THE FIL-AM PERSPECTIVE

Will you join in the crusade? March 27: call to action for TPS for the Philippines

By Gel Santos Relos

On Asian Journal Op-Ed

 

(Photo credit: veooz.com)

NEW development! “US Secretary of State John Kerry has already made his review and recommendation regarding the request for TPS designation of the Philippines, and that recommendation has been sent to the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS,)”  TPS primary proponent Atty. Arnedo Valera enthusiastically reported to me, after he got another call on March 20 from David P. Arulanantham, Philippine Desk Officer of the State Department.

 

This TPS status has been confirmed to Balitang America by State Department Spokesperson Pooja Jhunjhunwala. What has not been confirmed though, is if Kerry’s recommendation is indeed in favor of TPS for the Philippines. If ever it is,  whether it will be a full or partial TPS (limited only to those who have families that are directly affected by Typhoon Yolanda) remains to be seen.

 

Fil-Am advocates remain optimistic about the recommendation. However, it is important to stress that this is NOT yet a done deal. Atty. Valera called for positivity and unity in the Filipino community, and reminded us not to let up.

 

Therefore here is a very important and critical opportunity for all our kababayans to come together as one. March 27, Thursday has been designated by a coalition of Fil-Am groups as “Community Call to Action Day for TPS for the Philippines”.

 

Fil-Am community leader Atty. Rodel Rodis of US Pinoys for Good Governance (USP4GG) emailed me this press statement, which I am sharing with you. This is the last leg of this marathon. Will you join in the crusade for TPS for the Philippines?

 

“The March 27 Call for Action was agreed to by a coalition of Filipino-American community groups in a national telephone conference call held on March 18, to discuss the status of the campaign to grant Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to the Philippines, a move that may benefit approximately 200,000 Filipinos in the United States who are currently out-of -status.

Arnedo Valera of the Migrant Heritage Commission, the Washington D.C. group which initiated the call for TPS for the Philippines last November, reported that Philippine Desk Officer David Arulanantham at the US Department of State confirmed that the favorable recommendation for TPS for the Philippines is now on the desk of Secretary John Kerry, awaiting his review and signature. [as stated above, recommendation has been submitted to DHS] ‘

This positive development is the result of our community’s unified campaign to lobby the State Department,’ said Loida Nicolas-Lewis, national chair for US Pinoys for Good Governance (USP4GG), who moderated the March 18 national conference call.

‘We must not let up now. We’re close but we’re not there yet. We need to continue to lobby the US government until TPS is finally approved for the Philippines,’ added Jon Melegrito, spokesman of the National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA).

Under US immigration law, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of State, may designate a country, or portions of a country, for TPS when conditions exist – such as an ongoing armed conflict or an environmental disaster in the country – that temporarily prevents the country’s nationals in the US from returning safely.

Once a country receives TPS designation, nationals of that country residing in the US would not be deportable and may receive temporary legal status that allows them to  receive employment authorization and even permission to travel abroad.

Community groups represented at the conference call were urged to ask everyone they know, even non-Filipinos, regardless of their immigration status in the US, to call the US State Department , DHS, and the White House Comment Lines on Thursday, March 27.

People can call those message boards even before March 27 but an extra effort should be made to call in on March 27 [NOTE: You can call even after the 27th, if a decision has not been made by then. [Contact numbers and what to say are stated below.]

When Haiti was struck by a devastating earthquake on January 12, 2010, the US government granted TPS to Haitian citizens in the US extending them temporary legal status in the US for a period of 18 months. This has been extended several times since then because Haiti has still not recovered from the damage of the earthquake. Last year, the US government extended TPS to Syria because of the civil war that is raging there.

Aside from Syria, Sudan and South Sudan were also granted TPS in 2013. Other countries that have also received TPS designation in past years include El Salvador, Nicaragua, Somalia and Honduras as a result of devastating natural calamities that have occurred in those countries.

A bipartisan group of 20 US senators, led by New York Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York), sent a letter to Pres. Barack Obama urging him to grant TPS to the Philippines. ‘Typhoon Haiyan has wrought unparalleled destruction and tragic loss of life in the Philippines,’ declared the senators in their letter to Pres. Obama.

‘Victims of Typhoon Haiyan clearly meet the eligibility requirements for TPS, and we urge you to extend this designation as soon as possible. The United States has demonstrated its commitment to assisting the Philippines with the recovery effort through foreign aid, military assistance and relief supplies,’ the letter added.

‘There are officially at least 200,000 Filipinos in the US who are out of status and would greatly benefit from TPS designation of the Philippines,’ said J.T. Mallonga. spokesman of the Filipino American Legal Defense & Education Fund (FALDEF) based in New York.

