his group will be "working to obtain a bill that provides the workers and is in keeping without our legacy as a welcoming nation."
Donohue said the Chamber has traditionally stayed out of school reform at the state and local level, but has changed its thinking in a global environment where China graduates eight times, and India five times, as many engineers as the United States.
He said the Chamber plans to measure and rank the performance of state school systems, with the aim of helping businesses decide where to locate. The Chamber is also working with other business organizations to double the number of math, science and engineering graduates by 2015.
Donohue said that among the business group's other legislative goals this year will be passing legislation to shore up pension plans, finding a solution to the asbestos litigation crisis, promoting health savings accounts and other new approaches to reducing the number of those without health insurance, and opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf to environmentally sound oil and gas exploration.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>On R-Day eve, US arm-twists India </b>
Pioneer.com
Kanchan Gupta/ New Delhi
In a gross display of insensitivity towards India and Indians on the eve of his host country's national day celebrations, US Ambassador David C Mulford has tried to arm-twist the UPA Government into toeing the US line on Iran, saying unless New Delhi does so, it could kiss away the Indo-US nuclear deal. Â Â
That the Bush Administration expects a quid pro quo to take last year's July 18 agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation forward was made clear by US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns during his recent visit to New Delhi for talks with Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran. But Mr Burns was careful, at least in public, about his choice of words.
This is not the first time that Mr Mulford, known to be a personal friend of President George W Bush, has been less than diplomatic: In the past, speaking from public fora, he has adopted a bullying tone while castigating India's economic policies and its decision to align with Germany in the Group of Four (G-4) that sought the UN Security Council's enlargement.
As a veteran diplomat pointed out, "This Ambassador doesn't shy away from making public threats against his host country. In that sense, he is ready, as his record shows, to push the envelope even when such effort breaches diplomatic norms."
By explicitly stating in his interview to PTI that if India wants progress on the nuclear deal it must toe the American line on Iran's nuclear programme, Mr Mulford has made public what the Prime Minister and the UPA Government have repeatedly sought to deny: That the US has deftly turned the nuclear agreement into a tool to coercively shape India's foreign policy.
For the moment, the US has set voting against Iran as the litmus test for India. In a sense, India's vote against Iran last October at the International Atomic Energy Agency whetted American appetite to bring Indian foreign policy in line with Washington's worldview.
<b>If the US is able to force India to cast a second vote against Iran in early February, then more such litmus tests are bound to follow, and India will have to pay the heavy political cost of the deal Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed without factoring in the possibility of American duplicity.</b>
The political backlash to such capitulation - the Left will claim that its stand has been vindicated - could virtually force the Government's hands. In a late evening reaction to Mr Mulford's comments, the Ministry of External Affairs spokesman said, "The position that India will take on this issue (of Iran) at the IAEA will be based on India's own independent judgement. We categorically reject any attempt to link this to the proposed Indo-US agreement on civil nuclear energy cooperation."
As a result of Mr Mulford's damaging comments, the Indo-US nuclear deal could now founder on the rock of American obduracy and the UPA Government's inability to stand up. In effect, he would have helped kill a deal that both the Bush Administration and the UPA regime have been touting as "historic". Curiously, apart from ignoring the need for a senior diplomat to be circumspect, Mr Mulford has also been extremely presumptuous in claiming that "the (US) Congress will simply stop considering the matter..." The US Senate and the House of Representatives are elected bodies on behalf of whose members Mr Mulford, appointed by the executive, cannot presume to speak.
Nor is Mr Mulford entirely correct when he claims that "the initiative will die in the Congress". There is no initiative at the moment. Although the nuclear deal was supposed to be implemented in a reciprocal manner - as per the commitment given by the Prime Minister in Parliament - and despite India taking several steps to concretise its civil-military separation plan, the Bush Administration is yet to present any plan of action to the Congress. Similarly, Mr Mulford has clearly overstepped his representative powers by speaking on behalf of the member countries of the Nuclear Suppliers' Group. Interestingly, the US is yet to present any plan of action to the NSG.
