Journalist risk their life in Pakistan
The recent killing of Syed Saleem Shehzad, who was a Bureau Chief of Asia Times Online (Hong Kong) & was also the correspondent of Italian news agency Adnkronos (AKI) for South Asia was gone missing from Islamabad on 29th May 2011 whom police found his body on 31st May 2011 lying dead in the canal of Mandi Bahauddin district 6kms away from his car which was found at Sarai Alamgir 150km away from Islamabad. Shehzad was born on 3rd November 1970 in modern day Pakistan to parents Mr Shamim Ahmad and Marifa Mairaj Fatima whose history dates back to Mughal Empire Court rooms where his ancestors had served & enjoyed social status & a respected life in British India. The killing of him has sent shock waves across the media world in Pakistan who still facing a complete national failure which not only now disturbing the national security but also the global stability.
Shehzad is not the only person who was affected by the turmoil but there are others who too have lost their lives while just performing their mere duty to serve their nation in a better way & to address the public outcry of their people. The phenomenon started way back in 2001 when Daniel Pearl of Wall Street Journal was beheaded by then some radical mindsets in this nation since then the journalists have become an easy targets of their barrels where even police & defense forces also involved in the bloodshed of these investigators.
Shehzad had started the trend & practice of investigative journalism in Pakistan. In his career he had revealed & interviewed many terrorists’ leaders even before the world came to know about them. He spent few days in captivity under Taliban, of which he described the days & exp in his writings.
Prior to his death & on being suspicious about ISI (Inter Service Intelligence) an intelligence agency of Pakistan he wrote to Human Rights Watch about his fears of getting detained by ISI.
His death has proven the fact now that even the government authorities & security / intelligence agencies are too involved in the murders of numerous journalists in Pakistan. This exposes the nexus & complexities which creates the environment for journalism in Pakistan dangerous for every practicing personnel. Now with the proven facts by investigations into other cases & letter a Researcher of Human Rights Watch Ali Dayan Hassan has demanded a full scale inquiry into his killings & possible involvement in other killings of journalists.
In the last two years more than 30 journalists & media personnel have been target of violence in very surprisingly & suspicious manner where most of the cases are being in tribal dominated belt of Pakistan which is in the grip of fundamentalist & terrorist organization though showed in the governed & administered territories but are in reality controlled by the anti social elements raging a war against the republic in their own fashion.
The regime of Zardari & Gilani has now become a mere puppet chairs who just being governed by the fundamentalist groups & terror outfits. The weakening political scenario has lead to miserable & dangerous situation for Press Freedom in Pakistan which now stands at the cross roads of do or die for The increase in violence against journalist & media outlets is the result of their anti social activities which are being regularly coming under media & public scanner.
These developments have now started threatening the very existence of press freedom in Pakistan which is still at the nascent stage struggling to get the first hand experience in investigative journalism. The lack of proper framework makes the whole situation more challenging where the threats are not only from anti social elements & state sponsor of terrorism bodies but also from defense forces & politicians who sometimes to save their corrupt image orders the killings of the innocent journalists of their own soil & brotherhood.
The private news agencies face regular threats from all corners of Pakistan. They come across lots of challenges in terms of coverage & broadcasting while reporting on serious & dramatic issues. The basic need which media lacks is the strategic framework to work in the disturbed environment especially in areas where skills & training is needed to cover the incidents & story throughout. Absence of ethical journalism is another problem which sometimes results in the persecution & defamation of certain media outlets & their workers.
Though there are many good institutes imparting knowledge of mass communication & in particular journalism but the actual reality is still untouched by these centers.
There is other problem & it is that of the media integration with defense forces & intelligence agencies which if established with as a nexus on coordination level then it will provide a proper safety structure & guidelines for broadcast & news coverage execution in the concerned areas. Which will also enhance the information availability & without any intimidation without disturbing the focused elements there in a prescribed framework. Interfering nature of the intelligence agencies into the information collection makes the matters worse. The judicial framework must be set by the government in order to limit the role of intelligence agencies & other bodies in the national affairs & fundamental rights of public / press.
We condemn the slow progress of reform process & non consideration of media rights in Pakistan. A nation stands strong if its media is safe & feels free to work throughout. Freedom of speech is necessary for building a healthy nation with strong public involvement in development process.
The government should provide the proper strategic framework for journalists as per the current situation in the state where journalists lives can be saved & protected from the insane acts of prosecution which not only kills the person but also the humanity if they are curbing a independent voice made for people of the nation who was formed with a dream which was never fulfilled & believed by his own founders & the nation who have betrayed his own people every time they want to be part of national affairs. Media rights must be respected at all cost which is important if a public & nations wants to progress & build a better future. The breaching of fundamentals leads to larger differences which disturbs the whole scenario of peace which everyone wants to live at least once in his life. Voice of Media is the voice of public & nation if it is being curbed & suppressed just to save their own corrupt personalities then the day is not far when these greedy souls of the soil will sell of their nation & will settle down in some foreign shelter.
Minggu, 05 Juni 2011
Artikel 9 Bahasa Inggris II
Why University Students Should Have Relationship
“I don’t know why you men are so in a rush in having girlfriends,” said a college friend to me several months ago, responding to the news that both my best friend and I have just officially announce our new relationship statuses.
“We the women are still relaxed by the way –no need to be so hasty,” she said while her best friend, who sat beside her, laughing and nodding in agreement.
Ironically, two months after that conversation, her friend –the very same friend who laughed and nodded in agreement to her statement– decided to betray her, said goodbye to single life, and finally had a boyfriend.
And in contrast to her argument, it seems to me that last-year university students are really hasty in having boyfriends or girlfriends now –at least from the trend which I have been observing right now. Funny that lately we are currently witnessing a sudden rise of friends who are changing their Facebook statuses from ‘single’ to ‘in a relationship’, especially some friends of mine who are currently last-year students in the university.
Yet those are the people who are making the right decision: Because university life, statistically speaking, offers you the biggest probability to have boyfriend or girlfriend.
In my faculty, for example, I have roughly 600 peers who are in the same year of study. Due to the fact that most of us had to take the same college classes for the first two years of study, or join some committees or student organizations together, it is almost impossible for me if I do not know each of them –or, at least, recognize their faces.
As I become older, my faculty welcomes 600 new people every year, which means throughout my four year in university I could establish a huge network consisting of 2400 people. That number only comprises same-year or younger students, and you could also add hundreds of senior students whom I could know from joining the same organizations or student committees.
Therefore, if you are an economics student in my university and want to have a girlfriend or boyfriend in your four-year period of studying there; you have approximately 3000 different options to be chosen.
But how about in workplace? Most likely there you would not encounter people as much as in the university, unless you are a government official (PNS) who works in a inefficiently big office consisting of 1000 staffs –half of which are already married. If you ask university seniors who have worked already in offices, you will realize that most of the workplaces only have 20-30 people in one department and, unfortunately, you will have to meet those same people everyday.
Also, let’s not forget the bitter truth that life in the office or workplace is, without doubt, more demanding and time-consuming. You definitely have less time to care about relationships if you decide to work in bank or public accountant firm, which will possibly strap you on your seats, in front of your computer screen, for 6-7 hours a day –leaving you with almost no time to meet new people outside of your working partners.
