Macaca
12-27 06:59 PM
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
wallpaper tattoo Jennifer Lopez - Love?
2008FebEb2
08-05 01:35 PM
I a EB2-I with PD 2008 Feb.
I think everybody has the right to port to a different category if they qualify for it.
I feel for Eb3 guys who have been waiting in the queue for ever now.
The Original thread starter is a sh*t stirrer who knows nothing. :mad:
Good luck to everyone. :p
I think everybody has the right to port to a different category if they qualify for it.
I feel for Eb3 guys who have been waiting in the queue for ever now.
The Original thread starter is a sh*t stirrer who knows nothing. :mad:
Good luck to everyone. :p
wellwishergc
07-11 11:48 AM
Please ignore my previous posting! I saw in one of the earlier postings that you are approved. Congratulations and Best wishes! and welcome back to this forum; Please help us here whenever you can.
Thanks!
Is your GC approved now?
Thanks!
Is your GC approved now?
2011 hot lopez love Cd jennifer
kinvin
02-25 07:41 PM
Macaca,
Oh, I meant that, the quote is what Lou Dobbs would have said if Space.com would not have failed. Sorry about the confusion.
Oh, I meant that, the quote is what Lou Dobbs would have said if Space.com would not have failed. Sorry about the confusion.
more...
unitednations
03-24 02:39 PM
UN - why do you think USCIS allows
(1) File for h1b from consulting company - when they think there is an issue
(2) Allow labor substitution - when they think it is not good
(3) Allow eb3 to eb2 porting - when they think it is not good
....
....
....
the list can go on
Why do you think people who are following law - not liked by USCIS?
I am not blaming USCIS or not poking at them or your interpretation.
I personally see that if you are not properly represented either by company or my a good Attorney - you are bound to have issues.
Right now USCIS is giving everyone a hard time.
I didn't even think that getting rid of labor substitution was a good thing. Much of the issues related to labor substgitution had to do with IT jobs. Although IT jobs take up a good number of greencards; it impacted other companies/people who weren't doing anything wrong with it. It was a first step in making eb harder.
I am a pretty good advocate of the staffing companies. Kill staffing companies and h-1b and employment base greencard is finished for people from india. I don't think many people realize the implications of what is going on. Staffing companies are the lifeline for employment base IT and for nurses. Thre would be no more retrogressoin as people wouldn't be able to come here. All the people who are here in so called permanent jobs will also eventually get squeezed (laid off; company mergers; promotions; more rules like tarp, etc., and they will eventually also stop doing greencards except for the most senior of senior people).
People really need to be careful right now.
(1) File for h1b from consulting company - when they think there is an issue
(2) Allow labor substitution - when they think it is not good
(3) Allow eb3 to eb2 porting - when they think it is not good
....
....
....
the list can go on
Why do you think people who are following law - not liked by USCIS?
I am not blaming USCIS or not poking at them or your interpretation.
I personally see that if you are not properly represented either by company or my a good Attorney - you are bound to have issues.
Right now USCIS is giving everyone a hard time.
I didn't even think that getting rid of labor substitution was a good thing. Much of the issues related to labor substgitution had to do with IT jobs. Although IT jobs take up a good number of greencards; it impacted other companies/people who weren't doing anything wrong with it. It was a first step in making eb harder.
I am a pretty good advocate of the staffing companies. Kill staffing companies and h-1b and employment base greencard is finished for people from india. I don't think many people realize the implications of what is going on. Staffing companies are the lifeline for employment base IT and for nurses. Thre would be no more retrogressoin as people wouldn't be able to come here. All the people who are here in so called permanent jobs will also eventually get squeezed (laid off; company mergers; promotions; more rules like tarp, etc., and they will eventually also stop doing greencards except for the most senior of senior people).
People really need to be careful right now.
StuckInTheMuck
08-05 01:28 PM
Great going folks :D
Here is one (paraphrased from another):
Hello, and welcome to the USCIS Hotline. If you are obsessive-compulsive, please press 1 repeatedly. If you are co-dependent, please ask someone to press 2. If you have multiple personalities, please press 3, 4, 5 and 6. If you are paranoid-delusional, hit your head with the handset. If you have COLTS, hang up and check your LUD here (https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/login.jsp)...
