Macaca
02-17 02:33 PM
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU (http://aclu.org/))
Center for Responsive Politics (CRP (http://www.crp.org/))
CompeteAmerica (http://www.competeAmerica.org)
Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CCIR (http://www.cirnow.org/))
Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC (http://www.ewic.org/))
Immigrants' List (http://immigrantslist.org/)
National Council of La Raza (NCLR (http://nclr.org/))
National Foundation for American Policy (http://www.nfap.com/)
National Immigration Forum (http://www.immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=732)
National Immigration Law Center (NILC (http://nilc.org/))
U.S. Chamber of Commerce (http://www.uschamber.com/default)
Center for Responsive Politics (CRP (http://www.crp.org/))
CompeteAmerica (http://www.competeAmerica.org)
Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CCIR (http://www.cirnow.org/))
Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC (http://www.ewic.org/))
Immigrants' List (http://immigrantslist.org/)
National Council of La Raza (NCLR (http://nclr.org/))
National Foundation for American Policy (http://www.nfap.com/)
National Immigration Forum (http://www.immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=732)
National Immigration Law Center (NILC (http://nilc.org/))
U.S. Chamber of Commerce (http://www.uschamber.com/default)
wallpaper asian teen hairstyle. teen
axp817
03-25 12:17 PM
Oh, and I think I should elaborate just a little more.
I am not asking whether the USCIS can or cannot exercise scrutiny on approving 485s where a person, under AC21 provision, switches to a small consulting company.
Of course they can, the 485 is for a full time job, and whether a job with a small consulting company is of a full time nature or not, is up in the air and they can 'scrutinize' it all they want, if they choose to.
My question to UN is whether he thinks if they will choose to go after 485 AC21 job switches to small consulting companies like he thinks they will for small consulting company H-1Bs, and not whether they can.
Thanks again,
I am not asking whether the USCIS can or cannot exercise scrutiny on approving 485s where a person, under AC21 provision, switches to a small consulting company.
Of course they can, the 485 is for a full time job, and whether a job with a small consulting company is of a full time nature or not, is up in the air and they can 'scrutinize' it all they want, if they choose to.
My question to UN is whether he thinks if they will choose to go after 485 AC21 job switches to small consulting companies like he thinks they will for small consulting company H-1Bs, and not whether they can.
Thanks again,
ksr
08-09 07:04 PM
since u r the primary applicant choose option 1
Thanks Priti.
Thanks Priti.
2011 Cute Asian Scene Haircuts for
asanghi
08-11 01:45 PM
dont know about lou's total viewership but every day his online polls have less than 15,000 respondents
http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/26653.exclude.html
i m sure its basically everybody who is a member of numbersusa, fair and other nut job establishments
Well, he is quoted and talked about so much. So I guess he is watched. And while we having the all the facts know that he is lying, not all the other americans not directly related to immigration do.
Let us launch an facts based attack campaign agains Lou and ruin his career.
http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/26653.exclude.html
i m sure its basically everybody who is a member of numbersusa, fair and other nut job establishments
Well, he is quoted and talked about so much. So I guess he is watched. And while we having the all the facts know that he is lying, not all the other americans not directly related to immigration do.
Let us launch an facts based attack campaign agains Lou and ruin his career.
more...
psvk
08-05 06:02 PM
We always hear "the rules" from the female side. Now here are the rules from the male side. These are our rules! Print this out and pass to your partner for a greater understanding:
.
Could not stop laughing on most of them. Thanks to all.
Most of them on the same topic. Hope you guys not having FUN(!) at home :D:D
.
Could not stop laughing on most of them. Thanks to all.
Most of them on the same topic. Hope you guys not having FUN(!) at home :D:D
Macaca
10-14 11:06 AM
Getting Around Rules on Lobbying: Despite New Law, Firms Find Ways To Ply Politicians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301275.html?hpid=topnews) By Elizabeth Williamson | Washington Post Staff Writer, October 14, 2007
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
more...
shsk
07-13 01:42 AM
I am in for it, a very great initiative.
But would request to check with IV first on this
But would request to check with IV first on this
2010 Chinese Hairstyles For Girls
Macaca
05-02 05:45 PM
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
more...
leoindiano
03-24 08:57 AM
Thanks for your insight. Its about time most of us here understand not to take immigration rules lightly, and I've been preaching this for the longest time already!
