Defence And Strategic Affairs Blog

Afghanistan: No Cause for Hope

1 Comment

The unending conflict in Afghanistan poses the foremost threat to regional stability in Southern Asia. Although President Obama has tripled the number of U.S. forces to 100,000 in the two years he has been in office,,this surge in force levels has failed to effectively counter the long-term threat posed by the Taliban and its Al Qaeda partners. In 2010, every single month was worse than the preceding month in terms of the number of incidents, the casualties to ISAF forces and the killing of innocent civilians. Along the Af-Pak border, despite continuing drone attacks, there has been a steady deterioration in the ability of ISAF to eliminate safe havens for the Taliqaeda extremists. Even the Pakistan army has not fared well in its fight against the TTP cadres holding out in North Waziristan.

The report on the situation in Afghanistan released recently by the White House banks more on hope than reality. It admits that the “challenge remains to make our goals durable and sustainable.” Commanders on the ground, including General Petraeus, continue to claim that the security situation is improving steadily and that the Taliban offensive has been contained. In testimony before Congress in early March 2011, Petraeus claimed that the momentum achieved by the Taliban has been “arrested in much of the country and reversed in a number of areas.” However, he stressed that the “successes are fragile and reversible.”

The Afghan National Army (ANA) and the Afghan police are to be entrusted with the responsibility to independently take over the security function from ISAF in selected provinces beginning in July 2011 so that the planned draw-down of forces can begin. So far the Afghan security forces have not exhibited the standards of professionalism, battalion cohesion and the qualities of junior leadership that are necessary for success in the complex and challenging security environment prevailing in Afghanistan. They still need ISAF officers and quick reaction teams to accompany them for operations, failing which they tend to lose unit cohesion very quickly and disperse in panic.

Negotiations with the so-called “good Taliban” have also floundered. None of the main Taliban leaders – Mullah Omar, Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar – have shown any inclination to conduct serious negotiations with the Karzai government or directly with Western negotiators. They are, of course, keen to buy time by pretending to be interested in a negotiated settlement.  

The development work being undertaken by the Karzai government and the PRTs (provincial reconstruction teams) has not reached the poorest provinces as efforts are concentrated on areas that are well connected by roads. The PRTs spend large sums of money on security for their supply convoys and most of this money ultimately ends up as a source of funding for the Taliban. The traditional notion that development work can be successfully undertaken by external agencies has not been borne out over the last 10 years in Afghanistan. A better method would be assist the Afghans with aid, materials and expertise and let them take the responsibility for development. However, due to the lack of efficient governance and rampant corruption, this method is also has serious pitfalls.

The Taliban are fond of saying that the ISAF forces have the watches but they have the time. They are convinced that the U.S. and NATO forces do not have the political will or the military staying power to last the course and they are biding their time for the foreign forces to quit. Their Pakistani friends are giving them similar advice: hang in there; these guys will soon go away. The prognosis for Afghanistan is far from rosy and a spring offensive may soon muddy the waters further.

Immigration Blog

Green Cards or H1B Visas? That’s the Question Posed at Recent House Hearing

Leave a comment

Should Congress raise the limits on H-1B temporary visas or only for green cards? That was the question at a House immigration subcommittee hearing, held on March 31st. And the question may foreshadow the course of future legislation. Given that typically half of H-1B visa holders were born in India, the issue is of importance to the Indian-American community.

As those who have gone through the immigration process as either an employee or an employer know, the primary difference between an H-1B temporary visa and an employment-based green card is the answer to the query: “How long can you stay?” If you have a green card, you can stay in the United States the rest of your life, so long as you don’t commit a crime that makes you deportable or leave for an extended period of time. And even those exceptions essentially disappear if you become a U.S. citizen.

In contrast, an H-1B visa generally only allows an individual to stay in the U.S. for up to 6 years (renewable after three years), with the only exception being that the immigration service can grant an extension of H-1B status if a green card application is pending.

At the hearing, former Democratic Congressman Bruce Morrison, a Washington, D.C. consultant, represented the IEEE, the electrical engineers professional group. He summarized the difference between green cards and H-1B visas like this: “With ‘green cards’ you do not have to write endless rules regarding portability and prevailing wages. The job market sorts all this out. Employers keep their workers by providing an attractive employment opportunity. Employees keep their working conditions up by having options. That is the better way to attract and keep foreign-born talent without adversely affecting American workers or exploiting the foreign born.”

Morrison added, “In short, there are no problems for which green cards are not a better solution than temporary visas. And there are no problems with the H-1B program itself that a system built on green cards will not help to fix.”

There is considerable debate about the extent to which H-1B temporary visas results in either harm for American workers or exploitation of foreign workers. However, at the hearing, the tone was considerably negative among both members and witnesses toward H-1B visas, while generally positive toward increasing the number of green cards for highly skilled foreign nationals. The only defender of H-1B visas was Bo Cooper, former general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and now a partner at the law firm of Berry, Appleman and Leiden LLP.