A friend of mine who had an intern with a prominent accounting firm shared to me how her 27-year-old senior there was very anxious because his parents already asked him to find a spouse and get married –while in fact that senior accountant was still single and had not even had a serious relationship yet.
I also befriend some senior people in mid 30s and 40s in Facebook who are currently still single because (maybe) they were too selective in their college times. Personally, I feel sympathy for them as I wonder how frustrating it must be when they have to listen to intense pressure from their parents and people around them, “Why are you still single? When will you get married?”
If you want to start looking for life partner, university life could be your best shot. This notion is especially supported by the fact that some friends of mine have parents who met and started dating since in university.
Of course, this does not mean that meeting your soulmate in working environment is practically impossible. I have known some college seniors of mine who had not had any relationship in university, yet when they entered working environment they finally got boyfriends or girlfriends. And there are some friends of mine whose parents met and started dating in workplace too.
Well, they are lucky to finally find their soulmates. How about if you are not that lucky, and your single life is aggravated with the reality that you work in a bank or accounting firm whose daily works require you to sit in front of the computer screen for 7 hours a week, and interacting with only 30 people in your office department?
If that time comes maybe you will regret that during your times in university you have been too relax and too selective by setting the standards way too high to have relationships.
You will regret that you used to have 3000 options to choose in university; while now you only have no more than 30 options in your workplace –half of which are perhaps already married.
“I don’t know why you men are so in a rush in having girlfriends,” said a college friend to me several months ago, responding to the news that both my best friend and I have just officially announce our new relationship statuses.
“We the women are still relaxed by the way –no need to be so hasty,” she said while her best friend, who sat beside her, laughing and nodding in agreement.
Ironically, two months after that conversation, her friend –the very same friend who laughed and nodded in agreement to her statement– decided to betray her, said goodbye to single life, and finally had a boyfriend.
And in contrast to her argument, it seems to me that last-year university students are really hasty in having boyfriends or girlfriends now –at least from the trend which I have been observing right now. Funny that lately we are currently witnessing a sudden rise of friends who are changing their Facebook statuses from ‘single’ to ‘in a relationship’, especially some friends of mine who are currently last-year students in the university.
Yet those are the people who are making the right decision: Because university life, statistically speaking, offers you the biggest probability to have boyfriend or girlfriend.
In my faculty, for example, I have roughly 600 peers who are in the same year of study. Due to the fact that most of us had to take the same college classes for the first two years of study, or join some committees or student organizations together, it is almost impossible for me if I do not know each of them –or, at least, recognize their faces.
As I become older, my faculty welcomes 600 new people every year, which means throughout my four year in university I could establish a huge network consisting of 2400 people. That number only comprises same-year or younger students, and you could also add hundreds of senior students whom I could know from joining the same organizations or student committees.
Therefore, if you are an economics student in my university and want to have a girlfriend or boyfriend in your four-year period of studying there; you have approximately 3000 different options to be chosen.
But how about in workplace? Most likely there you would not encounter people as much as in the university, unless you are a government official (PNS) who works in a inefficiently big office consisting of 1000 staffs –half of which are already married. If you ask university seniors who have worked already in offices, you will realize that most of the workplaces only have 20-30 people in one department and, unfortunately, you will have to meet those same people everyday.
Also, let’s not forget the bitter truth that life in the office or workplace is, without doubt, more demanding and time-consuming. You definitely have less time to care about relationships if you decide to work in bank or public accountant firm, which will possibly strap you on your seats, in front of your computer screen, for 6-7 hours a day –leaving you with almost no time to meet new people outside of your working partners.
A friend of mine who had an intern with a prominent accounting firm shared to me how her 27-year-old senior there was very anxious because his parents already asked him to find a spouse and get married –while in fact that senior accountant was still single and had not even had a serious relationship yet.
I also befriend some senior people in mid 30s and 40s in Facebook who are currently still single because (maybe) they were too selective in their college times. Personally, I feel sympathy for them as I wonder how frustrating it must be when they have to listen to intense pressure from their parents and people around them, “Why are you still single? When will you get married?”
If you want to start looking for life partner, university life could be your best shot. This notion is especially supported by the fact that some friends of mine have parents who met and started dating since in university.
Of course, this does not mean that meeting your soulmate in working environment is practically impossible. I have known some college seniors of mine who had not had any relationship in university, yet when they entered working environment they finally got boyfriends or girlfriends. And there are some friends of mine whose parents met and started dating in workplace too.
Well, they are lucky to finally find their soulmates. How about if you are not that lucky, and your single life is aggravated with the reality that you work in a bank or accounting firm whose daily works require you to sit in front of the computer screen for 7 hours a week, and interacting with only 30 people in your office department?
If that time comes maybe you will regret that during your times in university you have been too relax and too selective by setting the standards way too high to have relationships.
You will regret that you used to have 3000 options to choose in university; while now you only have no more than 30 options in your workplace –half of which are perhaps already married.
Artikel 8 Bahasa Inggri II
KPK urged to question Central Jakarta District Court chief
Following the arrest of judge Syarifuddin, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) should also question the Central Jakarta District Court chief Syahrial Sidik, Syarifuddin’s close friend.
“Syahrial could explain the track record of Syarifuddin. Based on information we have, Syarifuddin is the man Syahrial really trusts,” House of Representatives commission III chairman Benny K. Harman said as quoted by tribunnews.com on Monday.
Syarifuddin was captured red-handed by KPK when he was about to receive a bribe at his house last week. He faces dismissal from the Supreme Court.
The Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) followed up the arrest by issuing a track record of Syarifuddin when presiding over graft cases. He acquitted 39 graft suspects.
Following the arrest of judge Syarifuddin, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) should also question the Central Jakarta District Court chief Syahrial Sidik, Syarifuddin’s close friend.
“Syahrial could explain the track record of Syarifuddin. Based on information we have, Syarifuddin is the man Syahrial really trusts,” House of Representatives commission III chairman Benny K. Harman said as quoted by tribunnews.com on Monday.
Syarifuddin was captured red-handed by KPK when he was about to receive a bribe at his house last week. He faces dismissal from the Supreme Court.
The Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) followed up the arrest by issuing a track record of Syarifuddin when presiding over graft cases. He acquitted 39 graft suspects.
Artikel 7 Bahasa Inggris II
Bakrie cool on "Mr. A" allegations
Golkar Party chairman Aburizal "Ical" Bakrie says he is not worried about rumors naming him "Mr. A", the anonymous architect of the political turmoil currently engulfing the Democratic Party.
"It doesn't bother me. We don't know who it is, do we? There are lots of people with the initial A," Bakrie said on Sunday as quoted by kompas.com.
Ical said questions on the anonymous mastermind's identity should be directed to Ramadhan Pohan, the Democratic Party politician who first mentioned "Mr. A".
"There are many 'As'. There is [Democratic Party chairman] Anas Urbaningrum, [deputy chairman] Ahmad Mubarok, Aburizal Bakrie, [Golkar patron] Akbar Tanjung and others," Ical said. "They all have the initial 'A' so [Pohan] better just say who it is."
Ical declined to comment further. "It's an internal matter. I will not interfere with the Democrats' internal issues. I only hope one thing: that the Golkar Party wins the election," he said.