Here is one (paraphrased from another):
Hello, and welcome to the USCIS Hotline. If you are obsessive-compulsive, please press 1 repeatedly. If you are co-dependent, please ask someone to press 2. If you have multiple personalities, please press 3, 4, 5 and 6. If you are paranoid-delusional, hit your head with the handset. If you have COLTS, hang up and check your LUD here (https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/login.jsp)...
more...
Macaca
05-16 05:52 PM
China�s recent obstreperousness may yet backfire, frightening the United States and its Asian partners into doing more to balance against its growing power. For now, however, the alarming news is that China�s strategy seems to be working much better than America�s. Washington has made basically no progress in pushing China toward democracy, nor has it succeeded in persuading Beijing to abandon ambitions�like controlling the entire South China Sea�that threaten the interests of America�s allies. For its part, China�s Communist Party remains firmly in command. Meanwhile, as China�s economy and military have matured, it has begun to mount a serious challenge to America�s position in Asia.
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
2010 Jennifer Lopez has finally
javadeveloper
07-18 11:32 PM
First time I came to US on 12/15/2000 and left US after 86 days that is on 3/10/2001 , during this period I didn't had any paystubs. I re-entered to US on 12/15/2002(this is my latest entry into US) , I don't have paystubs from 12/15/2002 to 2/14/2000(60 days) ,i have paystubs from 2/15/2003 to 4/15/2003 and again I don't have paystubs from 4/16/2003 to 9/30/2003(165 days).After that I have continuous paystubs.Does it mean that I was out of status for more than 180 days(i.e 60+165=225 or 86+60+165=311) or I was out of status for just 165 days .Maximum continious days that i stayed in US without paystubs are 165.One more thing my employer(s) didn't generated my payslips though i really worked for some days...Someone please clarify...
Thanks In Advance
Thanks In Advance
more...
![jennifer lopez love album. [ALBUM]Jennifer Lopez - Love](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguxB8Dl3CPh1jZsPDGQ8_i8kqQhJ6YLZxK7bEU2iUseVKie7rnyfoiZe7SMeDSEpd8GiN3F_DpKkDfVjRIqby7pRZm66Cw5t2l4wdyUpBFgtBH7ONhjQAF5ueR-TUkEKoCJl1iDtNYWC43/s1600/Art.jpg "[ALBUM]Jennifer Lopez - Love")
Macaca
12-30 06:50 PM
Why does China block foreign websites? (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/malcolmmoore/100070017/why-does-china-block-foreign-websites/) By Malcolm Moore | Daily Telegraph
Skype has joined the ever-growing list of internet companies that are now unwelcome in China.
Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Foursquare, Vimeo, Blogger, Blogspot, Wikileaks and Hulu are some of the others.
In the West, the automatic assumption is that China is scared of greater internet freedom. If it relaxes its grip on YouTube, for example, Chinese internet users might suddenly all start looking at videos of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Actually, while China does ban some of the websites because of the information they contain (Amnesty, Wikileaks), the ban on the others is nothing more than plain old protectionism.
China is keeping YouTube out because it has its own domestic video sites � Tudou and Youku � and it wants them to grow and prosper. Youku just made its debut on the New York Stock Exchange and is now worth around $5 billion.
Google�s departure has hugely benefited Baidu and now Alibaba, which has pushed the US giant into third place in the Chinese market.
Likewise for Facebook. China doesn�t mind social networking. Its domestic Facebook clones, Renren and Kaixin001, boast 100 million users between them.
Sina Weibo, the Chinese version of Twitter, is seeing its user numbers rise by 50 per cent every week. From last year to this year the number of Chinese microbloggers rose from 8 million to 125 million.
Chinese microbloggers have scored some notable successes against the government this year, helping to highlight and, in some cases correct, a series of injustices.
Of course, the Communist party also finds it easier to control (and censor) domestic web companies than foreign firms, so keeping out the likes of Twitter makes the strategy a double-win.
Today�s revelation that Skype is now illegal is a continuation of the trend. In this case, the government is clearly supporting the home-grown services offered by its state-owned companies, China Telecom and China Unicom.
These are more expensive than Skype, require both a hefty monthly fee and then higher call charges, and would probably flounder (as they have to date) without the government�s help.
Stamping out foreign competition is nothing new. All countries do it. But China is quickly becoming the most aggressive and protectionist country out there.