Cooper noted that given the long waits for employment-based green cards due to years of backlogs and the long processing delays even when a number is current, it may never be wholly realistic to have a U.S. immigration policy that relies solely on green cards and eschews H-1B temporary visas. For example, in addition to the need to bring individuals into the country on projects or shorter-term assignments, it can take several months, in some cases years, to complete the highly bureaucratic labor certification process for employment-based green cards with the U.S. Department of Labor.

Cooper testified, “The H-1B is often the only way to get highly skilled foreign professionals on the job quickly, when the economy needs them. The H-1B is often the only way to bring in a person with pinpointed skills to perform a crucial temporary assignment. And it is overwhelmingly the only way to bring bright foreign talent across the bridge to permanent residence, and a permanent role as contributors to the U.S. economy.”

It remains unclear whether Congress will pursue legislation that includes more green cards, more restrictions on H-1B visas, or a combination of the two. The bottom line is that the debate on this issue is not over. It really has just begun.

India-US Relations Blog

Indo-US Defence Cooperation: Obama has Delivered on his Promise

Leave a comment

The United States administration has removed the names of nine organisations, mostly ISRO and DRDO subsidiaries, from the Entities List and opened the doors for the export of high technology to India. In an even more significant and far reaching move, the notification has moved India from a country group that required strict monitoring under the U.S. Export Administration Regulations to the group comprising members of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in recognition of India’s adherence to the regime and its impeccable non-proliferation credentials even though India is not a signatory to the MTCR.

While India values its strategic autonomy and recognises that each bilateral relationship is important in its own way, there can be no doubt that the India-US strategic partnership more than any other will shape the geo-political contours of the 21st century in a manner that enhances peace and stability the world over. The recent Obama visit to India succeeded in taking the India-US strategic partnership to a much higher trajectory.
Perhaps the most important though understated aspect of the Obama visit was the forward movement on almost all facets of defence cooperation. Hi-tech weapons and equipment will now be provided or offered to India by the US. Advanced dual-use technologies will give an edge to India over China, both in security-related and civilian sectors. The recent decision to transform the existing bilateral export control framework for high-tech exports has put an end to the decades old discriminatory technology denial regimes that India had been subjected to. The proposal to lift sanctions on ISRO, DRDO and Bharat Dynamics Limited is a welcome step forward and perhaps the Department of Atomic Energy will also be taken off the Entities List soon.

The proposal to undertake joint development of future weapons systems is also a good development as it will raise India’s technological threshold. However, no transfer of technology has occurred yet. Inevitably, doubts about the availability of future technological upgrades and reliability in supplies of spares will continue to linger in the Indian mind. The case for spares which is pending with the labyrinthine U.S. bureaucracy for long in respect of the AN-TPQ37 Weapon Locating Radars has left a bad taste. The notion that the U.S. cannot be trusted to be a reliable supplier was not dispelled convincingly during President Obama’s visit.

India’s reluctance to sign the CISMOA and BECA agreements continues to dampen U.S. enthusiasm to supply hi-tech weapons and equipment. Massive U.S. conventional military aid to Pakistan militates against India’s strategic interests. While U.S. compulsions and constraints in dealing with the failing Pakistani state are understandable, the supply of military equipment that cannot be used for counter-insurgency operations, will inevitably invite a strong Indian reaction. This was conveyed unequivocally to the U.S. President.

China’s increasing assertiveness and its reluctance to work in unison with the international community to uphold the unfettered use of the global commons like the sea lanes for trade, space and cyberspace have also served to bring the U.S. and India closer. The two countries view their strategic partnership as a hedging strategy against irresponsible Chinese behaviour in Asia. Finally, the Obama visit further consolidated the India-US strategic partnership. It can only gain additional momentum in the decades ahead though the road will undoubtedly be uphill and will be dotted with potholes.

Immigration Blog

The beginning of Brain Drain 2.0?

Leave a comment

There has been a lot of sound and fury over the introduction, or rather the re-introduction of the proposed Startup Visa  by Sen. Kerry and Lugar in the Senate. Much of the commentary coming out of India (including mine) almost pre-supposes that the legislation will be passed shortly though this is not necessarily the case. In fact, the prior version of the Bill expired in Congress in 2010 since it couldn’t gain enough momentum. Even the most ardent supporters of the legislation only give it a 1% chance of success and predict it will go the way of the previous legislation unless sufficient political momentum is built up through lobbying and community mobilization.  Nonetheless, the introduction of the Bill provides an opportunity to discuss the basic premises underlying the Bill, and their possible impact.

That this Bill is being introduced in a country which has always been highly conflicted about migration and at a time when the economy is in the relative doldrums speaks volumes in itself. Senator  John Kerry, while talking up the Bill, described it as one that was meant to keep America’s leadership in the innovation sphere. In his words, “Global competition for talent and investment grows more intense daily and the United States must step up or be left behind.”  Other countries such as the United Kingdom are also coming out with versions of their own, indicating that these words go beyond mere hyperbole.  The emphasis of immigration policies seems to have shifted from attracting new talent to retaining the foreign talent trained in the United States that is already at hand. It is with this intent that H1B visa holders and foreign students have been included within the ambit of the Visa for the first time.