‘Their hopes that the Philippines would be granted TPS are buoyed by the fact that Pres. Obama has supported immigration reform that would legalize the status of 11 million people in the US and that he will be visiting the Philippines in April of 2014 and could present the Philippines with a special gift,’ Mallonga added.

"Granting TPS to the Philippines would allow hundreds of thousands of Filipinos in the US to send billions of dollars of their income to the Philippines to aid an economy that was devastated by Supertyphoon Yolanda,’ said Dr. Celia Lamkin, a TPS advocate from Saipan who participated in the March 18 conference call.

‘For the sake of our mother country, we urge all Filipinos in the US to save the date and make the time to call the State Department, DHS and the White House on March 27,’ said Loida Nicolas-Lewis.”

Who to call

 

 

DHS Comment Line: (202)282-8495

 

MESSAGE:  “Temporary Protected Status for the Philippines must be designated. I urge  Department of Homeland Security that full TPS be designated for the Philippines. My name is (say name) from (say city and state).”

 

STATE DEPARTMENT Comment Line: (202)647-6575

Press: 4 for operator then ask for comment line. After message press # and then 2 to make priority and then # to send.

MESSAGE: “Temporary Protected Status for the Philippines must be designated. I urge Secretary of State John Kerry and request that the Department of State recommend to the Department of Homeland Security that  full TPS be designated for the Philippines. My name is (say name) from (say city and state).”

 

 WHITE HOUSE Comment Line: (202)456-1111

MESSAGE: “Temporary Protected Status for the Philippines must be designation. I urge President Obama that full TPS be designated for the Philippines. My name is (say name) from (say city and state).” -

See more at: http://asianjournal.com/editorial/march-27-call-to-action-for-tps-for-ph/#sthash.FBRGarbw.dpuf

A pilot's theory on what might have happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

By Gel Santos Relos

On Asian Journal Op-Ed

 

Praying for the Passengers and Crew of MH 370 (Photo credit: people.com)

 

Since its mysterious disappearance (after taking off from Kuala Lumpur en route to Beijing) Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has been reported on ceaselessly by the media, inviting all kinds of speculations and theories as to what really happened on March 8, 2014. 

 

Because of what happened in 9/11, it is understandable why theories of terrorism would become a default assumption. Suspicion points to two Iranian passengers  with stolen passports and even the pilots and crew are being looked into as possible perpetrators. 

 

Was the plane hijacked? Was it hit by a meteor? Was its taken by aliens? Did it crash somewhere?

Unfortunately, no concrete evidence has been found to prove anything, except for a clearer timeline on the plane’s last communication messages (which used high-tech devices) before it disappeared.

 

If there was no hijacking or terrorism involved, then how else could the plane vanish? Others say

mechanical and/or electrical failure of the plane could be the cause. 

 

One theory I would like to share with you is made by Chris Goodfellow, described by wired.com as a Canadian Class-1 instrumented-rated pilot for multi-engine planes with more than 20 years of experience.

 

As Business Insider’s Henry Blodget reported, this is “the most plausible explanation for the plane’s disappearance we’ve heard yet”, based on the facts already presented.

 

Here is Goodfellow’s theory from a pilot’s perspective, as first published on Google+:

 

"Loaded 777 departs midnight from Kuala to Beijing. Hot night. Heavy aircraft.  About an hour out across the gulf towards Vietnam the plane goes dark meaning the transponder goes off and secondary radar tracking goes off. 

 

Two days later, we hear of reports that Malaysian military radar (which is a primary radar meaning the plane is being tracked by reflection rather than by transponder interrogation response) has tracked the plane on a southwesterly course back across the Malay Peninsula into the straits of Malacca.

 

When I heard this, I immediately brought up Google Earth and I searched for airports in proximity to the track towards southwest.

 

The left turn is the key here. This was a very experienced senior Captain with 18,000 hours. Maybe some of the younger pilots interviewed on CNN didn't pick up on this left turn. We old pilots were always drilled to always know the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us and airports ahead of us. Always in our head. Always. Because if something happens you don't want to be thinking what are you going to do - you already know what you are going to do. Instinctively, when I saw that left turn with a direct heading I knew he was heading for an airport. Actually he was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi a 13,000 foot strip with an approach over water at night with no obstacles. He did not turn back to Kuala  Lumpur because he knew he had 8,000 foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier towards Langkawi and also a shorter distance.

 

Take a look on Google Earth at this airport. This pilot did all the right things. He was confronted by some major event onboard that made him make that immediate turn back to the closest safe airport.

 

For me the loss of transponders and communications makes perfect sense if a fire. There was most likely a fire or electrical fire. In the case of fire, the first response is to pull all the main busses and restore circuits one by one until you have isolated the bad one.