Democratic Party deputy secretary-general Ramadhan Pohan said on Wednesday that someone outside the party, who he identified only as "Mr. A", was using Democratic Party members to destroy the party from within.
Golkar Party chairman Aburizal "Ical" Bakrie says he is not worried about rumors naming him "Mr. A", the anonymous architect of the political turmoil currently engulfing the Democratic Party.
"It doesn't bother me. We don't know who it is, do we? There are lots of people with the initial A," Bakrie said on Sunday as quoted by kompas.com.
Ical said questions on the anonymous mastermind's identity should be directed to Ramadhan Pohan, the Democratic Party politician who first mentioned "Mr. A".
"There are many 'As'. There is [Democratic Party chairman] Anas Urbaningrum, [deputy chairman] Ahmad Mubarok, Aburizal Bakrie, [Golkar patron] Akbar Tanjung and others," Ical said. "They all have the initial 'A' so [Pohan] better just say who it is."
Ical declined to comment further. "It's an internal matter. I will not interfere with the Democrats' internal issues. I only hope one thing: that the Golkar Party wins the election," he said.
Democratic Party deputy secretary-general Ramadhan Pohan said on Wednesday that someone outside the party, who he identified only as "Mr. A", was using Democratic Party members to destroy the party from within.
Artikel 6 Bahasa Inggris II
India Health Costs a crisis Impoverishing Millions
ALIGARH, India (AP) — When Nasir Khan cried out at night from the searing pain of kidney stones, the entire slum could hear him.
A magic healer promised an inexpensive cure through chanting while pinching his side where the kidney stones were lodged, but it only made it worse. His condition became life-threatening, and doctors said he would need surgery for a fourth time.
The operation cost him — and his extended family — their home.
Without insurance and unable to get a loan, they sold the broken brick shack in the industrial north Indian city of Aligarh for 250,000 rupees, or about $5,500. It had been home to the 35-year-old Khan, his four brothers, three wives and 11 children.
"There is no choice. It is my life," Khan said in gasps, writhing atop a crude wooden cot as his relatives hovered helplessly nearby. He screamed for his mother. He screamed for Allah. He screamed for anyone to deliver him from the pain.
His story is repeated so often across India it evokes little sympathy, yet it represents one of the biggest threats to India's battle to lift its poor up from squalor.
Each year, the cost of health care pushes some 39 million people back into poverty, according to a study published in the Lancet medical journal. Patients shoulder up to 80 percent of India's medical costs. Their share averages about $66 (3,000 rupees) annually per person — a crippling sum for the 800 million or so Indians living on less than $2 a day.
A diagnosis of asthma, a broken leg or a complicated childbirth can mean having to choose between medicine or food, spending on treatment or relying on prayer.
"We are too poor," Khan's uncle Bhuere Khan said. His aunt Rafiquan Mohammed offered another justification for selling the house, as if one were needed: "He has to live. He has small children."
___
While India boasts an economic growth rate near 9 percent, the wealth has done little to help millions burdened by poverty and disease. The poor, aside from struggling to afford care, also face extreme shortages of doctors and medicines.
The situation is particularly dire in rural areas, where more than 70 percent of the country's 1.2 billion people live. Some desperate patients resort to seeing quacks. Others pay bribes. Many simply don't seek help until it is too late.
The World Bank and other experts have warned that failure to address the country's health care woes could take a toll on long-term growth — especially as two-thirds of the population is under 35 and would form the backbone of India's work force for decades.
Yet India's government spends comparatively little on health care: just 1.1 percent of the country's GDP, a figure that hasn't changed much since 2006 when China was spending 1.9 percent; Russia, 3.3 percent and Brazil, 3.5 percent, according to World Health Organization figures.
"The political will is simply not there yet. We have to help realign the country's priorities," said Dr. K. Srinath Reddy, president of the Public Health Foundation of India and part of a government-commissioned committee recommending reforms.
Statistics that might highlight areas of need are scarce, thanks to erratic case reporting, few autopsies and a tradition of quick cremation that destroys evidence of disease. WHO reports often leave India out for lack of data. A recent study in the Lancet suggests malaria deaths could be 10 times higher than estimated.
India, which says hospital costs impoverish a quarter of all patients, has vowed to raise spending on health to 3 percent of GDP by 2015 and provide universal primary health care — but it's an unfilled promise that's been made before.
The Lancet, in a series on India in January, urged the government to double its pledge to 6 percent by 2020 or jeopardize its ability to shake off poverty.
"What is the point of economic success if there is nothing in it for the population?" Lancet editor Richard Horton said. "In a short amount of time you can do a lot — if you have the right leadership, the right administration and the public will. India has the people and it has the funds. We'll see if they can do it."
Meanwhile, India boasts a thriving medical tourism industry with shiny private clinics luring tens of thousands of foreigners for everything from bargain tummy tucks to experimental stem-cell treatments in an industry estimated to be worth nearly 100 billion rupees ($2.3 billion). The pharmaceutical industry is making lifesaving drugs at cut-rate costs, private hospitals are pioneering advances in open-heart surgery and medical schools are churning out physicians eager to work in the West.
For most Indians, however, this is happening in another world.
___
Uttar Pradesh, one of India's poorest states and home to the padlock-manufacturing city of Aligarh, is a land of barren rural landscapes pocked by crumbling mud huts, wandering cattle and roadside shacks selling potato chips and curry.
Its infant mortality rate — 96 of every 1,000 newborns die — makes it one of the worst places on Earth to be born. The average Indian rate is better at 63 but still grim compared with China's 15 deaths out of every 1,000 births.
The state's leader, Mayawati, who uses only one name, rose from India's lowest caste to power and prominence. She calls health care a top priority. Yet since taking office in 2007 she has spent just $224 million on medicines for the state's 195 million people, while spending $569 million to build memorial parks and statues of leading dalits — also known as untouchables — such as herself.
In rural India, the poor often have to walk kilometers (miles) to reach a clinic, with no guarantee of finding a doctor or the medicine they need. On any given day, at least 40 percent of government doctors are absent — often busy moonlighting for higher pay at private clinics. Drug supplies are also erratic; last year, India was short 35 million vaccine doses for diphtheria and 30 million for tetanus, a Health Ministry report said.
Many patients simply rely on traditional holistic medicine approaches such as ayurveda, or seek help from quacks, who have become so common the government uses them as information sources on everything from environmental contamination to polio outbreaks.
They advertise in graffiti scrawled across roadside buildings in rural Uttar Pradesh, promising treatments for venereal disease, erectile dysfunction, urinary tract infections — and charging according to what patients can pay.
Cities such as Aligarh, a three-hour drive east of New Delhi over potholed roads, are somewhat better off. They have hospitals, doctors and drugs — though often in short supply. The government says the nation needs tens of thousands of clinics and 700,000 more doctors.
At Aligarh's Mohan Lal Gautam District Women's Hospital, dozens of women line up each day for a free sterilization procedure that will spare them the risk and cost of having and raising another child.
"It is too much," said 32-year-old Pinky Devi, the frail wife of a rice farmer who said she paid about 20,000 rupees ($450) to have her second daughter in a hospital. "I want to educate my children well. I want a good life. That is why I am here."