People here had their own justification about "consulting". Well, this is what they get for exploiting loopholes.
Dear Sledge_hammer,
Dont just hammer around. The people who are doing consulting is not doing it out of their choice. It is the economy it forced some of us into consulting (fulltime to the company we work for but work for a client). In 2001, when we came out of school and tech bubble burst, there was no fulltime jobs, we were forced to do consulting. Some of my freinds who graduated in 2000 got into microsoft, oracle, cisco who didnt had damn good GPA. The guys who had 4.0 GPA and graduated a semester later didnt get those offers, coz bubble burst by that time.
I am forced to tell you that the guys who are doing fulltime jobs working in same technology and same companies and doing same thing everyday are by no means smarter than the consultants who work in different industries, different technologies and enjoy their work. I would challenge the guys to come out and find a job faster than a consultant with same amount of experience.
Luck By Chance doesnt give them a right to cry foul on consultants everyday....I am really sorry if i hurt anybodys feelings. I was forced by some of our fellow members. You have lot of other things to talk about. Dont blame consultants for your misery. If you are destined to suffer, you will suffer one or other way.
I would advice all FTE's to be prepared for unexpected twists and turns in bad economy.
People here had their own justification about "consulting". Well, this is what they get for exploiting loopholes.
Dear Sledge_hammer,
Dont just hammer around. The people who are doing consulting is not doing it out of their choice. It is the economy it forced some of us into consulting (fulltime to the company we work for but work for a client). In 2001, when we came out of school and tech bubble burst, there was no fulltime jobs, we were forced to do consulting. Some of my freinds who graduated in 2000 got into microsoft, oracle, cisco who didnt had damn good GPA. The guys who had 4.0 GPA and graduated a semester later didnt get those offers, coz bubble burst by that time.
I am forced to tell you that the guys who are doing fulltime jobs working in same technology and same companies and doing same thing everyday are by no means smarter than the consultants who work in different industries, different technologies and enjoy their work. I would challenge the guys to come out and find a job faster than a consultant with same amount of experience.
Luck By Chance doesnt give them a right to cry foul on consultants everyday....I am really sorry if i hurt anybodys feelings. I was forced by some of our fellow members. You have lot of other things to talk about. Dont blame consultants for your misery. If you are destined to suffer, you will suffer one or other way.
I would advice all FTE's to be prepared for unexpected twists and turns in bad economy.
hair hairstyles hairstyles for teen
seattleGC
04-07 10:50 AM
I am glad IV is taking a strong stand against this bill. IV should work with Compete America (they have more of a vested interests in this) to make sure this bill doesn't see the light of day.
This bill is introduced by 'Pro-Illegal,pro-union and protectionist' section of Democratic party and 'Anti-immigration at all cost' section of the Republican party. I believe both these groups are fringe elements in both parties. But they could use this bill as a bargain chip for CIR and might get it passed because of it. So we should not take this lightly even if we might not be screwed by this. It will definitely hurt people coming behind us.
Only reform H1b needs is to increase the quota or have no quota. And also to tie the H1b to the worker and not to the employee. And I dont see any in this bill.
This bill is introduced by 'Pro-Illegal,pro-union and protectionist' section of Democratic party and 'Anti-immigration at all cost' section of the Republican party. I believe both these groups are fringe elements in both parties. But they could use this bill as a bargain chip for CIR and might get it passed because of it. So we should not take this lightly even if we might not be screwed by this. It will definitely hurt people coming behind us.
Only reform H1b needs is to increase the quota or have no quota. And also to tie the H1b to the worker and not to the employee. And I dont see any in this bill.
more...
dealsnet
01-07 02:31 PM
You say romans converted egyptions to christianity. If it is true, romans follow catholic church. Coptic is Othodox christians, started during the period of apostole (AROUND AD 30-50). Romans may ruled them, but every one is coptic. Not changed the religion by force. You contradit your statement.
Mohamed copy bible and make his own version and misled the people. It is like a cult. Like Mormon in USA. It is written in the bible. 'Those who change any word from the bible will be punished'. Mohamed's fate decided by God.
I guess you meant 700 AD not 1100 AD.