<b>The American Ambassador says that India's civil-military segregation plan for nuclear facilities has not met the US "test of credibility".</b> The deal that was inked in Washington last July does not appoint the US as the arbiter. Nowhere does the agreement state that India should submit its separation plan to the US for approval. If the UPA Government has submitted the separation details for American scrutiny - as it has, and the Prime Minister's National Security Adviser has gone on TV to promise further adjustments to please the US - it has done so on its own, gratuitously.
Mr Mulford has chosen to ignore that it is not India, but the US that has played the role of the obstructionist on the nuclear deal. The US began moving the goalposts no sooner than the accord had been signed. Although the accord spelled out India's obligations as being reciprocal, Mr Burns declared on July 19, 2005, that the agreement "will have to be implemented by the Indian Government and then we will have to seek these changes from the Congress."
While the accord merely states that India will begin "identifying and separating civilian and military nuclear facilities and programmes in a phased manner," Washington has unilaterally added a specific conditionality -- that such a separation plan be "credible," "transparent" and "defensible." In other words, the US has appropriated for itself the role of judge, prosecutor and jury. The US has also supplanted the nuclear deal's central plank - that India would "assume the same responsibilities and practices and acquire the same benefits and advantages as other leading countries with advanced nuclear technology, such as the United States."
In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert G Joseph said "voluntary offer" safeguards of the kind the US has with the IAEA would not be acceptable for India. Mr Joseph has also stipulated another condition not applicable to the other nuclear powers: Safeguards on Indian facilities, he said, "must be applied in perpetuity."
<b>The naïveté of the UPA Government is evident from the following claim it posted on the PMO website after the deal was signed last July: India "has committed [itself] to taking reciprocally exactly the same steps that the other nuclear weapon states have taken... An argument has been made that separation into civilian and military programmes will rob India of flexibility if that is required by unanticipated circumstances. Nuclear-weapons states, including the US, have the right to shift facilities from civilian category to military and there is no reason why this should not apply to India." </b> <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Couple of reason for this statement.
1) Iran vote in Feb
2) Weak Central Govt. Slight external work or any Iraq type scandal can sink UPA boat.
Its obvious that there is no partnership being talked about here. GoI should just cancel the deal and say "time to move on" and abstain from voting. Let the irani mullahs duke it out with gownwallahs. No point in getting in this p1ssing match.
Thats a pathetic response from GoI, IMO.
<b>The United States Government's response does not reflect that it treats India to be a Banana Republic or a weak outfit. The following extract from the US State Department Press Briefing of 25 January 06 reflects the exact position of US Government:-
Quote
QUESTION: Thank you very much. I don't know if you guys covered this. The U.S. Ambassador to India is being quoted as saying that this landmark civilian nuclear program that they've agreed to would die -- in the quote -- if India does not vote against Iran at the upcoming IAEA meeting. Can you confirm that that's true?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I didn't sit in the interview so I didn't --
QUESTION: No, I don't care if the interview is true. Is the issue that if Iran -- if India votes against Iran, is that true that --
MR. MCCORMACK: If you look at the news stories that have come out on this, the various wire reports, it includes comments from Ambassador Mulford's spokesman at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi. What he said is the Ambassador was expressing his personal opinions about what the potential political outcome might be. He was giving his personal assessment of how the Congress might react to such an action by India.
Let me be clear. Ultimately, how India votes on this matter is going to be a decision for the Indian Government. They voted to find Iran in noncompliance the last time around and we certainly would encourage and hope that they vote for referral this time around. But I think what the Ambassador was doing was talking about and reflecting the view that on Capitol Hill there are very strongly held feelings about Iran and the need to -- need for the international community to act decisively and firmly and with a single voice concerning Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
And we -- you know, not to go through Civics 101, but we've got three separate branches of government here. We're in the Executive Branch. And Congress and Senators and Representatives will have views of their own. And I think what Ambassador Mulford was doing was expressing an opinion about how the Congress might react, given that outcome.
QUESTION: So what is the Executive Branch's view on that as far as the understanding?