The state hospital has only three doctors, who race each day through seeing some 500 patients giving birth, needing operations or seeking treatment for pelvic inflammatory disease and other conditions at subsidized costs. There are 10 vacancies for doctors, but it is all but impossible to find practitioners who will work for 20,000 rupees (about $450) a month when they can make at least double at a private clinic, Chief Medical Officer Dr. Poonam Sharma said.
"We cannot give the patients good treatment," she said. "They won't get the quality time, most maybe just three minutes." More than half of Aligarh's babies are still born at home, often in unsanitary conditions, Sharma said.
The medical community, eager to increase its numbers, has debated ideas such as training ayurveda or yoga practitioners to give basic care, offering bonuses for working in remote areas and recruiting from Africa.
In the meantime, private health care is booming, with clinics and insurance schemes multiplying and driving up costs.
There are piecemeal efforts to help: a national mission launched in 2005 to improve rural care, and some states offering to cover hospital bills for the poorest.
But patients like Ibne Hasan, diagnosed with HIV two years ago, say they have seen no such benefits.
Once employed in the packaging department at Aligarh's lock factory, 35-year-old Hasan has had to sell his two slum plots and all of his belongings save a threadbare armchair, a few tin pots, a worn mattress and a tiny room he shares with his wife and two children. The money has long been spent.
They are shunned by friends and neighbors. With no electricity or stove, they survive on food Hasan's wife brings from her housekeeping work, and use her monthly 1,100 rupee ($25) wage on AIDS drugs for Hasan and asthma medication for their 5-year-old son, who is far too small for his age and may also have HIV.
"When we can, we buy medicine. I haven't gotten one rupee in treatment," Hasan said, as the listless little boy huddled in the room. Laughing children threw pebbles at the shack from outside. "They make all these promises, but they are only promises. I have seen nothing."
ALIGARH, India (AP) — When Nasir Khan cried out at night from the searing pain of kidney stones, the entire slum could hear him.
A magic healer promised an inexpensive cure through chanting while pinching his side where the kidney stones were lodged, but it only made it worse. His condition became life-threatening, and doctors said he would need surgery for a fourth time.
The operation cost him — and his extended family — their home.
Without insurance and unable to get a loan, they sold the broken brick shack in the industrial north Indian city of Aligarh for 250,000 rupees, or about $5,500. It had been home to the 35-year-old Khan, his four brothers, three wives and 11 children.
"There is no choice. It is my life," Khan said in gasps, writhing atop a crude wooden cot as his relatives hovered helplessly nearby. He screamed for his mother. He screamed for Allah. He screamed for anyone to deliver him from the pain.
His story is repeated so often across India it evokes little sympathy, yet it represents one of the biggest threats to India's battle to lift its poor up from squalor.
Each year, the cost of health care pushes some 39 million people back into poverty, according to a study published in the Lancet medical journal. Patients shoulder up to 80 percent of India's medical costs. Their share averages about $66 (3,000 rupees) annually per person — a crippling sum for the 800 million or so Indians living on less than $2 a day.
A diagnosis of asthma, a broken leg or a complicated childbirth can mean having to choose between medicine or food, spending on treatment or relying on prayer.
"We are too poor," Khan's uncle Bhuere Khan said. His aunt Rafiquan Mohammed offered another justification for selling the house, as if one were needed: "He has to live. He has small children."
___
While India boasts an economic growth rate near 9 percent, the wealth has done little to help millions burdened by poverty and disease. The poor, aside from struggling to afford care, also face extreme shortages of doctors and medicines.
The situation is particularly dire in rural areas, where more than 70 percent of the country's 1.2 billion people live. Some desperate patients resort to seeing quacks. Others pay bribes. Many simply don't seek help until it is too late.
The World Bank and other experts have warned that failure to address the country's health care woes could take a toll on long-term growth — especially as two-thirds of the population is under 35 and would form the backbone of India's work force for decades.
Yet India's government spends comparatively little on health care: just 1.1 percent of the country's GDP, a figure that hasn't changed much since 2006 when China was spending 1.9 percent; Russia, 3.3 percent and Brazil, 3.5 percent, according to World Health Organization figures.
"The political will is simply not there yet. We have to help realign the country's priorities," said Dr. K. Srinath Reddy, president of the Public Health Foundation of India and part of a government-commissioned committee recommending reforms.
Statistics that might highlight areas of need are scarce, thanks to erratic case reporting, few autopsies and a tradition of quick cremation that destroys evidence of disease. WHO reports often leave India out for lack of data. A recent study in the Lancet suggests malaria deaths could be 10 times higher than estimated.
India, which says hospital costs impoverish a quarter of all patients, has vowed to raise spending on health to 3 percent of GDP by 2015 and provide universal primary health care — but it's an unfilled promise that's been made before.
The Lancet, in a series on India in January, urged the government to double its pledge to 6 percent by 2020 or jeopardize its ability to shake off poverty.
"What is the point of economic success if there is nothing in it for the population?" Lancet editor Richard Horton said. "In a short amount of time you can do a lot — if you have the right leadership, the right administration and the public will. India has the people and it has the funds. We'll see if they can do it."
Meanwhile, India boasts a thriving medical tourism industry with shiny private clinics luring tens of thousands of foreigners for everything from bargain tummy tucks to experimental stem-cell treatments in an industry estimated to be worth nearly 100 billion rupees ($2.3 billion). The pharmaceutical industry is making lifesaving drugs at cut-rate costs, private hospitals are pioneering advances in open-heart surgery and medical schools are churning out physicians eager to work in the West.
For most Indians, however, this is happening in another world.
___
Uttar Pradesh, one of India's poorest states and home to the padlock-manufacturing city of Aligarh, is a land of barren rural landscapes pocked by crumbling mud huts, wandering cattle and roadside shacks selling potato chips and curry.
Its infant mortality rate — 96 of every 1,000 newborns die — makes it one of the worst places on Earth to be born. The average Indian rate is better at 63 but still grim compared with China's 15 deaths out of every 1,000 births.
The state's leader, Mayawati, who uses only one name, rose from India's lowest caste to power and prominence. She calls health care a top priority. Yet since taking office in 2007 she has spent just $224 million on medicines for the state's 195 million people, while spending $569 million to build memorial parks and statues of leading dalits — also known as untouchables — such as herself.
In rural India, the poor often have to walk kilometers (miles) to reach a clinic, with no guarantee of finding a doctor or the medicine they need. On any given day, at least 40 percent of government doctors are absent — often busy moonlighting for higher pay at private clinics. Drug supplies are also erratic; last year, India was short 35 million vaccine doses for diphtheria and 30 million for tetanus, a Health Ministry report said.
Many patients simply rely on traditional holistic medicine approaches such as ayurveda, or seek help from quacks, who have become so common the government uses them as information sources on everything from environmental contamination to polio outbreaks.
They advertise in graffiti scrawled across roadside buildings in rural Uttar Pradesh, promising treatments for venereal disease, erectile dysfunction, urinary tract infections — and charging according to what patients can pay.
Cities such as Aligarh, a three-hour drive east of New Delhi over potholed roads, are somewhat better off. They have hospitals, doctors and drugs — though often in short supply. The government says the nation needs tens of thousands of clinics and 700,000 more doctors.