Here's a something along your train of thought.. before 300 AD all egyptians worshipped the sun god "Ra" until a Roman emperor converted to Christianity and made it the official religion, he still persecuted christian egyptians because the coptic version of christianity differed from his.
Ra worshippers are the only true egyptians.. any idea where i can find them?
cheers.
Mohamed copy bible and make his own version and misled the people. It is like a cult. Like Mormon in USA. It is written in the bible. 'Those who change any word from the bible will be punished'. Mohamed's fate decided by God.
I guess you meant 700 AD not 1100 AD.
Here's a something along your train of thought.. before 300 AD all egyptians worshipped the sun god "Ra" until a Roman emperor converted to Christianity and made it the official religion, he still persecuted christian egyptians because the coptic version of christianity differed from his.
Ra worshippers are the only true egyptians.. any idea where i can find them?
cheers.
hot cute short haircuts for asian
logiclife
05-31 05:25 PM
The congress, the president and everyone is crazy. Except Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs is the only one who is doing the sane talk.
Read the smart Einstein-like man's column here:
The whole world is crazy except me (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/dobbs.May31/index.html)
I will post my own editorial on his editorial on CNN, once I get a minute. In the mean time, seriously, take a drink or two before you read this contribution from Lou Dobbs.
Read the smart Einstein-like man's column here:
The whole world is crazy except me (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/dobbs.May31/index.html)
I will post my own editorial on his editorial on CNN, once I get a minute. In the mean time, seriously, take a drink or two before you read this contribution from Lou Dobbs.
more...
house Asian Haircuts
pani_6
07-14 12:51 AM
This is a long tern strategy...this wont work this year..you have heard that from the Lofgren herself that no legislation would work this year.....we need to pursue this BUT FIRST letter on page 1 would give some immedeate relief to EB-3..which is
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20147
Actually Version 2 is the latest draft:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262392#post262392
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20147
Actually Version 2 is the latest draft:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262392#post262392
tattoo 2011 teenage hairstyles boys.
Rolling_Flood
08-05 09:00 AM
Show me where it says in the law that a "person's eligibility decides EB1/2/3"?
Your job demands an EB3 and no higher, thus your company filed an EB3.
If you think you should be EB2 instead, then find another job or another company. What do you not understand?
And please refrain from using foul language, this is my first, and final, request to you, sir.
I am not anti-immigrant, just anti-porting and anti-interfiling.
As i said earlier you have Zero understanding of these things and that's why you came to waste peoples time. You could be an anti-immigrant as well.
"GC is for future Job and one single person could be eligible for EB3 / EB2 / EB1 any kind of jobs - its the person's ELIGIBILITY which matters " - understand dumbo ?
Your job demands an EB3 and no higher, thus your company filed an EB3.
If you think you should be EB2 instead, then find another job or another company. What do you not understand?
And please refrain from using foul language, this is my first, and final, request to you, sir.
I am not anti-immigrant, just anti-porting and anti-interfiling.
As i said earlier you have Zero understanding of these things and that's why you came to waste peoples time. You could be an anti-immigrant as well.
"GC is for future Job and one single person could be eligible for EB3 / EB2 / EB1 any kind of jobs - its the person's ELIGIBILITY which matters " - understand dumbo ?
more...
pictures New Asian hairstyles Trend
kshitijnt
09-26 07:53 PM
Well I tend to go by the facts:
Bill Clinton was good for immigration , everyone was happy in his days
Eversince GW Bush took over, the USCIS has been consistently hitting below the belt to immigrant communities , right from Sep-11-2001. Not one thing was done for overall improvement in GC process. By this I mean congressional laws.
Another reason I worry about is that McCains advisors are in favor of H1 visa. At no point they mention that they will also support GCs for EB immigrants. This means if he comes to power, there will be high influx of H1Bs without anyone gettting GCs. This seems to be worse than what Obama is planning to do. Maybe a few of us will have to leave in Obamas policy but those who remain here will be better placed. Under McCains policy, there will be a huge pressure on wages by H1B competing against other H1B while there is no reform in GC process. These ladies Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman are big time in favor of H1 visa so as "to bring down salaries" and so that "they' can make more money. This is their only rationale in supporting H1s. I am not against H1s but the GC process also needs to be fixed. If GC process is not fixed more H1s is not only detrimental to us but also to the newcomers.