MR. MCCORMACK: Our view is that we would certainly encourage and we would hope that India would vote for a referral to the Security Council.
QUESTION: And if it doesn't?
MR. MCCORMACK: We continue to work with the Indian Government on implementation of the agreement that President Bush and Prime Minister Singh signed during the Prime Minister's recent visit here. We would certainly hope that we would be in a position to -- before or as part of the President's visit to India to make progress on this issue. Part of making progress on this issue is for the Indian Government to present a workable plan that would separate the Indian civilian and military nuclear programs. We're still talking about that issue with the Indian Government and I expect that those discussions will continue.
QUESTION: And is there any relevance between progress on that issue related to their needing to give you a program and their vote at the IAEA?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think that what Ambassador Mulford was doing was offering some political analysis about how the Hill might react.
QUESTION: Right, but leaving Mulford alone, is there --
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that's why we're talking about this.
QUESTION: It is but -- it is because that's where it came up. But is there any relevance between how India votes at the IAEA and how their civilian nuclear agreement with the United States proceeds?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we deal with the Indian Government on these two issues as separate issues. Certainly, they come up in the same conversations, I'll tell you that. And we continue to encourage the Indian Government to vote for referral. Ultimately, that is going to be their decision. And we also have been talking to them about the importance of making progress on their implementation plan for separating the civilian and military nuclear programs.
Unquote</b>
No its not treating India as banana republic - its just arm twisting and 'taming' India. The statements that mccormack is making can very well be made by Shri Saran ... For eg..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->we have x number of parties in GoI, we are certainly concerned by all this proferation-froliperation and if it were for us (as in INC) we hope that this issue can be resolved through negotiations - some sections however think that mulford is threatening India and forcing India to tow the US line. Its not us who is saying this but some of the coalition partners who are of the opinion that mulford is threatening like a school bully.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyways the point is USG has done NOTHING substantial except fund the jehadis in our neighborhood and if partnership is what is being intended then the language should be of partnerships and not this BS from mulford.
<b>It is a very fast evolving situation and the latest signal from Iran indicates that they are still keeping the dialogue going on the Russian proposal of having the Uranium enriched in that country, for providing fuel to proposed nuclear power reactors. From past experience it is quite clear that UN Sanction or confrontation on the issue is not going to get the issue resolved. The EU has substantial economic ties with Iran including fuel supply, so in the event of UN Sanction, with 10 percent of world's oil under sanction, there will be a major impact on the world economy. It is therefore, imperative to have the issue resolved.
While negotiations are on it is important to remember the fundamental fact that Iran has the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. However , in view of its past political instability and regime changes the world at large is not at ease to see that Iran is conducting research on projects which can be used both for the production of nuclear power and also for producing nuclear arms. We hope that the Iranian leadership will have the wisdom to assess the position and should be receptive to the apprehensions of the world at large and ensure that their action do not cause more tension in the world. In the given circumstances, the best option for Iran is obviously to give a serious thought to the Russian proposal which has the backing of many other countries.</b>
I agree, Ravish-ji.
But Mulfords BS has perhaps come at a good time. Without giving us anything substantial the yanks have already started lecturing us on how to brush our teeth. I dont relish the thought of doing business with the yanks on these important matters. We just put this deal-making on back-burner and instead concentrate on economy and re-evaluate to see if there is enough trust on both sides to deal with each other on equal terms.
Iran is not India's problem. India's position should be -> everybody resolves this with peaceful negotiations. while we hold our position that everybody has a right to all technologies, we think iran should desist from its extremist positions against israel.
Thats about it. For more the yanks have to commit themselves to more before we do deal with them.
`U.S. Muslims under surveillance'
Staff Reporter
NEW DELHI: Noted American Professor Nathan Glazer said on Saturday that Muslims and Arabs living in the United States were being subjected to surveillance and suspicion after the terrorist attacks on World Trade Center in 2001.