At Aligarh's Mohan Lal Gautam District Women's Hospital, dozens of women line up each day for a free sterilization procedure that will spare them the risk and cost of having and raising another child.
"It is too much," said 32-year-old Pinky Devi, the frail wife of a rice farmer who said she paid about 20,000 rupees ($450) to have her second daughter in a hospital. "I want to educate my children well. I want a good life. That is why I am here."
The state hospital has only three doctors, who race each day through seeing some 500 patients giving birth, needing operations or seeking treatment for pelvic inflammatory disease and other conditions at subsidized costs. There are 10 vacancies for doctors, but it is all but impossible to find practitioners who will work for 20,000 rupees (about $450) a month when they can make at least double at a private clinic, Chief Medical Officer Dr. Poonam Sharma said.
"We cannot give the patients good treatment," she said. "They won't get the quality time, most maybe just three minutes." More than half of Aligarh's babies are still born at home, often in unsanitary conditions, Sharma said.
The medical community, eager to increase its numbers, has debated ideas such as training ayurveda or yoga practitioners to give basic care, offering bonuses for working in remote areas and recruiting from Africa.
In the meantime, private health care is booming, with clinics and insurance schemes multiplying and driving up costs.
There are piecemeal efforts to help: a national mission launched in 2005 to improve rural care, and some states offering to cover hospital bills for the poorest.
But patients like Ibne Hasan, diagnosed with HIV two years ago, say they have seen no such benefits.
Once employed in the packaging department at Aligarh's lock factory, 35-year-old Hasan has had to sell his two slum plots and all of his belongings save a threadbare armchair, a few tin pots, a worn mattress and a tiny room he shares with his wife and two children. The money has long been spent.
They are shunned by friends and neighbors. With no electricity or stove, they survive on food Hasan's wife brings from her housekeeping work, and use her monthly 1,100 rupee ($25) wage on AIDS drugs for Hasan and asthma medication for their 5-year-old son, who is far too small for his age and may also have HIV.
"When we can, we buy medicine. I haven't gotten one rupee in treatment," Hasan said, as the listless little boy huddled in the room. Laughing children threw pebbles at the shack from outside. "They make all these promises, but they are only promises. I have seen nothing."
Artikel 5 Bahasa Inggris II
The Future of Money (Hint: It's Virtual)
The Internet, in its purest, truest form, empowers individuals over governments and large institutions. An imperfect example is peer-to-peer lending. With sites like Prosper and Lending Club, the Internet has removed large financial institutions from the lending process (at least in some small measure). Peer-to-peer lending is an imperfect example, however, because peer-to-peer websites still represent a middleman that defines the rules and takes its cut. But it's progress.
And that brings us to the ultimate Internet coup--digital currency. Also referred to as eCurrency or electronic money, digital money is created and controlled by all of us, not central banks. While the implications may not be clear at first, they are far-reaching. Today, a government exercises significant control over businesses and individuals through its control of money. When the government wanted to shut down Wikileaks, its primary attack came in the form of choking off donations to Wikileaks via the likes of PayPal, Visa, and MasterCard. And that says nothing of the Federal Reserve's immense power to control the value of the U.S. dollar, or a government's ability to fund wars by printing money.
While all of this may seem far-fetched, a digital currency called Bitcoin has brought us one step closer to a Jeffersonian revolution in money. Created by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009, Bitcoin is a computer program implementation of a concept called cryptocurrency. Bitcoins can be saved on a personal computer in what is called a Wallet File and used to buy products and services where Bitcoins are accepted.
Without going into the math behind the program, the Bitcoin software controls the number of Bitcoins in circulation. Currently there are about 6.2 million Bitcoins in circulation with a value of about $49 million U.S. dollars. And Bitcoins can be used to purchase everything from webhosting service to music.
Bitcoin is revolutionary in several respects. First, because the distribution is not controlled by a central bank, inflation is impossible. Second, the exchange of Bitcoins, much like paper currency, is completely anonymous. Unlike a PayPal account or credit card, the names of the businesses or individuals exchanging Bitcoins are not recorded. And because Bitcoins are exchanged directly from person to person without a middleman, there are no intermediaries for a government to regulate.
There are a couple of ways to get Bitcoins. First, you can "mine" for them using a free program available through Bitcoin.org. Second, if you sell goods or services, you can accept Bitcoins as payment. And finally, you can purchase Bitcoins on various exchanges. The current cost of a Bitcoin is just over $6.93.
Will Bitcoin bring an end to central banks? Hardly. But it may give us a glimpse of a future in which our currency is "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
The Internet, in its purest, truest form, empowers individuals over governments and large institutions. An imperfect example is peer-to-peer lending. With sites like Prosper and Lending Club, the Internet has removed large financial institutions from the lending process (at least in some small measure). Peer-to-peer lending is an imperfect example, however, because peer-to-peer websites still represent a middleman that defines the rules and takes its cut. But it's progress.
And that brings us to the ultimate Internet coup--digital currency. Also referred to as eCurrency or electronic money, digital money is created and controlled by all of us, not central banks. While the implications may not be clear at first, they are far-reaching. Today, a government exercises significant control over businesses and individuals through its control of money. When the government wanted to shut down Wikileaks, its primary attack came in the form of choking off donations to Wikileaks via the likes of PayPal, Visa, and MasterCard. And that says nothing of the Federal Reserve's immense power to control the value of the U.S. dollar, or a government's ability to fund wars by printing money.
While all of this may seem far-fetched, a digital currency called Bitcoin has brought us one step closer to a Jeffersonian revolution in money. Created by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009, Bitcoin is a computer program implementation of a concept called cryptocurrency. Bitcoins can be saved on a personal computer in what is called a Wallet File and used to buy products and services where Bitcoins are accepted.
Without going into the math behind the program, the Bitcoin software controls the number of Bitcoins in circulation. Currently there are about 6.2 million Bitcoins in circulation with a value of about $49 million U.S. dollars. And Bitcoins can be used to purchase everything from webhosting service to music.
Bitcoin is revolutionary in several respects. First, because the distribution is not controlled by a central bank, inflation is impossible. Second, the exchange of Bitcoins, much like paper currency, is completely anonymous. Unlike a PayPal account or credit card, the names of the businesses or individuals exchanging Bitcoins are not recorded. And because Bitcoins are exchanged directly from person to person without a middleman, there are no intermediaries for a government to regulate.
There are a couple of ways to get Bitcoins. First, you can "mine" for them using a free program available through Bitcoin.org. Second, if you sell goods or services, you can accept Bitcoins as payment. And finally, you can purchase Bitcoins on various exchanges. The current cost of a Bitcoin is just over $6.93.
Will Bitcoin bring an end to central banks? Hardly. But it may give us a glimpse of a future in which our currency is "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Artikel 4 Bahasa Inggris II
White House Seeks Executive Order to Expose Anonymous Political Spending
The Nation -- In an email blast to supporters this week, former Sen. Russ Feingold decried “legislators who are unwilling to stand up to corporate power,” including two prominent Democrats—House Whip Steny Hoyer and Sen. Claire McCaskill. “Some Democrats are joining Republicans in pressing to keep the cycle of political money and federal contracts hidden,” he wrote.
The Beltway press was momentarily amused by the intraparty warfare, but the skirmish is actually part of a larger, crucial effort to force stronger disclosure of political contributions in a post-Citizens United world.