 

If they pulled the busses the plane indeed would go silent. It was probably a serious event and they simply were occupied with controlling the plane and trying to fight the fire. Aviate, Navigate and lastly communicate. 

 

There are two types of fires. Electrical might not be as fast and furious and there might or might not be incapacitating smoke. However there is the possibility given the timeline that perhaps there was an overheat on one of the front landing gear tires and it blew on takeoff and started slowly burning. Yes this happens with under inflated tires. Remember heavy plane, hot night, sea level, long run takeoff. There was a well-known accident in Nigeria of a DC8 that had a landing gear fire on takeoff. A tire fire once going would produce horrific incapacitating smoke. Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks but this is a no-no with fire. Most have access to a smoke hood with a filter but this will only last for a few minutes depending on the smoke level. (I used to carry one of my own in a flight bag and I still carry one in my briefcase today when I fly).

 

What I think happened is that they were overcome by smoke and the plane just continued on the heading probably on George (autopilot) until either fuel exhaustion or fire destroyed the control surfaces and it crashed. I said four days ago you will find it along that route - looking elsewhere was pointless.  

 

This pilot, as I say, was a hero struggling with an impossible situation trying to get that plane to Langkawi. No doubt in my mind. That's the reason for the turn and direct route. A hijack would not have made that deliberate left turn with a direct heading for Langkawi. It would probably have weaved around a bit until the hijackers decided on where they were taking it.

 

Surprisingly none of the reporters , officials, other pilots interviewed have looked at this from the pilot's viewpoint. If something went wrong where would he go? Thanks to Google Earth I spotted Langkawi in about 30 seconds, zoomed in and saw how long the runway was and I just instinctively knew this pilot knew this airport. He had probably flown there many times. I guess we will eventually find out when you help me spread this theory on the net and some reporters finally take a look on Google Earth and put 2 and 2 together. Also a look at the age and number of cycles on those nose tires might give us a good clue, too.   

 

Fire in an aircraft demands one thing - you get the machine on the ground as soon as possible. There are two well-remembered experiences in my memory. The AirCanada DC9 which landed I believe in Columbus Ohio in the eighties. That pilot delayed descent and bypassed several airports.  He didn't instinctively know the closest airports. He got it on the ground eventually but lost 30 odd souls.  

 

In the 1998 crash of Swissair DC-10 off Nova Scotia was another example of heroic pilots. They were 15 minutes out of Halifax but the fire simply  overcame them and they had to ditch in the ocean. Just ran out of time. That fire incidentally started when the aircraft was about an hour out of Kennedy. Guess what? The transponders and communications were shut off as they pulled the busses.

 

Goodfellow urges people who follow this mysterious story to “get on Google Earth and type in Palau Langkawi  and then look at it in relation to the radar track heading. 2+2=4." He said it is the  simple explanation why it turned and headed in that direction.

 

“Smart pilot. Just didn't have the time,” Goodfellow concluded.

 

 

TPS Status Update: May Pag-asa Pa!

By Gel Santos Relos

On Asian Journal Op-Ed

 

Many kababayans continue to send me messages and emails, inquiring about updates on the requested Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for the Philippines. Four months after the Philippines was ravaged by Haiyan (Yolanda), there are those who have begun to wonder if TPS for the Philippines would be granted at all.

If approved by the US government, TPS will provide visa relief for qualified Filipinos with expired or expiring visas, allowing them to temporarily live in America without threat of deportation. They will receive work and travel authorization as well.

The TPS was requested by various Filipino-American groups, in order to enable undocumented Filipinos in America to help in the rebuilding and rehabilitation of typhoon-ravaged areas, caused by Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda in November of last year.

Let me share with you the latest information shared with me by TPS’ primary proponent, The Migrant Heritage Commission (MHC). MHC is a Fil-Am organization based in Washington DC. Here is an excerpt of the email sent to me by Atty. Arnedo Valera, one of MHC’s executive directors:

David P. Arulantham , Philippine Desk Officer , Department of State called me today and gave me this update.   According to him: “TPS process is moving along, and they are getting closer and closer in regards to the recommendation for TPS for the Philippines. The facts have been laid out and it is now in the desk of Secretary Kerry for review and final decision, after which it will be sent to the DHS Secretary.”

My teleconference call meeting with David [was] very positive. And there is no doubt in my mind that Sec. Kerry will make a favorable decision, recommending TPS for the Philippines. My optimism [was] shared by Ambassador Cuisia, during my informal meeting with him two weeks ago at the Philippine Humanitarian Coalition assembly at the Phil. Embassy.

