.

HAS THE OBAMA GOVT LIVED UPTO TO

EXPECTATIONS
A year ago, the Nobel committee awardedPresident
Obamathe Peace Prize, citing what it expected he
would accomplish inreducing threats around the
globe.In particular, it said, the new American
president held out great promise for a world less at
risk from the danger of destruction at the hands of
the most powerful military invention of the 20th
century.³The committee has attached special
importance to Obama¶s vision of and work for a
world withoutnuclear weapons,´ theNobel committee
said in its October 2009 announcement. ³The vision
of a world free from nuclear arms has
powerfullystimulated disarmament and arms control
negotiations.´³Only very rarely has a person to the
same extent as Obama captured the world¶s
attention and given its people hope for abetter
future.´² Nobel committee Now, Mr. Obama¶s hope
of living up to that expectation is heading down to
the wire in the Senate, where lawmakers arepoised
to vote this week on a new nuclear arms reduction
treaty with Russia. Its defeat would undermine the
Nobelcommittee¶s faith in Mr. Obama¶s skills on the
world stage. Its passage would be the clearest
demonstration of his resolve torid the globe of
nuclear weapons forever.In his weekly radio address,
Mr. Obama urged lawmakers to leave political
considerations ³at the water¶s edge,´ a sayingcoined
by the former Republican senator Arthur Vandenberg
of Michigan to describe bipartisan national security
legislationenacted at the height of the cold
war.³Today, over 60 years later, when we¶re
threatened not only by nuclear weapons, but an
array of other dangers, that¶s aprinciple we must
continue to uphold,´ Mr. Obama said.Some of the
president¶s adversaries do not appear eager to
follow that advice. Senator Mitch McConnell, the
K
entuckyRepublican and minority leader, declared on
Sunday that he would vote against the treaty ± a
clear message to other Republicans of the action he
hopes they will take when the measure comes up for
a vote.In rare weekend sessions, Republican senators
made two attempts to amend the treaty language,
moves that administrationofficials called treaty killers
because they would force a renegotiation with the
Russians. T he amendments were defeated
andSenate Democrats moved to close debate on
Tuesday.Mr. Obama¶s ability to get the treaty
ratified ² it requires two-thirds of the senators who
are present to vote for it ² will beclosely watched in
capitals abroad, where leaders of foreign countries
are eager to see whether the president can
followthrough on the agreements he makes with
them.Early in his administration, Mr. Obama made
bold promises about progress toward
arrestingclimate change, only to see theCongress
refuse to go along. On the other hand, Mr. Obama¶s
pledges to the world about new, tougher rules
governing theAmerican banking system have largely
come to pass.The nuclear treaty with Russia grew
out of one of Mr. Obama¶s first foreign policy
speeches. Standing in the heart of Praguein April
2009, Mr. Obama summoned what he called the
³ghosts of 1968,´ the ³joyful sounds of the Velvet
Revolution.´Just three months into his presidency,
Mr. Obama made the audacious pledge to pursue
³clearly and with convictionAmerica¶s commitment
to seek the peace and security of a world without
nuclear weapons.´Even then, he understood how
dramatic a promise he was making. He declared
himself ³not naïve´ and said he understoodthat such
a result would not be achieved quickly, perhaps not
even in his lifetime.But he outlined a series of steps
that he would take, including an effort to seek
ratification of the Comprehensive Test BanTreaty
and aggressive new approaches to stopping the
spread of nuclear material that could be used by
rogue nations or terrorists to create nuclear
weapons.And, he said, he and PresidentDmitri A.
Medvedevof Russia would complete a new strategic
nuclear arms reduction treatyby the end of the year.
He promised it would be ³legally binding and suf
ficiently bold´ and would set the stage for further
cuts.In awarding theNobel Peace Prizeto Mr. Obama
six months after that speech, the committee said
that ³only very rarely hasa person to the same extent
as Obama captured the world¶s attention and given
its people hope for a better future.´ It calledhim the
³world¶s leading spokesman´ for a new kind of
international diplomacy.Mr. Obama is most likely to
know by week¶s end whether his two years of
negotiations and speeches will haveaccomplished
what the committee believed it could.

6
. A humane suggestion for peace in Kashmir
K
ashmir - heaven on earth. Well it has not been a
heaven for quite some time now. For the past 2
decades, India, Pakistan,China and
K
ashmiri people have been fighting on the territorial
dispute of J&
K
. India and Pakistan have officially fought atleast 3
wars and due to continuous militant insurgency,
thousands of
K
ashmiri lives have been lost. Both the Pakistani
government and the Indian political parties are so
dense to accept the ground reality that due to
militancyand alienation,
K
ashmiri people are suffering the most. Its high time,
we come to terms to the people of
K
ashmir.
K
ashmir isa special case and so normal Centre-State
relationship and functioning won't work. The J&
K
legislature should be givenfreedom to form new laws
or modify current laws as required and appropriate.
This does not mean complete separation of the state.
Borders can be made porous (like US/Canada). J&
K
would remain an integral part of India but their
governmentwould have special authority
independent of the central rule. The people should
have rights to elect a legislature for themand by
them. There would be free travel and trade bringing
prosperity to the state. Thus, if we hear the consent
of the people there and have them come to power
since
K
ashmir is indeed a special case, wewould be able to
bring peace and stability in the region.