At issue was a draft executive order being circulated by the White House that would compel all federal government contractors, and those submitting bids for government contracts, to fully disclose information about their political contributions.
The proximate reason for the order is to strengthen transparency in the federal contracting process, through which billions of taxpayer dollars are spent based on the decisions of political appointees. The text of the draft order says the measure is needed to “[address] the perception that political campaign spending provides enhanced access to or favoritism in the contracting process.”
In context, however, the order is part of a larger White House effort to use executive branch powers to increase disclosure of political contributions as it approaches a presidential election in which hundreds of millions of dollars will surely be spent, much of it anonymously, to influence the outcome.
After the Senate failed to pass the DISCLOSE Act last year, which would have increased transparency of corporate and special-interest money, the White House began exploring its options to create disclosure rules on its own. In March, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a decree strengthening the rights of shareholders to find out what political activities the parent company is supporting.
Democratic members of the Federal Elections Commission, meanwhile, support rules that would make anonymous contributions to outside groups public, and that would limit political spending by US subsidiaries of foreign companies. At the Federal Communications Commission, two Democratic members are supporting a proposal that would require the funders of political advertisements to be identified on-air. (The Democratic chairman, Julius Genachowski, hasn’t voiced an opinion on the measure yet).
This proposed executive order on federal contracting is another part of this effort. It actually borrows provisions from the DISCLOSE Act, which would have also forced government contractors to disclose all political contributions. The order would require disclosure of contributions not only to candidates or parties, but “all contributions made to third parties with the intention or reasonable expectation that the recipient would use those contributions to make independent expenditures or electioneering communications.”
This would be a backdoor into finding out what interests are funding groups like Karl Rove’s American Crossroads or the US Chamber of Commerce, both of which spend massive amounts of money trying to influence elections but are not required to say who is paying the bill. The executive order would instead force the contributors to disclose the support, if they held or planned to bid on a federal contract—which many large corporations do. Thirty-three of the 41 companies listed as top 100 campaign contributors over the past twenty years hold federal contracts.
The executive order “would radically change the ability to follow the money during the upcoming elections,” the Sunlight Foundation told USA Today.
Naturally, groups like the US Chamber of Commerce oppose the executive order using the twisted logic that it would politicize the federal contracting process. A Chamber spokesperson told Politico that the order “lays the groundwork for a political litmus test for companies that wish to do business with the federal government” and is “less about disclosure than intimidation.”
Notably the Chamber isn’t opposing the fact that federal contractors spend money influencing the political process, but rather that they would have to disclose that spending—as if that’s where the politicization would come in.
Congressional Republicans are eagerly advancing that argument. Rep. Darrell Issa, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, went on Fox News last week and agreed that the order could “absolutely” be “a way to punish the enemies of the White House.” He charged “This could be a Nixonian-type enemies list in the making by executive order.”
Issa then held a hearing last week titled “Politicizing Procurement: Would President Obama's Proposal Curb Free Speech and Hurt Small Business?” in which he further blasted the proposed executive order as something that would have “a chilling effect on political participation.” Another Republican on the committee fulminated that “I have not seen anything as outrageous and as much of an exercise of naked political power than this executive order. I think it’s shameful, I think it’s disgusting, I think it’s despicable, I think it’s outrageous.”
Feingold criticized Issa in his e-mail, but also some Democrats who have joined them. McCaskill and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) submitted a letter to Issa’s hearing opposing the executive order. Hoyer also criticized the order in comments to the Associated Press.
Ultimately, however, the executive order and similar actions by the FCC, FEC, and SEC don’t depend on the support of legislators—that’s the whole point. Legislatively Obama could do more to pass a Fair Elections Now Act and call once again for passage of the DISCLOSE Act, but in the meantime, these executive orders may end up shining a lot more sunlight onto anonymous corporate political spending.
The Nation -- In an email blast to supporters this week, former Sen. Russ Feingold decried “legislators who are unwilling to stand up to corporate power,” including two prominent Democrats—House Whip Steny Hoyer and Sen. Claire McCaskill. “Some Democrats are joining Republicans in pressing to keep the cycle of political money and federal contracts hidden,” he wrote.
The Beltway press was momentarily amused by the intraparty warfare, but the skirmish is actually part of a larger, crucial effort to force stronger disclosure of political contributions in a post-Citizens United world.
At issue was a draft executive order being circulated by the White House that would compel all federal government contractors, and those submitting bids for government contracts, to fully disclose information about their political contributions.
The proximate reason for the order is to strengthen transparency in the federal contracting process, through which billions of taxpayer dollars are spent based on the decisions of political appointees. The text of the draft order says the measure is needed to “[address] the perception that political campaign spending provides enhanced access to or favoritism in the contracting process.”
In context, however, the order is part of a larger White House effort to use executive branch powers to increase disclosure of political contributions as it approaches a presidential election in which hundreds of millions of dollars will surely be spent, much of it anonymously, to influence the outcome.
After the Senate failed to pass the DISCLOSE Act last year, which would have increased transparency of corporate and special-interest money, the White House began exploring its options to create disclosure rules on its own. In March, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a decree strengthening the rights of shareholders to find out what political activities the parent company is supporting.
Democratic members of the Federal Elections Commission, meanwhile, support rules that would make anonymous contributions to outside groups public, and that would limit political spending by US subsidiaries of foreign companies. At the Federal Communications Commission, two Democratic members are supporting a proposal that would require the funders of political advertisements to be identified on-air. (The Democratic chairman, Julius Genachowski, hasn’t voiced an opinion on the measure yet).
This proposed executive order on federal contracting is another part of this effort. It actually borrows provisions from the DISCLOSE Act, which would have also forced government contractors to disclose all political contributions. The order would require disclosure of contributions not only to candidates or parties, but “all contributions made to third parties with the intention or reasonable expectation that the recipient would use those contributions to make independent expenditures or electioneering communications.”
This would be a backdoor into finding out what interests are funding groups like Karl Rove’s American Crossroads or the US Chamber of Commerce, both of which spend massive amounts of money trying to influence elections but are not required to say who is paying the bill. The executive order would instead force the contributors to disclose the support, if they held or planned to bid on a federal contract—which many large corporations do. Thirty-three of the 41 companies listed as top 100 campaign contributors over the past twenty years hold federal contracts.
The executive order “would radically change the ability to follow the money during the upcoming elections,” the Sunlight Foundation told USA Today.
Naturally, groups like the US Chamber of Commerce oppose the executive order using the twisted logic that it would politicize the federal contracting process. A Chamber spokesperson told Politico that the order “lays the groundwork for a political litmus test for companies that wish to do business with the federal government” and is “less about disclosure than intimidation.”
Notably the Chamber isn’t opposing the fact that federal contractors spend money influencing the political process, but rather that they would have to disclose that spending—as if that’s where the politicization would come in.
Congressional Republicans are eagerly advancing that argument. Rep. Darrell Issa, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, went on Fox News last week and agreed that the order could “absolutely” be “a way to punish the enemies of the White House.” He charged “This could be a Nixonian-type enemies list in the making by executive order.”