Speaking at a two-day international seminar on "Composite Culture in a Multicultural Society" at the ongoing New Delhi World Book Fair at Pragati Maidan, Prof. Glazer said the suspicion against Muslims was to some degree unparalleled in American history. "The Muslims and Arabs find their mosques observed by FBI agents, their charities closed down because they may have transmitted funds to terrorists groups, their businesses under sharp scrutiny, non-citizens are required to register and be fingerprinted and their relatives find it difficult to enter the US whether as students or visitors. They are also being harassed at airports. I think this is because of their headgear and clothes. Hundreds of Muslims have been held without charge under suspicion of connection with terrorism, misinterpreted by an enraged person as a symbol of Islam." Stating that Muslims' faith in justice and fair-mindedness of the American Government was deeply shaken because of these measures, Prof. Glazer said hundreds had left the US for Canada or their countries of origin. Drawing comparison between India and the US in terms of diversity, Prof. Glazer said: "Indian diversity, of course, puts America's claim to being diverse in the shade. In India, as against the U.S., many linguistic and cultural groups are identified with a territory that the group dominates or once dominated or hopes to dominate." '
US - India Relations Since 1947
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>US â India Relations Since 1947</b>
 Â
<i>
"Why after 50 years of regarding each other 'with wary suspicion', America and India have 'moved rapidly' from uneasy cooperation to Global partnership?". What has brought about this shift? Why would President Bush Administration foreign policy is "to help India become a major world power in the 21st century"? Why does Asst. Secretary of state Christina and U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza rice "unambiguously seeks to help India become a major world power in the 21st centuryâ?, and why does the United States dialogue with India now touches on broad issues around the region and the world" and says "this is a watershed year in India - U.S Relations"?</i>
(PRWEB) August 24, 2005 -- After India gained independence from the British in 1947 and throughout the Cold War, Indo-U.S. relations veered from chilly to hostile. India leaned toward the Soviet Union, and the United States provided political, economic and military support to India's arch-rival, Pakistan. Relations plunged to an all-time low in 1971 when Nixon sided with Pakistan in the war that created Bangladesh from what had been East Pakistan, at one point sending an aircraft carrier to the Bay of Bengal to discourage Indian involvement. "Why after 50 years of regarding each other 'with wary suspicion', America and India have 'moved rapidly' from uneasy cooperation to Global partnership?". What has brought about this shift? Why would President Bush Administration foreign policy is "to help India become a major world power in the 21st century"? Why does Asst. Secretary of state Christina and U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza rice "unambiguously seeks to help India become a major world power in the 21st centuryâ?, and why does the United States dialogue with India now touches on broad issues around the region and the world" and says "this is a watershed year in India - U.S Relations"?
<b>Tuthika influenced Bush Administration & Members of Congress -
</b>
To help the People of America, the Diplomacy lead by Mr. Rao Tuthika, the Director of the Tuthika Group ( http://www.helpamerica.us/tugrfashreof.html), Americaâs Leading Business & Government Consulting Group, and Helpamerica, the America's Leading Fundraising, Humanitarian, and Social services organization ( http://www.helpamerica.us/info.html) influenced Bush Administration, and U.S Congress. Tuthika Group Diplomacy obtained bipartisan support in accelerating to "shape America India Relations rapidly from uneasy cooperation to Global partnership". The group diplomacy "accelerated development of deeper political, economic, commercial and security ties between America, and India" such as "US helping India to become a 'major world power' in the twenty-first century.
Tuthika Group influenced President Bush, Vice President Dick Chenny, speaker Dennis Hastert, U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, Gregory Mankiw - council of economic advisers, and over 200 other Republican and Democratic congressmen / women "That how India can be an excellent partner in helping the People of America", and received appreciations from senators such as Barack Obama on 10 Apr 2005.