All organizations and individuals supporting MHC’s initial call for TPS should stay and remain positive that President Obama [and] the US Dept. of Homeland Security will do the right thing. MHC is calling all organizations to refrain from engaging in “rhetorical remarks “ and negative comments linking TPS approval  to President Obama’s visit in the Philippines. There are other important and significant matters involved in President Obama’s state visit in the Philippines that is mutually beneficial to the national interests of both countries.  

Let the established protocol and  process take its course. MHC strongly believes that [the] Philippines will be designated under [the] TPS program in due time. The Department of Homeland Security is authorized, under Section 244 (b) of the INA, to designate a country under TPS .

 In the history of TPS designation, all the countries now under the TPS program, the recommendations made by the Department of State have been followed by the Department of Homeland Security. MHC has always believed that [the] TPS designation of the Philippines should be an integral part of the humanitarian assistance by the US government to the Philippines.

TPS was initiated and pioneered  by the Legal Resources Program of the Migrant Heritage Commission (on November 11, 2013, 3 days after Haiyan /Yolanda) on separate letters to President Obama, Secretary Kerry of the Dept. of State and then Acting Secretary of DHS,  Sec. Beers.

  On November 10, two days after Haiyan/Yolanda , I presented the plan to my co-executive directors, Jesse Gatchalian  and Grace Valera-Jaramillo to call for TPS designation for the Philippines. MHC likewise convinced President Aquino to make [the] same request for TPS.  Since then, MHC’s  voice in the wilderness has evolved into a national clarion call for TPS by several organizations and individuals.

Our call for TPS is a collective effort of various organizations and individuals who believe that TPS designation of the Philippines should be an integral part of the humanitarian assistance extended by the US government to the Philippines.  Let us all stay positive and be united for  [this] TPS call!! Mabuhay and God bless our community.  

 Arnedo S. Valera, Esq.

Grace Valera-Jaramillo  

Jesse Gatchalian  Executive Directors,

 Migrant Heritage Commission

 

MHC 'S LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA:

 

 

 

Electronic gadgets should be banned for kids 12 and below, experts say

By Gel Santos Relos

On Asian Journal Op-Ed

 

(Photo credit: www.androidios.com)

 

MANY of us probably felt guilty, after reading this warning.

After all, we think that we are helping stimulate our kids’ mental faculty when we allow them to watch TV or videos and play games via electronic gadgets. We believe we are helping them learn their ABCs and 123s ,new languages, even their analytical thinking and eye-motor coordination.

It is true, though, that there are times when these electronic gadgets help a lot in keeping our kids preoccupied, especially when we need to attend to other things like household chores, work, or simply a need for a quiet “me” or “couple” time.

However, it can't be denied that there are others who let these electronic babysitters take an almost “full-time job” in raising their kids. Now we know doing such could bring dangerous consequences.

As concerned parents, these new findings by experts on child psychology and psychiatry are worth reading and discussing. Maybe they can answer some questions we’ve always had: why many kids now suffer from ADHD, obesity, emotional and behavioral problems, aggression, and many other challenges which seem more persistent with the new generation.

Let me share with you this piece by Pediatric Occupational Therapist Chris Rowan, published by the Huffington Post.

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Society of Pediatrics state  infants aged 0-2 years should not have any exposure to technology, 3-5 years be restricted to one hour per day, and 6-18 years restricted to 2 hours per day (AAP 2001/13, CPS 2010). Children and youth use4-5 times the recommended amount of technology, with serious and often life threatening consequences (Kaiser Foundation 2010, Active Healthy Kids Canada 2012). Handheld devices (cell phones, tablets, electronic games) have dramatically increased the accessibility and usage of technology, especially by very young children (Common Sense Media, 2013). 

As a pediatric occupational therapist, I’m calling on parents, teachers and governments to ban the use of all handheld devices for children under the age of 12 years. Following are 10 research-based reasons for this ban. Please visit zonein.ca to view the Zone’in Fact Sheet for referenced research.

1. Rapid brain growth

Between 0 and 2 years, infant’s brains triple in size (Preview) , and continue in a state of rapid development to 21 years of age (Christakis 2011). Early brain development is determined by environmental stimuli, or lack thereof. Stimulation to a developing brain caused by overexposure to technologies (cell phones, internet, iPads, TV), has been shown to be associated with executive functioning and attention deficit, cognitive delays, impaired learning, increased impulsivity and decreased ability to self-regulate, e.g. tantrums (Small 2008, Pagini 2010).

2. Delayed development

Technology use restricts movement, which can result in delayed development. One in three children now enter school developmentally delayed, negatively impacting literacy and academic achievement (HELP EDI Maps 2013). Movement enhances attention and learning ability (Preview) (Ratey 2008). Use of technology under the age of 12 years is detrimental to child development and learning (Rowan 2010).