A humane suggestion for peace in

K
ashmir 1 For me i think we need to resolve the
human rights violations that been happening from
years now , if some people fromarmy are involved in
it , they should also be brought to justice , army
needs to regain faith in kashmiris , then only they w
illsupport them 2
K
ashmir is another poor state like bihar , jharkhand ,
where there is poverty , there is violence , young kids
take up weap onnot because of religion but because
of hunger , inability to find jobs , support their
families 3 Treating kashmir as a separate state has
been our mistake , so far , we need to understand
the needs of the people ,listen tothem . they need
basic amenities like education , jobs , medical
facilties , there tourism industry has suffered badly
due toyears of violence , we need to revive that ,but
for the point 1 needs to be taken care off 4 We cant
have porous borders for now as it mit just become
another way for cross border terrorism like nepal or
bangladesh, these solutions are diplomatic and
kashmir needs ground work.

7
.HAS THE OBAMA GOVT LIVED UPTO TO
EXPECTATIONS
A year ago, the Nobel committee awardedPresident
Obamathe Peace Prize, citing what it expected he
would accomplish inreducing threats around the
globe.In particular, it said, the new American
president held out great promise for a world less at
risk from the danger of destruction at the hands of
the most powerful military invention of the 20th
century.³The committee has attached special
importance to Obama¶s vision of and work for a
world withoutnuclear weapons,´ theNobel committee
said in its October 2009 announcement. ³The vision
of a world free from nuclear arms has
powerfullystimulated disarmament and arms control
negotiations.´³Only very rarely has a person to the
same extent as Obama captured the world¶s
attention and given its people hope for abetter
future.´² Nobel committee Now, Mr. Obama¶s hope
of living up to that expectation is heading down to
the wire in the Senate, where lawmakers arepoised
to vote this week on a new nuclear arms reduction
treaty with Russia. Its defeat would undermine the
Nobelcommittee¶s faith in Mr. Obama¶s skills on the
world stage. Its passage would be the clearest
demonstration of his resolve torid the globe of
nuclear weapons forever.In his weekly radio address,
Mr. Obama urged lawmakers to leave political
considerations ³at the water¶s edge,´ a sayingcoined
by the former Republican senator Arthur Vandenberg
of Michigan to describe bipartisan national security
legislationenacted at the height of the cold
war.³Today, over 60 years later, when we¶re
threatened not only by nuclear weapons, but an
array of other dangers, that¶s aprinciple we must
continue to uphold,´ Mr. Obama said.Some of the
president¶s adversaries do not appear eager to
follow that advice. Senator Mitch McConnell, the
K
entuckyRepublican and minority leader, declared on
Sunday that he would vote against the treaty ± a
clear message to other Republicans of the action he
hopes they will take when the measure comes up for
a vote.In rare weekend sessions, Republican senators
made two attempts to amend the treaty language,
moves that administrationofficials called treaty killers
because they would force a renegotiation with the
Russians. T he amendments were defeated
andSenate Democrats moved to close debate on
Tuesday.Mr. Obama¶s ability to get the treaty
ratified ² it requires two-thirds of the senators who
are present to vote for it ² will beclosely watched in
capitals abroad, where leaders of foreign countries
are eager to see whether the president can
followthrough on the agreements he makes with
them.Early in his administration, Mr. Obama made
bold promises about progress toward
arrestingclimate change, only to see theCongress
refuse to go along. On the other hand, Mr. Obama¶s
pledges to the world about new, tougher rules
governing theAmerican banking system have largely
come to pass.The nuclear treaty with Russia grew
out of one of Mr. Obama¶s first foreign policy
speeches. Standing in the heart of Praguein April
2009, Mr. Obama summoned what he called the
³ghosts of 1968,´ the ³joyful sounds of the Velvet
Revolution.´Just three months into his presidency,
Mr. Obama made the audacious pledge to pursue
³clearly and with convictionAmerica¶s commitment
to seek the peace and security of a world without
nuclear weapons.´Even then, he understood how
dramatic a promise he was making. He declared
himself ³not naïve´ and said he understoodthat such
a result would not be achieved quickly, perhaps not
even in his lifetime.But he outlined a series of steps
that he would take, including an effort to seek
ratification of the Comprehensive Test BanTreaty
and aggressive new approaches to stopping the
spread of nuclear material that could be used by
rogue nations or terrorists to create nuclear
weapons.And, he said, he and PresidentDmitri A.
Medvedevof Russia would complete a new strategic
nuclear arms reduction treatyby the end of the year.
He promised it would be ³legally binding and suf
ficiently bold´ and would set the stage for further
cuts.In awarding theNobel Peace Prizeto Mr. Obama
six months after that speech, the committee said
that ³only very rarely hasa person to the same extent
as Obama captured the world¶s attention and given
its people hope for a better future.´ It calledhim the
³world¶s leading spokesman´ for a new kind of
international diplomacy.Mr. Obama is most likely to
know by week¶s end whether his two years of
negotiations and speeches will haveaccomplished
what the committee believed it could.