Issa then held a hearing last week titled “Politicizing Procurement: Would President Obama's Proposal Curb Free Speech and Hurt Small Business?” in which he further blasted the proposed executive order as something that would have “a chilling effect on political participation.” Another Republican on the committee fulminated that “I have not seen anything as outrageous and as much of an exercise of naked political power than this executive order. I think it’s shameful, I think it’s disgusting, I think it’s despicable, I think it’s outrageous.”
Feingold criticized Issa in his e-mail, but also some Democrats who have joined them. McCaskill and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) submitted a letter to Issa’s hearing opposing the executive order. Hoyer also criticized the order in comments to the Associated Press.
Ultimately, however, the executive order and similar actions by the FCC, FEC, and SEC don’t depend on the support of legislators—that’s the whole point. Legislatively Obama could do more to pass a Fair Elections Now Act and call once again for passage of the DISCLOSE Act, but in the meantime, these executive orders may end up shining a lot more sunlight onto anonymous corporate political spending.
Artikel 3 Bahasa Inggris II
`Taxi' star Jeff Conaway hospitalized in a coma
LOS ANGELES – Jeff Conaway's manager says the former star of "Taxi" and "Grease" is in a coma following a drug overdose, possibly from pain pills.
Manager Phil Brock says the 60-year-old actor was found unconscious on May 11. He is hospitalized in critical condition.
Brock says Conaway is in a coma in an Encino, Calif., hospital and his recovery is uncertain. The name of the hospital was not disclosed.
As part of the reality show "Celebrity Rehab" in 2008, Conaway discussed his addiction to drugs and alcohol.
His manager described Conaway as a "gentle soul" but one who has been unable to "exorcise his demons."
Conaway appeared in the 1978 movie musical "Grease" and starred in the TV series "Babylon 5."
LOS ANGELES – Jeff Conaway's manager says the former star of "Taxi" and "Grease" is in a coma following a drug overdose, possibly from pain pills.
Manager Phil Brock says the 60-year-old actor was found unconscious on May 11. He is hospitalized in critical condition.
Brock says Conaway is in a coma in an Encino, Calif., hospital and his recovery is uncertain. The name of the hospital was not disclosed.
As part of the reality show "Celebrity Rehab" in 2008, Conaway discussed his addiction to drugs and alcohol.
His manager described Conaway as a "gentle soul" but one who has been unable to "exorcise his demons."
Conaway appeared in the 1978 movie musical "Grease" and starred in the TV series "Babylon 5."
Artkel 2 Bahasa Inggris !!
Smoking Raises Odds for Cancer in Women Already at High Risk
WEDNESDAY, May 18 (HealthDay News) -- Long-term smoking significantly increases the risk of invasive breast, lung and colon cancers in women with a high risk of breast cancer, a new study finds.
Researchers analyzed how smoking, drinking and physical activity affected the risk of several common cancers in 13,388 women at increased risk of breast cancer because of family history of breast cancer, age and other factors. The women were participants in the U.S. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) Breast Cancer Prevention Trial.
Compared to those who never smoked, women who smoked for at least 35 years had a 60 percent higher risk of invasive breast cancer and more than four times the risk of colon cancer, the investigators found.
Women who smoked for 15 to 35 years were 34 percent more likely to develop invasive breast cancer and 7 percent more likely to develop colon cancer than those who never smoked.
Women who smoked for fewer than 15 years had no increased risk of invasive breast cancer, according to the report.
Compared to those who never smoked, women who smoked more than one pack of cigarettes per day for more than 35 years were 30 times more likely to develop lung cancer, while the risk was 13 times higher for those who smoked less than one pack a day for more than 35 years.
Alcohol use was not associated with increased cancer risk, but the researchers did find that low levels of physical activity were associated with a 70 percent increased risk of endometrial cancer. This may be because women who don't exercise are more likely to be obese, a risk factor for endometrial cancer.
The study was posted online ahead of its presentation June 6 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in Chicago.
"The NSABP study was the first large study to prospectively examine the impact of smoking in women at high risk of breast cancer," said study author Stephanie Land, a research associate professor in the department of biostatistics at the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health.
"Our results showed an even greater increase in risk than has been shown in previous studies, suggesting that for women who are at risk of breast cancer because of family history or other factors, smoking cigarettes is even more risky than for other women," Land said in an ASCO news release.
"It sends a very important message for women with family histories of breast cancer about the long-term risks of smoking, as well as the importance of staying physically active. We're seeing again that smoking cessation is one of the most effective tools we have for reducing risk of many cancers," she added.
Research presented at meetings is considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.
WEDNESDAY, May 18 (HealthDay News) -- Long-term smoking significantly increases the risk of invasive breast, lung and colon cancers in women with a high risk of breast cancer, a new study finds.
Researchers analyzed how smoking, drinking and physical activity affected the risk of several common cancers in 13,388 women at increased risk of breast cancer because of family history of breast cancer, age and other factors. The women were participants in the U.S. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) Breast Cancer Prevention Trial.
Compared to those who never smoked, women who smoked for at least 35 years had a 60 percent higher risk of invasive breast cancer and more than four times the risk of colon cancer, the investigators found.
Women who smoked for 15 to 35 years were 34 percent more likely to develop invasive breast cancer and 7 percent more likely to develop colon cancer than those who never smoked.
Women who smoked for fewer than 15 years had no increased risk of invasive breast cancer, according to the report.
Compared to those who never smoked, women who smoked more than one pack of cigarettes per day for more than 35 years were 30 times more likely to develop lung cancer, while the risk was 13 times higher for those who smoked less than one pack a day for more than 35 years.
Alcohol use was not associated with increased cancer risk, but the researchers did find that low levels of physical activity were associated with a 70 percent increased risk of endometrial cancer. This may be because women who don't exercise are more likely to be obese, a risk factor for endometrial cancer.
The study was posted online ahead of its presentation June 6 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in Chicago.
"The NSABP study was the first large study to prospectively examine the impact of smoking in women at high risk of breast cancer," said study author Stephanie Land, a research associate professor in the department of biostatistics at the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health.
"Our results showed an even greater increase in risk than has been shown in previous studies, suggesting that for women who are at risk of breast cancer because of family history or other factors, smoking cigarettes is even more risky than for other women," Land said in an ASCO news release.
"It sends a very important message for women with family histories of breast cancer about the long-term risks of smoking, as well as the importance of staying physically active. We're seeing again that smoking cessation is one of the most effective tools we have for reducing risk of many cancers," she added.
Research presented at meetings is considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.
10 Artikel Bahasa Inggris II
Obama to Pressure Assad, Offer Aid to Reformers
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will use a sweeping Middle East speech on Thursday to sharply defend new sanctions on Syrian President Bashar Assad as the U.S. government toughened its message for the repressive leader: Embrace democracy or get out. In a primary thrust of his address, Obama will also announce aid to countries that embrace reforms, hoping to steer a region roiling in violence toward democratic change that lasts.
Collectively, Obama's economic proposals will account for much of what's new in an address that, by design, is intended to look back and let him put his imprint on the massive change across the Middle East and North Africa over the last six months. The gist of what Obama will argue is that the United States must help nations modernize their economies and give job opportunities to their young people so that democracy can take hold and thrive — the kind of regional stability that is deeply in the political interests of his government.
