Thursday, January 21, 2010
Obama in trouble
From The Hindu
A year on from the cold winter day when Barack Obama was sworn in as President of the United States, he must be wondering where it all went wrong. On Tuesday, his party suffered a serious setback in a Senate seat election in Massachusetts, a defeat that might scuttle his defining project of reforming the healthcare system. A relatively unknown Republican state legislator, Scott Brown, defeated the Democratic candidate, state attorney-general Martha Coakley, to snatch the seat occupied by Edward Kennedy for nearly half a century until his death in August 2009. This loss puts an end to the 60-seat majority the Democrats enjoyed in the Senate, essential for avoiding filibusters by the Republican opposition. Healthcare reform is particularly vulnerable because Congress is poised to reconcile two versions of the reform bill, awash with differences, of the House and the Senate. The Massachusetts defeat puts tremendous pressure on Democrats to either get the House to accept the Senate version as it stands, thereby avoiding further debate in the Senate, or get the Senate to create a budget reconciliation bill based on the House's amendments, which could then be passed with a simple majority. In either case, there is likely to be intensified intra-party wrangling - the very style of politics that Candidate Obama made such a show of eschewing.
The loss in Massachusetts mainly reflects President Obama's declining approval ratings, which have already come down to 50 per cent. Mr. Obama now admits that "we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people." If so, he must spend his second year in office doing two things. First, instead of temporising and constantly seeking the middle ground on issues of great import, he must be venturesome and battle it out. He must learn to act in the spirit and style of a great helmsman-in-crisis, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on issues of vital concern to ordinary people - unemployment, healthcare, recovery from a demoralising economic crisis, and of course counter-terrorism. With a lot of hard work and some luck, there should be some positive results to show in the Congressional elections of November 2010. Secondly, Mr. Obama must, reprising his inspired presidential campaign, reach out to ordinary Americans, square with them on whatever his game plan is and the obstacles to realising it, infuse in them hope - and give them real reasons for believing that this is not going to end up as a one-term presidency.
A year on from the cold winter day when Barack Obama was sworn in as President of the United States, he must be wondering where it all went wrong. On Tuesday, his party suffered a serious setback in a Senate seat election in Massachusetts, a defeat that might scuttle his defining project of reforming the healthcare system. A relatively unknown Republican state legislator, Scott Brown, defeated the Democratic candidate, state attorney-general Martha Coakley, to snatch the seat occupied by Edward Kennedy for nearly half a century until his death in August 2009. This loss puts an end to the 60-seat majority the Democrats enjoyed in the Senate, essential for avoiding filibusters by the Republican opposition. Healthcare reform is particularly vulnerable because Congress is poised to reconcile two versions of the reform bill, awash with differences, of the House and the Senate. The Massachusetts defeat puts tremendous pressure on Democrats to either get the House to accept the Senate version as it stands, thereby avoiding further debate in the Senate, or get the Senate to create a budget reconciliation bill based on the House's amendments, which could then be passed with a simple majority. In either case, there is likely to be intensified intra-party wrangling - the very style of politics that Candidate Obama made such a show of eschewing.
The loss in Massachusetts mainly reflects President Obama's declining approval ratings, which have already come down to 50 per cent. Mr. Obama now admits that "we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people." If so, he must spend his second year in office doing two things. First, instead of temporising and constantly seeking the middle ground on issues of great import, he must be venturesome and battle it out. He must learn to act in the spirit and style of a great helmsman-in-crisis, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on issues of vital concern to ordinary people - unemployment, healthcare, recovery from a demoralising economic crisis, and of course counter-terrorism. With a lot of hard work and some luck, there should be some positive results to show in the Congressional elections of November 2010. Secondly, Mr. Obama must, reprising his inspired presidential campaign, reach out to ordinary Americans, square with them on whatever his game plan is and the obstacles to realising it, infuse in them hope - and give them real reasons for believing that this is not going to end up as a one-term presidency.