3. Epidemic obesity

TV and video game use correlates with increased obesity (Tremblay 2005). Children who are allowed a device in their bedrooms have 30% increased incidence of obesity (Feng 2011). One in four Canadian, and one in three US children are obese (Tremblay 2011). 30% of children with obesity will develop diabetes, and obese individuals are at higher risk for early stroke and heart attack, gravely shortening life expectancy (Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2010). Largely due to obesity, 21st century children may be the first generation many of whom will not outlive their parents (Professor Andrew Prentice, BBC News 2002).

4. Sleep deprivation

60 percent of parents do not supervise their child’s technology usage, and 75% of children are allowed technology in their bedrooms (Kaiser Foundation 2010). 75 percent of children, aged 9 and 10 years, are sleep-deprived to the extent that their grades are detrimentally impacted (Boston College 2012).

5. Mental illness 

Technology overuse is implicated as a causal factor in rising rates of child depression, anxiety, attachment disorder, attention deficit, autism, bipolar disorder, psychosis and problematic child behavior (Bristol University 2010, Mentzoni 2011, Shin 2011, Liberatore 2011, Robinson 2008). One in six Canadian children have a diagnosed mental illness, many of whom are on dangerous psychotropic medication (Waddell 2007).

6. Aggression 

Violent media content can cause child aggression (Anderson, 2007). Young children are increasingly exposed to rising incidence of physical and sexual violence in today’s media. “Grand Theft Auto V” portrays explicit sex, murder, rape, torture and mutilation, as do many movies and TV shows. The US has categorized media violence as a Public Health Risk due to causal impact on child aggression (Huesmann 2007). Media reports increased use of restraints and seclusion rooms with children who exhibit uncontrolled aggression.

7. Digital dementia

High speed media content can contribute to attention deficit, as well as decreased concentration and memory, due to the brain pruning neuronal tracks to the frontal cortex (Christakis 2004, Small 2008). Children who can’t pay attention can’t learn.

8. Addictions

As parents attach more and more to technology, they are detaching from their children. In the absence of parental attachment, detached children can attach to devices, which can result in addiction (Rowan 2010). One in 11 children aged 8-18 years are addicted to technology (Gentile 2009).

9. Radiation emission

In May of 2011, the World Health Organization classified cell phones (and other wireless devices) as a category 2B risk (possible carcinogen) due to radiation emission (WHO 2011). James McNamee with Health Canada in October of 2011 issued a cautionary warning stating “Children are more sensitive to a variety of agents than adults as their brains and immune systems are still developing, so you can’t say the risk would be equal for a small adult as for a child.” (Globe and Mail 2011). In December, 2013 Dr. Anthony Miller from the University of Toronto’s School of Public Health recommend that based on new research, radio frequency exposure should be reclassified as a 2A (probable carcinogen), not a 2B (possible carcinogen). American Academy of Pediatrics requested review of EMF radiation emissions from technology devices, citing three reasons regarding impact on children (AAP 2013).

10. Unsustainable

The ways in which children are raised and educated with technology are no longer sustainable (Rowan 2010). Children are our future, but there is no future for children who overuse technology. A team-based approach is necessary and urgent in order to reduce the use of technology by children.”

Technology Use Guidelines for Children and Youth

 

"Putin’s action in Ukraine like Hitler’s" – Hillary Clinton

By Gel Santos Relos

on Asian Journal Op-Ed

 

(Photo Credit: wn.com)

AS world leaders discuss options to de-escalate the growing tension between Russia and Ukraine, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made some controversial statements — comparing  Putin’s recent move to issue Russian passports to Ukrainians with ties to Russia to Hitler’s efforts to resettle Germans in the late 1930s.

“It’s what Hitler did back in the ‘30s,” said the Democratic presidential frontrunner at a private fundraising event in Long Beach, California last Tuesday, as reported by Long Beach Press Telegram.

“The Germans by ancestry who were in places like Czechoslovakia and Romania and other places, Hitler kept saying, ‘They’re not being treated right. I must go and protect my people’ — and that’s what’s gotten everybody so nervous.”

Speaking at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) on Wednesday, Clinton clarified her statements, saying that she did not mean to compare Putin to Hitler.

What she intended was to put some historical perspective to Putin’s action in Ukraine. Clinton explained that claims by Putin and other Russian leaders that they needed to go into Crimea to protect Russian minorities, were “reminiscent of claims that were made back in the 1930s when Germany under the Nazis kept talking about how they had to protect German minorities” in Poland and Czechoslovakia.

Clinton said Putin wants to “re-Sovietize” nations on Russia’s periphery, and “in the process, he is squandering the potential of such a great nation – the nation of Russia – and threatening the instability and even the peace of Europe.”