The president plans to forgive roughly $1 billion in debt owed by Egypt to free up money for job-creation efforts there. And he will reveal other steps to bolster loans, trade and international support in Egypt and in Tunisia, the two nations seen as models of hope in a time when protests elsewhere in that part of the world are being violently crushed.
Obama is also expected to recalibrate the U.S. position on the flailing Israeli-Palestinian peace process. He will warn both sides that they face greater risks by not coming together on a peace deal than by going their own ways. It is an effort in which he has sunk his own capital and will spend more before his heavy week of Mideast diplomacy ends.
Overall, Obama will try to convince American audiences that the fate of countries in the region is worth the money and attention of United States even during weak economic times at home. To his global audience, Obama wants to leave no doubt that the U.S. stands behind those seeking greater human rights even as it has had to defend its responses to crises.
Senior administration officials revealed details of the speech in advance only on condition of anonymity.
The president will speak Thursday morning at the State Department in Washington.
The White House on Wednesday announced the sanctions on Assad and six senior Syrian officials for human rights abuses over their brutal crackdown on anti-government protests.
It was the first time the government personally penalized the Syrian leader for the actions of his security forces. More than 850 people have died since the uprising began in March.
Obama, in an executive order, said the Syrian government leaders were being held to account for "attacks on protesters, arrests and harassment of protesters and political activists, and repression of democratic change."
The Obama administration had pinned hopes on Assad, seen until recent months as a pragmatist and potential reformer who could buck Iranian influence and help broker an eventual Arab peace deal with Israel. But U.S. officials said Assad's increasingly ruthless crackdown left them little choice but to abandon the effort to woo Assad, and to stop exempting him from the same sort of sanctions already applied to Libya's Moammar Gadhafi.
Obama has not called on Assad to step down. His government came close on Wednesday.
"It is up to Assad to lead a political transition or to leave," the State Department said in talking points prepared for the announcement of sanctions.
The sanctions will freeze any assets Assad and the six Syrian government officials have in U.S. jurisdiction and make it illegal for Americans to do business with them. The U.S. had imposed similar sanctions on two of Assad's relatives and another top Syrian official last month but had thus far refrained from going after Assad himself.
Treasury officials could give no estimate on how much in Assad's assets were located in the United States that would be frozen by the new sanctions order.
The U.S. move came as Assad said earlier Wednesday that his security forces had made mistakes and blamed poorly trained police at least in part for the crackdown. He claimed the country's crisis is drawing to a close even as forces unleashed tank shells on opponents.
Obama speech was expected to be roughly split into thirds: a review of the political changes across the region for better and worse, country by country; the economic aid package; and the push for better security in the region, which will include the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.
It will all be presented in the context of a future with al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden gone.
The president's offering of economic help is intended to serve as an incentive for other peoples to keep pushing for democracy. Among the elements of his approach:
• The canceling of roughly $1 billion in debt for Egypt. The intention is that money freed up from that debt obligation would be swapped toward investments in priority sectors of the Egyptian economy, likely to focus on entrepreneurship and employment for younger people. Unemployment rates are soaring in Egypt and across the region.
• The guaranteeing of up to $1 billion in borrowing for Egypt through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, a U.S. government institution that mobilizes private capital.
• Promises by the U.S. to launch a new trade partnership in the Middle East and North Africa and to prod world financial institutions to help Egypt and Tunisia more.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will use a sweeping Middle East speech on Thursday to sharply defend new sanctions on Syrian President Bashar Assad as the U.S. government toughened its message for the repressive leader: Embrace democracy or get out. In a primary thrust of his address, Obama will also announce aid to countries that embrace reforms, hoping to steer a region roiling in violence toward democratic change that lasts.
Collectively, Obama's economic proposals will account for much of what's new in an address that, by design, is intended to look back and let him put his imprint on the massive change across the Middle East and North Africa over the last six months. The gist of what Obama will argue is that the United States must help nations modernize their economies and give job opportunities to their young people so that democracy can take hold and thrive — the kind of regional stability that is deeply in the political interests of his government.
The president plans to forgive roughly $1 billion in debt owed by Egypt to free up money for job-creation efforts there. And he will reveal other steps to bolster loans, trade and international support in Egypt and in Tunisia, the two nations seen as models of hope in a time when protests elsewhere in that part of the world are being violently crushed.
Obama is also expected to recalibrate the U.S. position on the flailing Israeli-Palestinian peace process. He will warn both sides that they face greater risks by not coming together on a peace deal than by going their own ways. It is an effort in which he has sunk his own capital and will spend more before his heavy week of Mideast diplomacy ends.
Overall, Obama will try to convince American audiences that the fate of countries in the region is worth the money and attention of United States even during weak economic times at home. To his global audience, Obama wants to leave no doubt that the U.S. stands behind those seeking greater human rights even as it has had to defend its responses to crises.
Senior administration officials revealed details of the speech in advance only on condition of anonymity.
The president will speak Thursday morning at the State Department in Washington.
The White House on Wednesday announced the sanctions on Assad and six senior Syrian officials for human rights abuses over their brutal crackdown on anti-government protests.
It was the first time the government personally penalized the Syrian leader for the actions of his security forces. More than 850 people have died since the uprising began in March.
Obama, in an executive order, said the Syrian government leaders were being held to account for "attacks on protesters, arrests and harassment of protesters and political activists, and repression of democratic change."
The Obama administration had pinned hopes on Assad, seen until recent months as a pragmatist and potential reformer who could buck Iranian influence and help broker an eventual Arab peace deal with Israel. But U.S. officials said Assad's increasingly ruthless crackdown left them little choice but to abandon the effort to woo Assad, and to stop exempting him from the same sort of sanctions already applied to Libya's Moammar Gadhafi.
Obama has not called on Assad to step down. His government came close on Wednesday.
"It is up to Assad to lead a political transition or to leave," the State Department said in talking points prepared for the announcement of sanctions.
The sanctions will freeze any assets Assad and the six Syrian government officials have in U.S. jurisdiction and make it illegal for Americans to do business with them. The U.S. had imposed similar sanctions on two of Assad's relatives and another top Syrian official last month but had thus far refrained from going after Assad himself.
Treasury officials could give no estimate on how much in Assad's assets were located in the United States that would be frozen by the new sanctions order.
The U.S. move came as Assad said earlier Wednesday that his security forces had made mistakes and blamed poorly trained police at least in part for the crackdown. He claimed the country's crisis is drawing to a close even as forces unleashed tank shells on opponents.
Obama speech was expected to be roughly split into thirds: a review of the political changes across the region for better and worse, country by country; the economic aid package; and the push for better security in the region, which will include the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.
It will all be presented in the context of a future with al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden gone.
The president's offering of economic help is intended to serve as an incentive for other peoples to keep pushing for democracy. Among the elements of his approach:
• The canceling of roughly $1 billion in debt for Egypt. The intention is that money freed up from that debt obligation would be swapped toward investments in priority sectors of the Egyptian economy, likely to focus on entrepreneurship and employment for younger people. Unemployment rates are soaring in Egypt and across the region.
• The guaranteeing of up to $1 billion in borrowing for Egypt through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, a U.S. government institution that mobilizes private capital.
• Promises by the U.S. to launch a new trade partnership in the Middle East and North Africa and to prod world financial institutions to help Egypt and Tunisia more.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)