Labels: Barack Obama, healthcare system, Massachusetts, Senate seat election
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Haiti devastated
From The Hindu
Haiti, a small, impoverished Caribbean nation, is slowly coming to terms with the calamitous earthquake of January 12, which measured 7.0 on the Richter scale and was followed by several powerful aftershocks. The toll on human life is estimated at 45,000-50,000 by the Red Cross. With reports of hundreds of bodies piled high outside mortuaries and hospitals, and survivors sleeping among the dead for a fourth successive night, rescue efforts face a big challenge. Most heart-rending is the plight of children, who comprise over 40 per cent of the population of the capital, Port-au-Prince. Haitian President René Préval described the loss of life and the near-total infrastructural damage as “unimaginable,” adding that parliament, the national palace, the tax office, schools, hospitals, and the main prison had collapsed. The damage was heightened by the fact that the quake struck the densely populated area around the capital, comprising nearly three million people in rudimentary slum dwellings that entirely lacked earthquake-resistant construction.
The response of the international community to the terrible humanitarian crisis has been empathetic: the United States has promised $100m, 3,500 troops, and 2,200 marines to help with relief efforts; Britain has pledged £6.15m; France, Spain, and China have joined the effort, sending funds, supplies, and manpower. India must do its part, coming up with a generous assistance package. Yet there are severe problems in reaching aid to the people. While relief efforts are focussed on the immediate tasks of rescuing trapped survivors and providing them with the basics, the post-disaster agenda in the months ahead will be about helping them piece together their shattered lives. The recovery plan must also address the larger challenge of institution-building in one of the most misgoverned and politically volatile nations in the western hemisphere. External, especially U.S., involvement must not exacerbate instability in the coup-laden, dictatorship-prone politics of Haiti. If this troubled nation is to cope better with natural disasters — an imperative given its proximity to the Pacific Ring of Fire -- democracy and responsive governance must take root. Only then will it be possible to lift Haitians out of crippling poverty and rebuild the country’s wrecked infrastructure. In particular, it is vital that future housing construction is in line with best practice in earthquake-proofing -- for example using the lessons on retrofitting structures that came out of the 2005 Kashmir earthquake -- and Haiti’s institutional capacity for disaster response is upgraded.
Haiti, a small, impoverished Caribbean nation, is slowly coming to terms with the calamitous earthquake of January 12, which measured 7.0 on the Richter scale and was followed by several powerful aftershocks. The toll on human life is estimated at 45,000-50,000 by the Red Cross. With reports of hundreds of bodies piled high outside mortuaries and hospitals, and survivors sleeping among the dead for a fourth successive night, rescue efforts face a big challenge. Most heart-rending is the plight of children, who comprise over 40 per cent of the population of the capital, Port-au-Prince. Haitian President René Préval described the loss of life and the near-total infrastructural damage as “unimaginable,” adding that parliament, the national palace, the tax office, schools, hospitals, and the main prison had collapsed. The damage was heightened by the fact that the quake struck the densely populated area around the capital, comprising nearly three million people in rudimentary slum dwellings that entirely lacked earthquake-resistant construction.
The response of the international community to the terrible humanitarian crisis has been empathetic: the United States has promised $100m, 3,500 troops, and 2,200 marines to help with relief efforts; Britain has pledged £6.15m; France, Spain, and China have joined the effort, sending funds, supplies, and manpower. India must do its part, coming up with a generous assistance package. Yet there are severe problems in reaching aid to the people. While relief efforts are focussed on the immediate tasks of rescuing trapped survivors and providing them with the basics, the post-disaster agenda in the months ahead will be about helping them piece together their shattered lives. The recovery plan must also address the larger challenge of institution-building in one of the most misgoverned and politically volatile nations in the western hemisphere. External, especially U.S., involvement must not exacerbate instability in the coup-laden, dictatorship-prone politics of Haiti. If this troubled nation is to cope better with natural disasters — an imperative given its proximity to the Pacific Ring of Fire -- democracy and responsive governance must take root. Only then will it be possible to lift Haitians out of crippling poverty and rebuild the country’s wrecked infrastructure. In particular, it is vital that future housing construction is in line with best practice in earthquake-proofing -- for example using the lessons on retrofitting structures that came out of the 2005 Kashmir earthquake -- and Haiti’s institutional capacity for disaster response is upgraded.