Echoing President Obama’s statement, Clinton said: “I support the administration’s call for Russia to respect its obligations and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”

Such mistrust about Putin's intention is founded on history. The crisis in Ukraine has a recent precedent: Russia’s aggression in Georgia in August 2008, during George W. Bush' presidency. Like Ukraine, Georgia used to be part of the Soviet Union but has been an independent nation since 1991. After Putin's invasion in 2008, two regions of  — Abkhazia and South Ossetia — have remained to be under Russian control. 

"Putin's broader plan is to recreate some kind of 'Soviet Union lite,' a ring of countries under Moscow's control, with the goal of boosting Russia's geopolitical standing," wrote Ulrich Speck, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Europe think tank in Brussels.

If Putin gets what he wants in Ukraine, Speck says it augurs badly for other neighboring countries with Russian populations. He points to Moscow's "de facto-annexation" of the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, after the war between Russia and Georgia in 2008.

"Beyond Ukraine, this conflict is also a defining moment for future Russian foreign policy." Speck says. "If Moscow succeeds in Ukraine, it will come to the conclusion that it can act like an empire," he added.

Obama authorizes sanctions

The turmoil in Ukraine has been fast-paced in the past days. President Obama has authorized sanctions for Russian and Ukrainian individuals and entities, who are responsible for Russia’s military takeover in Crimea or for “stealing the assets of the Ukrainian people,”and those who undermine “Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Sanctions include freezing their assets and denial of application for or revocation of their US passports. Other North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and European Union (EU) allies, however, failed to come up with a unified response when it comes to the sanctions they will impose against Russia.

Speaking from the White House last Thursday, President Obama also called “unconstitutional” the legislature-approved referendum in the Crimea region over whether people there want to remain part of Ukraine, or go back to being part of Russia.

As Ukraine’s interim president says the government is working to block this referendum scheduled for March 16, Pres. Obama reiterated the United States’ support: “Any discussion about the future of Ukraine must include the legitimate government of Ukraine.”

“In 2014, we are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders,” Obama said.

The Washington Post reported that after giving his public statement, Obama then spoke for an hour with Russian President Vladimir Putin — the second lengthy conversation between the two leaders this week. According to the White House, Obama explained to Putin that the steps taken by the US were in response to Russia’s “violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Obama again outlined what US officials have called a “way out” for Putin, including direct talks with the Ukrainian government, the return of Russian forces to their bases and allowing international monitors to “ensure that the rights of all Ukrainians are protected, including ethnic Russians.”

On the other hand, Putin argued differently, calling the [interim] Ukrainian government the result of an unconstitutional revolution encouraged by the West.

Do the US and other countries in the West have the right to "meddle"?

Debates among those following the Russia vs Ukraine standoff have ensued, following this recent development. Even some Americans ask: Do America, the EU, and NATO have the right to meddle with what Ukrainians in Crimea want to do? They said the Legislature of the Crimea region have decided to hold a referendum, to let the people of Crimea vote, whether they want to stay in Ukraine or go back to Russian control.

What if the Ukrainians in the region choose to go with Putin? Ambassador to the UN Samantha Powers told Wolf Blitzer  on CNN’s Situation Room that the proposed referendum would get no recognition, except from Russia. Powers further said that if referendum goes forward and Crimea joins Russia, the United States will move forward with sanctions.

Some analysts ask: “What right do the US and the EU and other countries have to go against the wishes of the people of Crimea, if they so decide in favor of secession from Ukraine? After all, these people have had deep roots and ties with Russia before Ukraine became a sovereign state.

Playing devil’s advocate to bring out other points of view on this issue, my husband Rene asked: “Whose interest are the US and other western countries really fighting for? Are they really concerned about the people of Crimea?

He then reminded me about the story of Helen of Troy in Greek mythology. Helen was supposed to have been abducted by Paris, and this lead to the Trojan War. The Trojan War was waged against the city of Troy by the Achaeans, after Paris of Troy took Helen from her husband Menelaus, the King of Sparta.

My husband raised this perspective: Did the Achaeans wage war against the city of Troy to ‘save’ Helen? But Helen willingly eloped with Paris, her lover. She did not need any saving. It was her will to be with Paris. Didn’t the Achaeans use the supposed “abduction” of Helen as an excuse to wage the Trojan War and serve their own interest?

ASSUMING that the referendum will really reflect the will of the people and regardless of what Putin’s real intentions are, who should determine the fate of Crimea? -

Read related post: http://gelsantosrelos.typepad.com/my-blog/2014/03/no-to-us-involvement-in-conflict-between-russia-and-ukraine.html

"NO" to US involvement in conflict between Russia and Ukraine

By Gel Santos Relos

 

U.S. President Barack Obama's leadership in the global arena faces new challenges with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Russia vs Ukraine crisis. (Photo credit: Foxnews)

WHEN news broke that Russia deployed troops to Ukraine, most Americans, including kababayans, cried “ENOUGH” to wars. They would not want the U.S. to act as “Big Brother” or “Global Police” anymore to help Ukraine.