<b>About Tuthika Group</b>
Tuthika Group is the management arm of Helpamerica - the Americaâs leading fundraising, humanitarian, and social services organization based in Chicago metropolitan. Tuthika Group is organized into four major divisions. First â Business Consulting division that â offers services to Fortune 1000 companies, and specializes in Corporate social responsibility, CEOâs accountability, Corporate results, Corporate legal protection, Stock holder issues, including Sarbanes Oxley. Second â Government Consulting division that â specializes in âFederal & State Legislative Policy Research & Reviewâ in areas including â presidential elections, nominations, economy, civil rights, developing nations, environment, health care, immigration, national security, small business, job creation, social security, trade, veterans, aids / drugs control, education, labor, homeland security etc., Third â Foreign Relations division that â specializes in âIndependent Research & Advisoryâ in the areas including â arms control, foreign assistance, CivPol, cultural exchange, democracy, economics, education, oceans, environment, human rights, migration, NATO, nonproliferation, narcotics, refugees, space, sustainable development, terrorism, trade controls, trafficking, treaty actions, compliance, WMD etc., Forth â The International Trade division â specializes in âFacilitating Trade among Americaâs Largest Corporations, with Foreign Governments & Businesses.
Tuthika Group also received appreciations from CEOs, Chairmen, & Directors of over 100 World's Largest Corporations including - Google, eBay, AVON, Sprint PCS, National Australia Bank, Fossil, JCPenney, Procter & Gamble, ChevronTexaco, Alcan inc, Vodafone Group, SBC, Target, PACCAR, NEC Group, Imperial Tobacco, AT & T, TELUS, Timberland, Navistar, BCE, Reebok, Alcoa, Office Depot, Staples, Costco wholesale, AIG Insurance, Allstate, CVS Pharmacy, Walgreens, Carnival, Marriott, Radioshack, and many such companies. Read the Appreciations of Tuthika Group - http://www.helpamerica.us/majorcompanies.html
Tuthika Group initiatives Helped to procure Millions of dollars funding to the worldâs most respectable nonprofit organizations including, American Red Cross, CARE, Action Against Hunger, BAPS Care, Direct Relief, GOAL, Habitat for Humanity, Red Crescent, Karuna Trust, Oxfam, Sarvodaya, Save the Children, UNICEF, World Food Programme (UN), Brother's Brother, the Humane Society, Christian Reformed World Relief Committee, Church World Service, World Vision, United Way, MAP, Operation USA, and many such Humanitarian organizations.
On July 19th 2005, at U.S Senate Hart Office Building & U.S Cannon House Office Building in Capital Hill during the National Legislative Conference â that was attended by over 100 U.S Senators, Members of Congress, CEOâs, Presidents, Directors of various corporations, and other prominent Personalities, Mr. Rao Tuthika, the Director of Tuthika Group was Honored with "Recognition of Excellence Award" in Honor of Participation and Service to the Community". Tuthika Group received Appreciations from several U.S Senators, Members of Congress, and other Prominent Personalities. Communications Chair of the Democratic Policy Committee & Founder of the Congressional Caucus on Indian Americans â Mr. Frank Pallone & Chair of the House Democratic Task Force on Homeland Security â Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney Honored Mr. Rao Tuthika, the Director of Tuthika Group with the National "Recognition of Excellence Award" during the Legislative Conference. - http://www.helpamerica.us/us500mitsfui2.html
Senators, and Members of Congress including â Gary Ackerman, Grace Napolitano, and many other CEOâs, Directors of corporations, and various prominent Personalities attended and appreciated Mr. Tuthika. - http://www.helpamerica.us/awardpictures.html
Please click on the URL âhttp://www.helpamerica.us/tuheinamintr.html for detailed Press Release, and Please visit http://www.helpamerica.us/info.html to learn more about Tuthika Group, and Helpamerica.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/jan/29ndeal.htm
Its pretty clear that the level of trust on both sides is pretty low. And the requirement is that India makes commitments FIRST and then US THINKS about changing laws. And at this time we dont have enough leverage with the US so the deal being brokered right now is going to involve too much give and not take. Let the levers increase on both sides, trust increase and then we can deal.
http://www.ptinews.com/pti/ptisite.nsf/�...0D?OpenDocument
Put some Babu spin and delay this deal. Say there are some issues that need to be resolved. Thats what GWB wants too. He is a weak leader and so is MMS. Such far reaching deals cannot and should not be brokered by weak leaders. Let this deal marinade for a while.
|