Also when we try to get HR5882, the people like Steve King and Lamar Smith come from republican party. McCain is less likely to have any leverage on these individuals even if he comes to power. All of a sudden they can not change their stance on immigration. Another senator in the same bucket is Jeff Sessions.
You guys tell me, should we be more worried about Jeff Sessions and Steve King or Dick Durbin? It seems that Dick Durbin is picking on Indian offshoring companies but nothing to indicate that he is against immigration in general.
Bill Clinton was good for immigration , everyone was happy in his days
Eversince GW Bush took over, the USCIS has been consistently hitting below the belt to immigrant communities , right from Sep-11-2001. Not one thing was done for overall improvement in GC process. By this I mean congressional laws.
Another reason I worry about is that McCains advisors are in favor of H1 visa. At no point they mention that they will also support GCs for EB immigrants. This means if he comes to power, there will be high influx of H1Bs without anyone gettting GCs. This seems to be worse than what Obama is planning to do. Maybe a few of us will have to leave in Obamas policy but those who remain here will be better placed. Under McCains policy, there will be a huge pressure on wages by H1B competing against other H1B while there is no reform in GC process. These ladies Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman are big time in favor of H1 visa so as "to bring down salaries" and so that "they' can make more money. This is their only rationale in supporting H1s. I am not against H1s but the GC process also needs to be fixed. If GC process is not fixed more H1s is not only detrimental to us but also to the newcomers.
Also when we try to get HR5882, the people like Steve King and Lamar Smith come from republican party. McCain is less likely to have any leverage on these individuals even if he comes to power. All of a sudden they can not change their stance on immigration. Another senator in the same bucket is Jeff Sessions.
You guys tell me, should we be more worried about Jeff Sessions and Steve King or Dick Durbin? It seems that Dick Durbin is picking on Indian offshoring companies but nothing to indicate that he is against immigration in general.
dresses images Asian Hair Style
dealsnet
01-07 10:52 PM
See the link. Palestine TV teaches the kids to be a terrorist. Through micky mouse.
Pathetic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi-c6lbFGC4&NR=1
See this poor boy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPU4UN03t7E&feature=related
Pathetic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi-c6lbFGC4&NR=1
See this poor boy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPU4UN03t7E&feature=related
more...
makeup for Asian teen boys.
rsdang
08-11 04:55 PM
:D1) Did you fart? Cuz you just blew me away.
2) Are yer parents retarded? Cuz ya sure are special.
3) My Love fer you is like diarrhea, I can't hold it in!
4) Do you have a library card? Cuz I'd like to check you out.
5) Is there a mirror in yer pants? Cuz I can see myself in em.
6) If you was a tree and I were a Squirrel, I'd store my nuts in yer hole.
7) You might not be the best lookin girl here, but beauty's only a light switch away.
8) Fat Penguin................... Sorry, I just wanted to say something that would break the ice.
9) I know I'm not no Fred Flintstone, but I bet I can make yer bed-rock.
10) I can't find my puppy , can you help me find him? I Think he went into this cheap motel room.
11) Yer eyes are as blue as window cleaner.
12) If yer gunna regret this in the mornin', we kin sleep Til afternoon.
13) Yer face reminds me of a wrench, every time I think of it my nuts tighten up
And.... The best for last!
14) I may not be Mr. Right, but I'll damn sure hump ya' till he comes along...
2) Are yer parents retarded? Cuz ya sure are special.
3) My Love fer you is like diarrhea, I can't hold it in!
4) Do you have a library card? Cuz I'd like to check you out.
5) Is there a mirror in yer pants? Cuz I can see myself in em.
6) If you was a tree and I were a Squirrel, I'd store my nuts in yer hole.
7) You might not be the best lookin girl here, but beauty's only a light switch away.
8) Fat Penguin................... Sorry, I just wanted to say something that would break the ice.
9) I know I'm not no Fred Flintstone, but I bet I can make yer bed-rock.
10) I can't find my puppy , can you help me find him? I Think he went into this cheap motel room.
11) Yer eyes are as blue as window cleaner.
12) If yer gunna regret this in the mornin', we kin sleep Til afternoon.