Labels: Caribbean nation, devastation, earthquake, Haiti, Haitian President, humanitarian crisis, Port-au-Prince, René Préval, western hemisphere
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Don’t Pakistanise Yemen
From The Hindu
Yemen, a second-tier preoccupation for terrorism trackers in the west until Christmas day 2009, has now been elevated to the highest-risk category. According to John Brennan, President Obama’s counterterrorism advisor, it was Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni cleric of the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), who helped radicalise, train, and equip Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to attack Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit. Other terror attacks that are being attributed to the Yemen-based AQAP include the November 2009 killing of 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, by United States Army major Nidal Malik Hasan; and the August 2009 assassination attempt on Prince Mohammed bin Nayef of the Saudi royal family. The most unmistakable sign of a spike in the perceived terror threat from Yemen was the temporary closure of the embassies of the U.S., Britain, and France in Sana’a this week. These threats to western interests have come on the back of the U.S.-Yemen allied offensive against AQAP in parts of Sana’a and in Abyan, al-Jawf, and Shabwah provinces.
The joint military operations of December reflect a growing yet tenuous bond between Washington and Sana’a. Financial assistance is of course at the heart of the relationship. The U.S. is expected substantially to increase the $70 million in security aid it provided Yemen last year. Its development assistance is poised to reach $120 million over three years. But these levels pale into insignificance compared with the $2 billion that neighbouring Saudi Arabia provides. As the U.S. and Saudi Arabia pump and more funds into Yemen in pursuit of their own foreign policy goals, there is a risk that they will ignore an important fact: political power in the country is still significantly beyond the control of its government, headed by President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Not only is the President embattled with conflicts involving Shia Houthi rebels in north Yemen and discontented secessionists of the south; his authority is further undermined by dwindling oil reserves and allegations of corruption against his administration. However, it is President Saleh’s occasional tolerance of Sunni jihadists and his past reliance on them in his fight against the northern Shiite rebels that must be most worrying for Washington. In this fraught polity, ever-increasing surges of American aid will distort the domestic balance of power and deny Yemenis the political space they need to resolve these complex issues. In turn, the U.S. may itself pay a heavy price for the Pakistanisation of Yemen.
Yemen, a second-tier preoccupation for terrorism trackers in the west until Christmas day 2009, has now been elevated to the highest-risk category. According to John Brennan, President Obama’s counterterrorism advisor, it was Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni cleric of the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), who helped radicalise, train, and equip Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to attack Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit. Other terror attacks that are being attributed to the Yemen-based AQAP include the November 2009 killing of 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, by United States Army major Nidal Malik Hasan; and the August 2009 assassination attempt on Prince Mohammed bin Nayef of the Saudi royal family. The most unmistakable sign of a spike in the perceived terror threat from Yemen was the temporary closure of the embassies of the U.S., Britain, and France in Sana’a this week. These threats to western interests have come on the back of the U.S.-Yemen allied offensive against AQAP in parts of Sana’a and in Abyan, al-Jawf, and Shabwah provinces.
The joint military operations of December reflect a growing yet tenuous bond between Washington and Sana’a. Financial assistance is of course at the heart of the relationship. The U.S. is expected substantially to increase the $70 million in security aid it provided Yemen last year. Its development assistance is poised to reach $120 million over three years. But these levels pale into insignificance compared with the $2 billion that neighbouring Saudi Arabia provides. As the U.S. and Saudi Arabia pump and more funds into Yemen in pursuit of their own foreign policy goals, there is a risk that they will ignore an important fact: political power in the country is still significantly beyond the control of its government, headed by President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Not only is the President embattled with conflicts involving Shia Houthi rebels in north Yemen and discontented secessionists of the south; his authority is further undermined by dwindling oil reserves and allegations of corruption against his administration. However, it is President Saleh’s occasional tolerance of Sunni jihadists and his past reliance on them in his fight against the northern Shiite rebels that must be most worrying for Washington. In this fraught polity, ever-increasing surges of American aid will distort the domestic balance of power and deny Yemenis the political space they need to resolve these complex issues. In turn, the U.S. may itself pay a heavy price for the Pakistanisation of Yemen.