Going by the numbers, there will be many takers for this Visa if and when it comes into fruition. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Indians make up 46 per cent of all H1B visa holders, the numbers of which range between 650,000 to 1 million.  Similarly, there are over 100,000 Indian students in the United States. According to a Brookings Institution Study,  between 1994 and 2005, 10,836 doctorates or  11% of all Doctorates awarded in the Science and Engineering streams, went to students  from India.

Whatever discussion there is in India is around the impact of the proposed Bill on the nascent startup ecosystem in India which was gathering steam partly on the back of the reverse migration phenomenon. One blog post even goes as far as to use the title “Startup Visa And The Impact on Indian Startup Ecosystem [BrainDrain 2.0].” Another post wonders why the Indian government doesn’t come out with a Startup Visa of its own to attract Indian and other entrepreneurial talent to india.  However, the bottomline remains that none of this will help unless it becomes easier for businesses to set up shop in India.  Till then, any wannabe entrepreneur, given a chance, will wing his way to Silicon Valley, considering it better to be a participant in the brain drain than have his brain in the drain. If the competition for talent and skills gets any tougher, the Indian government could consider the easy way out and did what it once did in 1964 when it restricted the issuance of passports to medical personnel  “to check their exodus in the national interest.”

Defence And Strategic Affairs Blog

Building up on the rubble of Japan’s nuclear disaster

1 Comment

Japan was struck by a massive earthquake on March 11, followed by a devastating tsunami that deluged many parts of Japan. Not only was the disaster colossal in terms of the human casualties (more than 10000 at last count), but it also damaged Japan’s nuclear reactors causing radiation leakage. As of this writing, the Fukushima nuclear facility was emitting radiation and warnings about tap-water and certain other foods contamination were being issued.

The nuclear disaster in Japan, led analysts and policy experts across the world to contemplate the safety and disaster preparedness of other nuclear installations in countries such as the US, India, China, Pakistan etc. The radiation leakage prompted some to question the benefits of nuclear energy and if the world would be better off without it. However, the disaster in Japan was also a case in point that the correct design, security mechanisms and emergency preparedness can contain and even avert a nuclear catastrophe when natural disasters strike. Radiation fears are valid, but their actual levels and impact might be exaggerated.

In India, it did not take long for doubts to be raised about the US-India nuclear deal (the U.S. clarified that Japan’s disaster would not affect the deal, and it would continue) and India’s plans to maximize the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation. Though India’s disaster relief and emergency preparedness leaves a lot to be desired, India has so far displayed a disaster-free record when it comes to its nuclear facilities. Expect for minor instances of accidents at such facilities, India’s nuclear program has been disaster-free. The Indian nuclear program and the US-India nuclear deal are also in compliance with the IAEA and NSG safeguards and guidelines. Nothing in India’s nuclear history suggests that India might not be able to deal with a disaster as the one that struck Japan. In fact, during the 2001 and 2004 earthquakes in Gujarat and the Indian Ocean, the nuclear reactors in the vicinity had been successfully shut down.

In 2009, India’s National Disaster Management Authority issued a researched set for guidelines for management of nuclear and radiological emergencies. The report lays down exhaustive guidelines for natural as well as man-made nuclear disasters, and reading it instills confidence that India can effectively deal with and control a nuclear disaster. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has also asked for a security review of all nuclear installations in the country following the Japan earthquake.

While accounting and preparing for a worst-case scenario is essential when it comes to sensitive issues such as nuclear disasters, it is also important to remember that such instances are rare. Earthquakes and tsunamis of the magnitude of that in Japan do not occur regularly. And even when they do, adequate preparations and an efficient people (such as the Japanese) can effectively tame any situation. At a time when global energy needs are expanding and non-renewable resources depleting rapidly, nuclear energy is an important and efficient resource for us to consider. Instead of scurrying to shut down nuclear plants and scrapping nuclear deals out of fear, it is important to build even better reactor designs and safety mechanisms that attempt to nullify the effects of any potential disaster.

The Nuclear Liability Bill (2010) passed recently by the Indian Parliament (as part of the long-drawn process of implementing the US-India nuclear deal) could have been integrated completely into this safety mechanism. However, the bill leaves out liability for the operator in case of “grave natural disasters.” The Japanese earthquake and tsunami combo is definitely a grave natural disaster. While it can be argued that the operator cannot predict natural disasters, and therefore cannot be held accountable for damages caused by forces beyond his control; it also cannot be argued that a company and/or operator is totally without responsibility for ensuring maximum safety standards, including for natural disasters. In fact, attributing accountability would force operators to ensure maximum safeguards at nuclear facilities out of fear of potential monetary losses in case of nuclear disasters. Because such disasters are rare, the probability of them losing money by having to pay compensation is very little.

Along with continuing their commitment to nuclear energy, the U.S. and India should look at the Japanese nuclear disaster as an opportunity to increase collaboration in nuclear research and development, disaster management and emergency preparedness. Nuclear technology has developed significantly since the Fukushima nuclear reactor was installed, but its reaction to the earthquake and subsequent disaster should be studied to make reactors even better equipped to deal with crisis situations. Both India and the U.S. have a big pool of skilled nuclear scientists and engineers, and it is time to increase collaboration between them.