13) Yer face reminds me of a wrench, every time I think of it my nuts tighten up
And.... The best for last!
14) I may not be Mr. Right, but I'll damn sure hump ya' till he comes along...
girlfriend guy asian hairstyles. teen
punjabi77
12-18 11:04 AM
I dont see anything wrong in what Auntlay asked for.. he has asked for investigation as to how Karkare was killed.
his initial verbage was not good.. but what he asked later was completely justified..
All the people in the van, in which Karkare was killed, died except one Hawaldar..
And all the top cops in the same van at the same time, somethings needs to be justified..
his initial verbage was not good.. but what he asked later was completely justified..
All the people in the van, in which Karkare was killed, died except one Hawaldar..
And all the top cops in the same van at the same time, somethings needs to be justified..
hairstyles hairstyles Female Asian Hairstyles japanese girl hairstyles. dresses teen
Macaca
05-09 05:50 PM
China’s America Obsession
Why Osama bin Laden's death is making Chinese leaders nervous. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/06/china_s_america_obsession)
By JOHN LEE | Foreign Policy
In Thursday's edition of China's Communist Party-owned Global Times newspaper, the lead editorial was headlined, "After Bin Laden, will China become US's foe?" Hoping that economic integration would defuse "right-wing paranoia" about China in the United States, the editorial nevertheless concluded: "The rise of China is certain to cause friction" in America. On Friday, the paper led with an editorial that referenced an interview I had given the Global Times in late April to admit that "China could be the loneliest rising power in world history."
Of course, editorials in state-owned newspapers do not always mirror the Communist Party's thinking or policies. But in this case, these two editorials remind us of two related points about Beijing's worldview. First, China respects and even fears the United States more than the vast majority of Americans probably realize. And second, China's sense of isolation is not an act but acute and real -- and Osama bin Laden's death will only accelerate America's reengagement with its Asian allies and partners at China's expense.
When Washington shifted its focus toward terrorism and the Middle East after the September 11 attacks in 2001, Beijing experienced genuine relief. As China's leaders and strategists came to believe, an America distracted by two wars and a weak economy presented a priceless window of opportunity for China to extend its influence in Asia and beyond. But Beijing realizes that Washington's strategic attention will eventually turn eastwards, and the death of bin Laden is one small but significant step in hastening the arrival of that day. As one prominent Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) analyst put it to me recently, the American "spearhead will soon be pointed at Beijing."
China's focus on America is obsessive and omnipresent among its leaders and strategists. In a study of 100 recent articles by leading academics at CASS, comprising the network of official state-backed think-tanks and institutes throughout the country, I found that about four in every five were about the United States -- whether it was seeking to understand the American system and political values, or describing how to limit, circumvent, bind, or otherwise reduce American power and influence. Of these themes, several emerged that help better understand the thinking behind editorials like the one in the Global Times.
One is that Beijing views international politics in broadly neorealist terms. Chinese strategists believe the distribution of power in the world today will determine tomorrow's conflicts. China has long seen building competition between itself and America in particular as the inevitable and defining big-picture strategic play. In Beijing's thinking, tension can be managed, but never resolved, between the established power and the emerging one. Tension is a structural inevitability.
But Chinese experts also view America as a unique superpower that relentlessly seeks not only to build and maintain its power, but also to spread its democratic values. This is of grave concern to the authoritarian Chinese leaders, because they believe that America will have difficulty accepting a greater leadership role for Beijing so long as Communist Party remains exclusively in power. Senator John McCain's "League of Democracies" might never become a formal reality, but Beijing believes that it already exists, at least in Asia, through democracies such as India, Japan, and South Korea.
Moreover, Beijing fears the American democratic process. While Americans view democracy as an advantage since it can offer United States an institutional and bloodless process for leadership and policy renewal, China views American democracy as a source of irrationality and unpredictability. Many in Beijing, pointing to President George W. Bush's rapid decisions to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11, believe a new administration might actually increase the chances of uncomfortable shifts in policy that will lead Washington to suddenly focus its competitive and hostile gaze to the east.
Some of Beijing's strategists now even argue that the United States has three advantages over China that will help preserve American strategic primacy in Asia.