Labels: Abyan, AQAP, Pakistan, Sana'a, Shia Houthi, terror threat, Yemen
Monday, January 04, 2010
Sharper focus on security
From The Hindu
When Nigerian terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded the Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines Flight 253 at Amsterdam, he was already in the least-restrictive, 550,000-person Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database of the United States National Counterterrorism Centre. As a result of what President Obama candidly described as “a mix of human and systemic failures,” Abdulmutallab’s name never moved from there to the 4,000-person no-fly list, nor was his multiple-entry U.S. visa revoked. The botched Christmas-day terror attack occurred despite the Central Investigative Agency receiving information last November from Abdulmutallab’s father regarding the terror risk that his son posed; further the National Security Agency had intercepted, in August, al-Qaeda chatter in Yemen on a terror plot involving a Nigerian. The implied inter-agency coordination failures have sparked a sharp debate on national security, mostly along party lines. The Republican opposition, undoubtedly mindful of the mid-term Congressional elections in November, has called into question Mr. Obama’s track record against terror, with former Vice President Dick Cheney saying that the President was “trying to pretend we are not at war.” The White House hit back saying, “Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al-Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country.”
Yet there is a danger in dismissing specific Republican questions as opportunistic or irrelevant political posturing. President Obama would do well to take the queries seriously, especially given that the attack was foiled by circumstance rather than any prior intelligence. For example, it was fair to ask, as Representative John Boehner of Ohio did, what exactly is the administration’s “overarching strategy to confront the terrorist threat and keep America safe”; or to criticise, as Republican of the House Intelligence Committee Peter Hoekstra did, the lack of follow-up action when data on Abdulmutallab became available months ago. Some of these arguments may also paradoxically undermine the Republican campaign: Democrats have been quick to point out that it was House Republicans who voted this year against a $44 billion bill financing additional airport security measures. In particular, there is a strong case for using full-body scanners at airports — devices that would have detected the materials Abdulmutallab carried — subject to privacy concerns being addressed. Against the backdrop of intelligence lapses and coordination failures is the spectre of a shift in the balance of Congressional power after the November elections. A new Congress that is less overwhelmingly Democratic is likely to keep up the pressure on President Obama to address security concerns more rigorously.
When Nigerian terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded the Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines Flight 253 at Amsterdam, he was already in the least-restrictive, 550,000-person Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database of the United States National Counterterrorism Centre. As a result of what President Obama candidly described as “a mix of human and systemic failures,” Abdulmutallab’s name never moved from there to the 4,000-person no-fly list, nor was his multiple-entry U.S. visa revoked. The botched Christmas-day terror attack occurred despite the Central Investigative Agency receiving information last November from Abdulmutallab’s father regarding the terror risk that his son posed; further the National Security Agency had intercepted, in August, al-Qaeda chatter in Yemen on a terror plot involving a Nigerian. The implied inter-agency coordination failures have sparked a sharp debate on national security, mostly along party lines. The Republican opposition, undoubtedly mindful of the mid-term Congressional elections in November, has called into question Mr. Obama’s track record against terror, with former Vice President Dick Cheney saying that the President was “trying to pretend we are not at war.” The White House hit back saying, “Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al-Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country.”
Yet there is a danger in dismissing specific Republican questions as opportunistic or irrelevant political posturing. President Obama would do well to take the queries seriously, especially given that the attack was foiled by circumstance rather than any prior intelligence. For example, it was fair to ask, as Representative John Boehner of Ohio did, what exactly is the administration’s “overarching strategy to confront the terrorist threat and keep America safe”; or to criticise, as Republican of the House Intelligence Committee Peter Hoekstra did, the lack of follow-up action when data on Abdulmutallab became available months ago. Some of these arguments may also paradoxically undermine the Republican campaign: Democrats have been quick to point out that it was House Republicans who voted this year against a $44 billion bill financing additional airport security measures. In particular, there is a strong case for using full-body scanners at airports — devices that would have detected the materials Abdulmutallab carried — subject to privacy concerns being addressed. Against the backdrop of intelligence lapses and coordination failures is the spectre of a shift in the balance of Congressional power after the November elections. A new Congress that is less overwhelmingly Democratic is likely to keep up the pressure on President Obama to address security concerns more rigorously.
Labels: Al-Qaeda, CIA, Nigerian terror suspect, NSA, security, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