“Americans are more likely than not to say that the United States has no responsibility to get involved in Ukraine, even under extreme circumstances,” said a new poll by Huffington Post/YouGov, which was conducted from March 1-2.

Forty-six percent of the respondents said the U.S. should NOT be held responsible for protecting Ukraine in the event of a Russian invasion; only 18 percent of Americans said America should be responsible. Thirty-six percent of those surveyed were unsure of their position.

Kababayans expressed a more definitive vote: 73 percent of Balitang America's viewers opposed the U.S.' involvement in the Russia vs Ukraine crisis.

In terms of political leaning, based on the survey: Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike agree that it is not America's responsibility to protect Ukraine.

This sentiment is understandable, given that Americans are still hurting because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the nation’s debt and budget deficit problems, many say that scarce resources should be appropriated toward helping the economy grow, as well as financing social services and infrastructure development.

But as CNN reported, the standoff between Russia and Ukraine has a significant effect in global markets. It has raised oil prices since Russia is a key exporter of oil and natural gas.

Meantime, Republicans blame President Barack Obama’s failed foreign policy, for this escalating conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

In an interview with CNN, Sen. John McCain said the U.S. has lost its credibility as a Superpower, when it did not attack Syria but crossed the “red line,” following the Assad regime’s massacre of its own people. Obama chose tot be diplomatic instead and averted war.

Sen. McCain also criticized the Obama administration for scaling down the military force. The senator argued that it was a move that further weakened America’s standing as a Superpower in the world, and further embolden leaders (like Russian President Vladimir Putin) because ““nobody believes in America’s strength anymore.”

McCain further said that military action should not be ruled out in dealing with this crisis.

The U.S. and many European countries demand that Moscow scale back its deployment of troops in Ukraine's southern region of Crimea, or face sanctions and isolation as a consequence.  Putin warned that any sanctions the West places on Russia will backfire.

In a press conference in Moscow, Putin blamed the West for anarchy in Ukraine, accusing it of encouraging an unconstitutional coup in the country. 

These were Putin's first remarks, when Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych fled Kyiv last month and landed in Russia. Ukraine's new government wants to put Pres. Yanukovych on trial, for the deaths of over 80 people during protests in Kyiv.

Russia says its soldiers are protecting the human rights of worried, vulnerable Russian speakers from the interim government in Ukraine.

 From America's and the European Union's  perspective, Russia is violating international law.

The British Broadcasting Company (BBC) reported on Tuesday that Pres. Putin have pulled his forces back from the Ukrainian border on Tuesday, but Moscow said reserves the right to use all means to protect Russians there.

BBC reports that tensions remained high Tuesday in the strategic Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea, with troops loyal to Moscow firing warning shots to ward off protesting Ukrainian soldiers.

For a deeper understanding of the issue, let me share with you this primer by CNN:

 

What does Russia want to achieve?

CNN commentators suggested that Putin has overplayed his hand by sending troops into Crimea, creating a situation that will hurt both Ukraine and Russia. Others say it's a calculated move, based on the assessment that the West will fail to come up with a strong, unified response.

"Putin's broader plan is to recreate some kind of 'Soviet Union lite,' a ring of countries under Moscow's control, with the goal of boosting Russia's geopolitical standing," wrote Ulrich Speck, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Europe think tank in Brussels.

If Putin gets what he wants in Ukraine, Speck says it augurs badly for other neighboring countries with Russian populations. He points to Moscow's "de facto-annexation" of the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, after the war between Russia and Georgia in 2008.

"Beyond Ukraine, this conflict is also a defining moment for future Russian foreign policy." Speck says.

"If Moscow succeeds in Ukraine, it will come to the conclusion that it can act like an empire," he added.

What is Ukraine saying?

Ukraine's Interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk (who has accused Moscow of declaring war) vowed that his government will not give up Crimea.

"Nobody will give Crimea away," he said. "There are no grounds for the use of force against civilians and Ukrainians, and for the entry of the Russian military contingent."

Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko said that if diplomacy fails to persuade Moscow to withdraw its forces from the Ukrainian region of Crimea, the world should apply the "strongest means" on Russia.

Asked by CNN’s Christaine Amanpour if she was calling for the West to use military force against Russia, Tymoshenko avoided giving a direct answer, saying she "cannot solve this issue."

Russia says that ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, whom Moscow still recognizes as the country's legitimate leader, requested that Russia send in military forces.