First, the United States has built an order based not just on American power but also democratic community. It has not escaped Beijing that few countries in East and Southeast Asia fear India's democratic rise. Whereas India's ascent is seen as natural, predictable, and welcomed, almost every country in Asia is trying to benefit from China's economic success while strategically hedging against Chinese military power by moving even closer to the United States. (Witness the recent speech by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard to Congress in which she reaffirmed the alliance with America as the bedrock of Canberra's security strategy, or Singapore's leader Lee Hsien Loong urging America to remain engaged in Asia.)
Second, unlike China, America does not have land and territorial disputes with other Asian states. For example, China still claims around 80 percent of the South China Sea as its "historic waters" and is in an ongoing dispute with India over the eastern-most Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. In this sense, China's rise is inherently disruptive since a more powerful China is likely to demand a resolution to these issues that is in Beijing's favor.
Third, the United States is not a resident power in that it is not geographically in Asia. China now realizes that this simple fact, once seen as a handicap, instead presents America with a unique advantage. To maintain its military bases in the region and thus remain the pre-eminent strategic power in Asia, the United States requires other key states and regional groupings to acquiesce to its security role and relationships. There is broad-based regional approval of U.S. alliances with Australia, Japan, and South Korea, as well as with partners such as India, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. This interdependent relationship means that America is not so powerful that it can easily ignore the wishes of Asian states.
In contrast, if China were in the dominant strategic position, its pre-eminence would be much harder to challenge or shift. Beijing would not need the same level of regional acquiescence. As a resident power, China would not need the "approval" of other Asian states to maintain its military footholds. As the largest Asian power, it would be easier to dominate regional institutions without an American presence -- yet one more reason why America is trusted to provide the public and security goods in Asian sea lanes while China is not.
All this is why, instead of taking full advantage of America's terrorism obsession, Beijing has watched resentfully as the United States has built a hierarchical democratic order in which Asian states willingly aid in preserving American pre-eminence. In such an order, China remains a strategic loner in Asia, with Myanmar and North Korea as its only true friends.
China is well aware of its relative vulnerabilities. Rather than lament the irretrievable loss of its better days, America should learn to better appreciate its relative strengths.
John Lee is research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney and the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. He is author of Will China Fail?
U.S.-China Talks: What to Look for (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-china-talks-look/p24923) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
Security and U.S.-Sino Scientific Collaboration (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/02/security-and-us-sino-scientific-collaboration/) By Adam Segal | Council on Foreign Relations
US, China vie for influence among Indonesian riches (http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ME06Ae02.html) By Sara Schonhardt | Asia Times
As China Invests, U.S. Could Lose (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/business/global/04yuan.html) By DAVID BARBOZA | New York Times
China Invests Overseas (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3171&Itemid=422) Asia Sentinel
Is the Asian century a dream or reality? (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/05/06/is-asian-century-a-dream-or-reality.html) By Haruhiko Kuroda | Jakarta Post
A Future Scenario for Asia (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3177&Itemid=422) By Philip Bowring | Asia Sentinel
Japan, After March 11
The country, resilient as ever, remains Asia’s true power. (http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_2_japan.html)
By Guy Sorman | City Journal
Why Osama bin Laden's death is making Chinese leaders nervous. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/06/china_s_america_obsession)
By JOHN LEE | Foreign Policy
In Thursday's edition of China's Communist Party-owned Global Times newspaper, the lead editorial was headlined, "After Bin Laden, will China become US's foe?" Hoping that economic integration would defuse "right-wing paranoia" about China in the United States, the editorial nevertheless concluded: "The rise of China is certain to cause friction" in America. On Friday, the paper led with an editorial that referenced an interview I had given the Global Times in late April to admit that "China could be the loneliest rising power in world history."
Of course, editorials in state-owned newspapers do not always mirror the Communist Party's thinking or policies. But in this case, these two editorials remind us of two related points about Beijing's worldview. First, China respects and even fears the United States more than the vast majority of Americans probably realize. And second, China's sense of isolation is not an act but acute and real -- and Osama bin Laden's death will only accelerate America's reengagement with its Asian allies and partners at China's expense.