Perhaps after a few years the government will be pressured to let these foreign internet companies back in � Facebook already seems to be negotiating a return � but by then, they will have been firmly left in the dust by their Chinese rivals.
Skype has joined the ever-growing list of internet companies that are now unwelcome in China.
Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Foursquare, Vimeo, Blogger, Blogspot, Wikileaks and Hulu are some of the others.
In the West, the automatic assumption is that China is scared of greater internet freedom. If it relaxes its grip on YouTube, for example, Chinese internet users might suddenly all start looking at videos of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Actually, while China does ban some of the websites because of the information they contain (Amnesty, Wikileaks), the ban on the others is nothing more than plain old protectionism.
China is keeping YouTube out because it has its own domestic video sites � Tudou and Youku � and it wants them to grow and prosper. Youku just made its debut on the New York Stock Exchange and is now worth around $5 billion.
Google�s departure has hugely benefited Baidu and now Alibaba, which has pushed the US giant into third place in the Chinese market.
Likewise for Facebook. China doesn�t mind social networking. Its domestic Facebook clones, Renren and Kaixin001, boast 100 million users between them.
Sina Weibo, the Chinese version of Twitter, is seeing its user numbers rise by 50 per cent every week. From last year to this year the number of Chinese microbloggers rose from 8 million to 125 million.
Chinese microbloggers have scored some notable successes against the government this year, helping to highlight and, in some cases correct, a series of injustices.
Of course, the Communist party also finds it easier to control (and censor) domestic web companies than foreign firms, so keeping out the likes of Twitter makes the strategy a double-win.
Today�s revelation that Skype is now illegal is a continuation of the trend. In this case, the government is clearly supporting the home-grown services offered by its state-owned companies, China Telecom and China Unicom.
These are more expensive than Skype, require both a hefty monthly fee and then higher call charges, and would probably flounder (as they have to date) without the government�s help.
Stamping out foreign competition is nothing new. All countries do it. But China is quickly becoming the most aggressive and protectionist country out there.
Perhaps after a few years the government will be pressured to let these foreign internet companies back in � Facebook already seems to be negotiating a return � but by then, they will have been firmly left in the dust by their Chinese rivals.
hair A preview of Jennifer Lopez#39;s
snathan
01-10 04:42 PM
With Israel on the offensive and so many jihadis getting whacked - don't you think that there'll be a serious shortage of virgins in jihadi heaven :D
they dont need virgins man....:p
they dont need virgins man....:p
more...
sumanitha
12-22 07:49 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VORdATj6s4w&eurl=http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=zakir+naik+2008&emb=0&aq=1&oq=zakir+nai
hot Jennifer Lopez releases Love?
inspectorfox
03-23 03:23 AM
Immigration uncertainties should not be a reason for not buying a house in the US. In my opinion it�s always best to buy a house considering it as a long term investment � You will eventually build equity even though the present US housing market is in doldrums.
I played the housing game differently to minimize the risks associated with my present immigration scenario (I am on 8th year H1B with I140 pending since Oct 2006)...
1) I did not buy an expensive place even though I could easily qualify for $500K mortgage.
2) I put only 3% down payment on my mortgage instead of conventional 20%. It was a difficult decision to make due to PMI but I feel more secure with cash liquidity.
I am an optimistic person but here is my realistic backup strategy if anything falls apart due to immigration (Worse case scenario) -
1) Sell the house and move out of the US (Housing market conditions could be a determining factor)
2) Rent the house (I don't think this should be a problem... LOCATION is the key)
3) Go into Foreclosure (Highly unlikely but you are destined to be screwed anyways)
Does anyone have a better backup plan? Please share here :)
I played the housing game differently to minimize the risks associated with my present immigration scenario (I am on 8th year H1B with I140 pending since Oct 2006)...
1) I did not buy an expensive place even though I could easily qualify for $500K mortgage.
2) I put only 3% down payment on my mortgage instead of conventional 20%. It was a difficult decision to make due to PMI but I feel more secure with cash liquidity.
I am an optimistic person but here is my realistic backup strategy if anything falls apart due to immigration (Worse case scenario) -
1) Sell the house and move out of the US (Housing market conditions could be a determining factor)
2) Rent the house (I don't think this should be a problem... LOCATION is the key)
3) Go into Foreclosure (Highly unlikely but you are destined to be screwed anyways)
Does anyone have a better backup plan? Please share here :)
more...
house (Deluxe jennifer lopez love
Marphad
01-09 01:00 PM
Read this: especially para with title: Land grievance against Indian Muslims
http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_041208.htm
http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_041208.htm
tattoo jennifer lopez love album
yibornindia
08-05 12:11 PM
Friends,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
Hey Bro! Think of you this way.
