No one disputes the right of US to deny visas to anyone they choose to. But these choices are made based on hard politics - not respect of democracy or inspiration from humanity or whatever else.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/11208026.htm It just so happened in this case that the loony left and the muslim organizations of Indian Americans mobilized themselves. The Hindu organizations kept quiet and were perhaps unaware. And the US government, as always, heard the voice that shouted. And assumed it represented Indian Americans. I am sure this will find reflection in local dos. Perhaps, this fellow, Biju Thomas, will not find an Indian shop to shop his Indian groceries in. The oldest Indian grocer in Silicon Valley proudly flaunted his Khalistani roots - with a banner that said "Khalistan Zindabad, India murdabad" or something like that. His shop languishes in one corner of India alley - small, and unattended. --- Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.hindu.com/2005/03/21/stories/2005032101731000.htm > > This should clarify the confusion of the many crying > foul. > cm > > > > Modi, the U.S., and visa power > > By Siddharth Varadarajan > > If the BJP believes it is a victim of U.S. double > standards, it has > also benefited from the same duplicity in the past. > > THE DENIAL of a U.S. visa to Gujarat Chief > Minister Narendra Modi > has evoked a predictably strong reaction from the > Bharatiya Janata > Party, less strident objections from the Congress > party and a formal, > diplomatically correct protest from the government > of India, whose > note verbale requesting a visa went unheeded. > > For Mr. Modi, who identified closely with many of > the policies of > the Bush administration, the visa denial is a > particularly cruel > blow. After all, the United States was perhaps the > only major (or > minor) country in the `West' not to express its > concerns about the > Gujarat violence while it was going on. Even tiny > Finland saw fit to > raise its voice, inviting a stinging rebuke from the > External Affairs > Ministry, but not Washington. > > The BJP says the visa rejection has hurt India's > national pride but > this does not appear to be a perception that is > shared widely by > Indians, who see the saffron party's appeals to > swabhimaan > (self-respect) and constitutionalism as largely > self-serving. There > is no Constitution in the world that requires a > country to grant > foreign nationals a visa to enter its territory; on > the other hand, > every Constitution, India's included, obliges > governments to > investigate and punish individuals involved in > large-scale violence > against its citizens. > > Investigations by the National Human Rights > Commission, the CBI (in > the Bilkis Bano case), and scores of > non-governmental bodies have > documented numerous acts of omission and commission, > suggesting > official connivance with the perpetrators of the > violence. Even if > one accepts the argument that Mr. Modi knew nothing > at all about the > manner in which more than 2,000 Muslims were > targeted and killed > across his State in the weeks following the Godhra > incident of 2002, > his failure to investigate these crimes and punish > the guilty is > manifest. No less a judicial authority than the > Supreme Court of > India has pointed this out. > > All countries exercise their right to issue visas > (and even > passports) keeping in mind their own definition or > perception of > national interest. Thus, the National Democratic > Alliance Government > tightened the procedure for granting foreign > scholars visas to attend > conferences on "political" subjects or conduct > research on > "sensitive" topics or areas. More recently, a Dutch > professor and > expert on Assam and the Northeast had his > application for an Indian > visa rejected. > > Foreign governments can protest, concerned Indians > can criticise > their Government's pig-headedness and agitate for a > more liberal > approach, and the courts may intervene but that is > unfortunately the > way the law works. > > In the United States, perhaps more than any other > country, visas > have always been used as a foreign policy tool. > During the Cold War, > membership in a Communist party or allied > organisation was grounds > for a visa rejection, as was former membership of > the Nazi party. > Over the years, hundreds of dissident or progressive > intellectuals > and artistes were denied U.S. visas because of their > Leftist views > (and this continues to happen on a slightly > diminished scale even > now). In practice, being a Nazi was much less of a > disqualification - > since the U.S. was interested in recruiting German > rocket and nuclear > scientists and intelligence assets - but that issue > need not detain > us here. > > Ever since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has > started rejecting > visas on the grounds of involvement in corruption, > torture and human > rights abuses, and violations of religious freedom. > These > restrictions have developed in tandem with the > growing tendency to > consider gross violations of human rights as > transgressions of > international law and international humanitarian > law. However, unlike > the attempt to prosecute offenders in jurisdictions > other than that > of their own countries - for example the well-known > case against > former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in a > Spanish court - the > denial of visas per se does not represent the > extra-territoriality of > law enforcement. > > Prominent U.S. visa rejects in recent years > include Lt. Gen. Prabowo > Subianto, the son-in-law of former Indonesian > President Suharto, who > was denied a visa in 2000 on the grounds of being > suspected of > involvement in torture, former Philippine President > Joseph Estrada, > who was denied a U.S. visa for medical treatment > ostensibly because > Washington said it could not "guarantee his > security," and two senior > Yugoslav parliamentary officials - Srdja Bozovic, > who was president > of the Chamber of Republics, and Ljubisa Ristic, > president of > parliament's foreign policy committee - because > their names figured > on a list of "regime associates" of Slobodan > Milosevic. > > For many years, the U.S. has informally used the > existence of > corruption charges against public officials as a > reason to deny a > visa. Last year, for example, Gregory Surkis, a > Ukrainian MP and > close ally of then Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor > Yanukovych, was > denied a U.S. visa for allegedly interfering with > his country's > electoral process. The then Ukrainian Interior > Minister Mykola > Bilokon was put on a visa watch list with the > presumption of denial > in case he ever applied. In 1996, Ernesto Samper's > U.S. visa was > revoked when he was Colombia's President. > > On January 12, 2005, President George W. Bush > formally issued a > proclamation amending section 212 of the U.S. > Immigration and > Nationality Act to "suspend" entry into the U.S. of > public officials > "whose solicitation or acceptance of any article of > monetary value, > or other benefit, in exchange for any act or > omission in the > performance of their public functions has or had > serious adverse > effects on the national interests of the United > States." The new rule > has already been invoked against Panamanian and > Kenyan officials and > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Assam mailing list Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