When Washington shifted its focus toward terrorism and the Middle East after the September 11 attacks in 2001, Beijing experienced genuine relief. As China's leaders and strategists came to believe, an America distracted by two wars and a weak economy presented a priceless window of opportunity for China to extend its influence in Asia and beyond. But Beijing realizes that Washington's strategic attention will eventually turn eastwards, and the death of bin Laden is one small but significant step in hastening the arrival of that day. As one prominent Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) analyst put it to me recently, the American "spearhead will soon be pointed at Beijing."
China's focus on America is obsessive and omnipresent among its leaders and strategists. In a study of 100 recent articles by leading academics at CASS, comprising the network of official state-backed think-tanks and institutes throughout the country, I found that about four in every five were about the United States -- whether it was seeking to understand the American system and political values, or describing how to limit, circumvent, bind, or otherwise reduce American power and influence. Of these themes, several emerged that help better understand the thinking behind editorials like the one in the Global Times.
One is that Beijing views international politics in broadly neorealist terms. Chinese strategists believe the distribution of power in the world today will determine tomorrow's conflicts. China has long seen building competition between itself and America in particular as the inevitable and defining big-picture strategic play. In Beijing's thinking, tension can be managed, but never resolved, between the established power and the emerging one. Tension is a structural inevitability.
But Chinese experts also view America as a unique superpower that relentlessly seeks not only to build and maintain its power, but also to spread its democratic values. This is of grave concern to the authoritarian Chinese leaders, because they believe that America will have difficulty accepting a greater leadership role for Beijing so long as Communist Party remains exclusively in power. Senator John McCain's "League of Democracies" might never become a formal reality, but Beijing believes that it already exists, at least in Asia, through democracies such as India, Japan, and South Korea.
Moreover, Beijing fears the American democratic process. While Americans view democracy as an advantage since it can offer United States an institutional and bloodless process for leadership and policy renewal, China views American democracy as a source of irrationality and unpredictability. Many in Beijing, pointing to President George W. Bush's rapid decisions to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11, believe a new administration might actually increase the chances of uncomfortable shifts in policy that will lead Washington to suddenly focus its competitive and hostile gaze to the east.
Some of Beijing's strategists now even argue that the United States has three advantages over China that will help preserve American strategic primacy in Asia.
First, the United States has built an order based not just on American power but also democratic community. It has not escaped Beijing that few countries in East and Southeast Asia fear India's democratic rise. Whereas India's ascent is seen as natural, predictable, and welcomed, almost every country in Asia is trying to benefit from China's economic success while strategically hedging against Chinese military power by moving even closer to the United States. (Witness the recent speech by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard to Congress in which she reaffirmed the alliance with America as the bedrock of Canberra's security strategy, or Singapore's leader Lee Hsien Loong urging America to remain engaged in Asia.)
Second, unlike China, America does not have land and territorial disputes with other Asian states. For example, China still claims around 80 percent of the South China Sea as its "historic waters" and is in an ongoing dispute with India over the eastern-most Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. In this sense, China's rise is inherently disruptive since a more powerful China is likely to demand a resolution to these issues that is in Beijing's favor.
Third, the United States is not a resident power in that it is not geographically in Asia. China now realizes that this simple fact, once seen as a handicap, instead presents America with a unique advantage. To maintain its military bases in the region and thus remain the pre-eminent strategic power in Asia, the United States requires other key states and regional groupings to acquiesce to its security role and relationships. There is broad-based regional approval of U.S. alliances with Australia, Japan, and South Korea, as well as with partners such as India, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. This interdependent relationship means that America is not so powerful that it can easily ignore the wishes of Asian states.
In contrast, if China were in the dominant strategic position, its pre-eminence would be much harder to challenge or shift. Beijing would not need the same level of regional acquiescence. As a resident power, China would not need the "approval" of other Asian states to maintain its military footholds. As the largest Asian power, it would be easier to dominate regional institutions without an American presence -- yet one more reason why America is trusted to provide the public and security goods in Asian sea lanes while China is not.
All this is why, instead of taking full advantage of America's terrorism obsession, Beijing has watched resentfully as the United States has built a hierarchical democratic order in which Asian states willingly aid in preserving American pre-eminence. In such an order, China remains a strategic loner in Asia, with Myanmar and North Korea as its only true friends.
China is well aware of its relative vulnerabilities. Rather than lament the irretrievable loss of its better days, America should learn to better appreciate its relative strengths.