What is the atmosphere like in Crimea?

Reporters on the ground say the standoff is a strange one. Russian soldiers, who are not wearing any military insignia, have taken up positions around the region. They have blockaded Ukrainian troops in their bases. But for the time being, the situation remains surprisingly calm.

It has been "a very low-key kind of invasion," CNN correspondent Diana Magnay reported Monday from Simferopol, the Crimean capital.

But Russian forces "have complete operational control of the Crimean peninsula," a senior US administration official told CNN.

It appears that there is a "war of information" in the region "between those who watch Russian state TV and those who are getting their news from the West, none of them listening to the calls from Kiev for unity in this country," Magnay reported.

BEWARE: You can be sentenced to 20+ years in jail for misbehaving in flight!

By Gel Santos Relos

on Asian Journal Op-Ed

 

Unruly Pinoy Passenger Aboard PAL (Photot credit: Balitang America)

 

MANY Filipinos in America prefer to fly Philippine Airlines (PAL) when visiting the Motherland, not only because of the shorter travel time, but also because they feel at home flying the flag carrier of the Philippines.

One kababayan felt so at home, he might just spend the next 20 years of his life in jail.

As Balitang America’s LA Correspondent Steve Angeles reported, a Pinoy passenger was arrested by authorities for an alleged drunken rampage on board a US-bound PAL flight.

The 53-year-old, California-based security guard Edgar Nonga admitted to federal authorities that he already had four alcoholic drinks at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) lounge before boarding PAL flight  PR 112 bound for Los Angeles.

Upon boarding, Nonga (who visited relatives in the Philippines with his parents) helped himself to a bottle of whiskey, which he saw in the plane’s galley. The PAL crew decided to cut him off, which caused an altercation between them and Nonga.

According to a witness testimony in a federal affidavit, Nonga began cursing at flight attendants in Tagalog. He even threatened to have one killed if they did not give him another drink.

Some witnesses claim Nonga then attempted to kiss the female flight attendant, who tried to make him stop drinking. A male flight attendant (identified as RL) came to the rescue and stopped Nonga from harassing his co-worker.

This enraged Nonga even more. He began punching the male flight attendant in the torso and head.One testimony claims Nonga was even holding a key as if it were a knife, during the alleged punching spree.

Crew members were finally able to restrain Nonga and have him return to his seat. Nonga’s mother, who was very frustrated with her intoxicated and misbehaving son, then spoke to the attendants and told them to “do what they have to do” because Nonga wasn’t listening to his parents either.

Nonga then came back for more action, eventually punching RL again. With the help of passengers and other crew members, Nonga was restrained again, until the plane reached its destination.

Nonga was arrested upon touchdown of flight PR 112 in Los Angeles on Sunday morning.

He now faces federal charges for disrupting a flight crew. If proven guilty, Nonga may spend the next 20 years of his life in prison  — the maximum sentence for this kind of offense.

During the investigation and according to the federal affidavit, Nonga admitted to being drunk on the plane and to helping himself to whiskey when he saw a bottle in the galley. However, he told investigators that he does not remember punching RL (the male flight attendant) nor does he remember trying to kiss a female flight attendant.

Nonga said that he recalls being pinned down, waking up handcuffed and sitting next to a big man for the final six hours of the flight.

Nonga is a former US navy man, who claims that he has no history of being diagnosed with any mental illness and that he was honorably discharged from the Navy. Officials, however, say Nongo was arrested for drunk driving in 2010.

His federal public defender declined to comment on the case.

Nonga has been set free on a $10,000 bail. He is scheduled to appear in federal court on April 1, during which time he is expected to plead guilty or not guilty.

WHAT Nonga did wrong  (and this would have to be proven in court during the trial) was to interfere with the duties of a crew member, when he behaved badly inflight. This in violation of federal law.

Federal Aviation Regulations 91.11, 121.580 and 135.120 state that: “No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember’s duties aboard an aircraft being operated.”

The Federal Aviation Authority website even stipulates :

“The repercussions for passengers who engage in unruly behavior can be substantial. They can be fined by FAA or prosecuted on criminal charges.

As part of the FAA’s Reauthorization Bill (April 16, 2000) FAA can propose up to $25,000 per violation for unruly passenger cases. Previously, the maximum civil penalty per violation was $1,100. One incident can result in multiple violations.

So the next time you fly, be sure to behave well. If you cannot handle your alcohol well, don’t even drink. Let Nonga’s inflight misadventure be a lesson learned.

- See more at: http://asianjournal.com/editorial/you-can-be-sentenced-to-20-years-in-jail-for-misbehaving-in-flight/#sthash.JU9QdUM6.dpuf