You are no different than those trying to move from EB3 to EB2. They are doing this to get GC faster then others.
You are stopping others from entering in your line, to get GC faster. :p
Ultimately you both are the same.
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
Hey Bro! Think of you this way.
You are no different than those trying to move from EB3 to EB2. They are doing this to get GC faster then others.
You are stopping others from entering in your line, to get GC faster. :p
Ultimately you both are the same.
more...
pictures Buy Jennifer Lopez - quot;Love
alahiri
07-10 10:10 AM
What logiclife has written is well said .. but did we get a chance to articulate this in the radio itself? Or "Mikey" got all the air time?
dresses girlfriend Jennifer Lopez Love
psvk
08-05 11:42 AM
I have utmost respect for you Walking_Dude. Your leadership and ethusasm is phenomenal. But even in IV , I comes before We.
Personally, I don't think one necessary needs a immigration attorney for this. This is a public interest litigation. The task is definitly not easy but if 50 people can join hands and willing to shell out $500 dollars. It is doable. But I doubt that will happen.
We have approx 35K members and not even 2k people contributed to our cause if not 100 at least $5. Not sure how do u expect $500 -1000 for a failing cause. If you take the pain others will happily enjoy the fruit.
Most of us may agree with porting but not LC substitution as it is you are eating somebody's vomit.
You and OP joined the forum recently and not sure how much u have contributed to our cause, rather causing unnecessary stir.
By the way I have contributed $200 ( and more in line) and participated in phone and fax campaigns and got at least few more new members with contribution.
Personally, I don't think one necessary needs a immigration attorney for this. This is a public interest litigation. The task is definitly not easy but if 50 people can join hands and willing to shell out $500 dollars. It is doable. But I doubt that will happen.
We have approx 35K members and not even 2k people contributed to our cause if not 100 at least $5. Not sure how do u expect $500 -1000 for a failing cause. If you take the pain others will happily enjoy the fruit.
Most of us may agree with porting but not LC substitution as it is you are eating somebody's vomit.
You and OP joined the forum recently and not sure how much u have contributed to our cause, rather causing unnecessary stir.
By the way I have contributed $200 ( and more in line) and participated in phone and fax campaigns and got at least few more new members with contribution.
more...
makeup [ALBUM]Jennifer Lopez - Love
pappu
04-07 05:22 AM
I guess the only way US of A will ever understand its worth in the world is when: (I am just referring to hypocritical US of A'ans, there are good people too.)
1) India and China stop sending so many Engineers and doctors.
2) China and south-east Asia stop supplying Nike's and toilet paper to Walmart's
I guess the positive side of this H1 bill will be further development of Indian and Chinese economies via decreased brain-drain. I guess it already slowed down (to a trickle?!) quite a bit in the past few years and I Hope this bill plugs the leaks too. Hurray! No more brain drain from India and China.
Why didn't this happen a few years ago and I wouldn't even have had any regrets being in US of A ever. Yikes!
please update your profile with full details. We cannot allow profiles with email addresses like name@name.com and no inormation about yourself. Despite repeated requests members have not updated their profiles. We maybe calling members on the forum now publicly so that they update their profiles. When we send out newsletters for any important announcement, they bounce due to email addresses like name@name.com
1) India and China stop sending so many Engineers and doctors.
2) China and south-east Asia stop supplying Nike's and toilet paper to Walmart's
I guess the positive side of this H1 bill will be further development of Indian and Chinese economies via decreased brain-drain. I guess it already slowed down (to a trickle?!) quite a bit in the past few years and I Hope this bill plugs the leaks too. Hurray! No more brain drain from India and China.
Why didn't this happen a few years ago and I wouldn't even have had any regrets being in US of A ever. Yikes!
please update your profile with full details. We cannot allow profiles with email addresses like name@name.com and no inormation about yourself. Despite repeated requests members have not updated their profiles. We maybe calling members on the forum now publicly so that they update their profiles. When we send out newsletters for any important announcement, they bounce due to email addresses like name@name.com
girlfriend Jennifer Lopez attends the
Rolling_Flood
08-05 08:33 AM
No i am not comparing this to labor substitution. Also, i do not think what you said is true for ALL the people trying to port to EB2 by some means.