John Lee is research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney and the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. He is author of Will China Fail?
U.S.-China Talks: What to Look for (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-china-talks-look/p24923) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
Security and U.S.-Sino Scientific Collaboration (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/02/security-and-us-sino-scientific-collaboration/) By Adam Segal | Council on Foreign Relations
US, China vie for influence among Indonesian riches (http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ME06Ae02.html) By Sara Schonhardt | Asia Times
As China Invests, U.S. Could Lose (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/business/global/04yuan.html) By DAVID BARBOZA | New York Times
China Invests Overseas (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3171&Itemid=422) Asia Sentinel
Is the Asian century a dream or reality? (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/05/06/is-asian-century-a-dream-or-reality.html) By Haruhiko Kuroda | Jakarta Post
A Future Scenario for Asia (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3177&Itemid=422) By Philip Bowring | Asia Sentinel
Japan, After March 11
The country, resilient as ever, remains Asia’s true power. (http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_2_japan.html)
By Guy Sorman | City Journal
sanju
12-17 04:32 PM
I told you guys.. This site name should. Now
This guy seems seems to be an agent of some other site that wants us all to track fake data of others GCs, instead of working to eliminate the problem. Is thats why he is always putting labels on this forum?
.
This guy seems seems to be an agent of some other site that wants us all to track fake data of others GCs, instead of working to eliminate the problem. Is thats why he is always putting labels on this forum?
.
Marphad
12-27 08:44 AM
I agree with you to a great extent. The Pakistani society is fractured right now, and there is nothing to unite the country than a conflict with India.
Where I disagree with you is when you think that this is the calculus of the Pakistan army. I think the senior army (and civilian) leadership in Pakistan knows the Kargil episode too well. Kargil is fresh in their memories, and they know that a conflict with India is not worth the costs. Plus, if we are to assume that the Pakistan army was behind the 2001 Parliament attack, then again we know that the Pakistan army had to back down that time too....So, unless the Pakistan army is run by Beavis and Butthead who repeatedly touch a hot object and go 'ouch...ouch....ouch...ouch...ouch...', there is no reason for them to do this.....
So I think, that its the militant elements that are being squeezed by the Pakistan army and NATO, and not the the Pakistan army, that pulled this off.
(I must also add that I have a bias to believe that; thats just natural.) Everytime we see Indian and Pakistani relations improving, something blows up somewhere, and things are back to square one.
I wonder if you attribute any of that to the media coverage of the event. Especially the 'live tv' aspect of it.
I don't think a bomb blast with the same number of casualties would have had this much impact.
I also think the media could have acted more responsibly than it did. I was somewhat disappointed by Pakistani media. I think there was too much bias and not so much objectivity in the coverage. I am afraid the Indian media would have acted in a similar manner too....
Alisa, you sound like rational Pakistani who can think and judge the things by oneself. I wish % like you people increase in Pakistan.
Where I disagree with you is when you think that this is the calculus of the Pakistan army. I think the senior army (and civilian) leadership in Pakistan knows the Kargil episode too well. Kargil is fresh in their memories, and they know that a conflict with India is not worth the costs. Plus, if we are to assume that the Pakistan army was behind the 2001 Parliament attack, then again we know that the Pakistan army had to back down that time too....So, unless the Pakistan army is run by Beavis and Butthead who repeatedly touch a hot object and go 'ouch...ouch....ouch...ouch...ouch...', there is no reason for them to do this.....
So I think, that its the militant elements that are being squeezed by the Pakistan army and NATO, and not the the Pakistan army, that pulled this off.
(I must also add that I have a bias to believe that; thats just natural.) Everytime we see Indian and Pakistani relations improving, something blows up somewhere, and things are back to square one.
I wonder if you attribute any of that to the media coverage of the event. Especially the 'live tv' aspect of it.
I don't think a bomb blast with the same number of casualties would have had this much impact.
I also think the media could have acted more responsibly than it did. I was somewhat disappointed by Pakistani media. I think there was too much bias and not so much objectivity in the coverage. I am afraid the Indian media would have acted in a similar manner too....
Alisa, you sound like rational Pakistani who can think and judge the things by oneself. I wish % like you people increase in Pakistan.
No comments:
Post a Comment