I intend to fight this legally and everyone else also has the same option of challenging my stand in court if they think i am wrong.
I am just here to gauge support (not monetary support) for the lawsuit, and to see if there are some angles which i am missing that may aid me.
Friend, How many times, you need to know that even job requirements do get rigged by lawyers and employers to accommodate ppl in eb2/eb3 ...and its not jumping the line ...the person has to restart the labor and 140 in order to change the category ...u cant compare it with labor substitution (if u r comparing !!)
I intend to fight this legally and everyone else also has the same option of challenging my stand in court if they think i am wrong.
I am just here to gauge support (not monetary support) for the lawsuit, and to see if there are some angles which i am missing that may aid me.
Friend, How many times, you need to know that even job requirements do get rigged by lawyers and employers to accommodate ppl in eb2/eb3 ...and its not jumping the line ...the person has to restart the labor and 140 in order to change the category ...u cant compare it with labor substitution (if u r comparing !!)
hairstyles Jennifer Lopez will be
puddonhead
06-05 01:32 PM
>> First off, a house is really both an investment and a home.
If you look at the historical rate of appreciation vs. the risks involved - I think you will come to the same conclusion as I did - that it is a lousy investment in mature markets like US.
The scenario is different in India. I believe (based on my assumptions and calculations) that the risk/reward ratio is much more favourable there.
The intangible value of a "home" is the only reason I will ever "buy" a house here - because it is a lousy investment. For me - that tipping point is when I can afford a starter home for cash (it is a differnet topic that I will take a mortgage even then. If there is any problem with the title - the mortgage company is there to fight for me - so it acts as a second layer of insurance). It should not be as far off as you think if you are ready to settle for a small starter home AND actively invest (rather than spend) the principal payment you would have paid towards your mortgage every month.
If you look at the historical rate of appreciation vs. the risks involved - I think you will come to the same conclusion as I did - that it is a lousy investment in mature markets like US.
The scenario is different in India. I believe (based on my assumptions and calculations) that the risk/reward ratio is much more favourable there.
The intangible value of a "home" is the only reason I will ever "buy" a house here - because it is a lousy investment. For me - that tipping point is when I can afford a starter home for cash (it is a differnet topic that I will take a mortgage even then. If there is any problem with the title - the mortgage company is there to fight for me - so it acts as a second layer of insurance). It should not be as far off as you think if you are ready to settle for a small starter home AND actively invest (rather than spend) the principal payment you would have paid towards your mortgage every month.
delax
07-13 09:48 PM
[QUOTE=kutra;262395]Disclaimer: I am an EB3-Indian with a PD of Oct 2003.
Delax: I agree entirely with what you are saying. Your arguments are 100% valid. The part that I don't get is why are you trying so desperately hard to convince EB3-Indians that their letter campaign lacks merit?
I am not trying to convince anybody about the merits. The original post asked for comments which I offered. PL read this post of mine
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262198#post262198
I am not at all surprised at the 'backlash'.
I appreciate your input and candor
Delax: I agree entirely with what you are saying. Your arguments are 100% valid. The part that I don't get is why are you trying so desperately hard to convince EB3-Indians that their letter campaign lacks merit?
I am not trying to convince anybody about the merits. The original post asked for comments which I offered. PL read this post of mine
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262198#post262198
I am not at all surprised at the 'backlash'.
I appreciate your input and candor
waitnwatch
08-05 03:32 PM
If that's the law then there is not much of a debate here!
I think admin should close the thread as the point of a lawsuit is moot.
Incorrect. Read for yourself.
Sec. 204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants.
...
...
(e) Retention of section 203(b)(1) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b1&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1509) , (2) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b2&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1529) , or (3) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b3&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1551) priority date. -- A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact204e&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1773) or 205 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7CACT205&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-185) of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
I think admin should close the thread as the point of a lawsuit is moot.
Incorrect. Read for yourself.
Sec. 204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants.
...
...
(e) Retention of section 203(b)(1) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b1&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1509) , (2) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b2&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1529) , or (3) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b3&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1551) priority date. -- A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact204e&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1773) or 205 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7CACT205&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-185) of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
No comments:
Post a Comment