As the “war against terrorism” which was firstly proclaimed by former U.S. President George Walker Bush is not over yet, the successor Barrack Obama is now the person who has high responsibility, especially in answering the American and the whole world’s question about the time to withdraw the American troops from Afghanistan and send them back home. Obama said that actually there is a lot of obsession about the withdrawal date for U.S. troops from there, and now he is focussing himself to make sure that the mission there is successful. It seems like Obama is so frustrated about the development occur in Afghanistan, whereas the war against terrorism proclaimed by his ancestor has brought him into the complicated situation. This condition was shown when he closed press conference at the G-20 summit in Toronto, where industrialized countries commited to slash their budget deficits in half by 2013. Even being frustrated, Obama still defends his war strategy and claims that U.S. will assist the Afghans for a long time to come. He will still go upon the dismissal of the top commander he did last week. “I don’t have a crystal ball,” the President said when asked about a five year Afghanistan exit strategy by the Group of Eight major industrial democracies.
Actually, how the development goes in Afghanistan recently? Jake Tapper reported that CIA Director Leon Panetta said that making progress in Afghanistan is both harder and going more slowly than anticipated. “There are some serious problems in Afghanistan,” Panetta said. He described that the U.S. must deal with tribal society and also the whole country that has problems with governance, problems with corruption, problems with narcotics trafficking, and also problems with a Taliban insurgency. However, with such condition, CIA Director Leon Panetta still claimed that a progression has been made in Afghanistan, eventhough it is slower than anyone can anticipate. Moreover the violence is increasing there. Panetta also said that the strategy used now is the right one, and the key to success or failure is whether the Afghans accept responsibility, are able to deploy an effective army and police force to maintain stability. If they can do that, Panetta is sure that everyone there will be able to achieve the kind of progress and the kind of stability that the President is after. In the other side, U.S. President Barrack Obama said that the debate surrounding Afghanistan is still going on, but he can not do anything because it is not that easy to withdraw the troops immediately just like the whole world hope. He also reiterated that July 2011 date to begin withdrawing the troops does not mean that U.S. will totally leave that country.
The Oil Spill Costs Have Reached $2.65 Billion
Since April 20, BP has been the cover of the media top stories because of the oil spill that has caused not only environmental disaster, but also economic disaster. Besides, this case also threatens fisheries, tourism, and wildlife. The thing that has made this oil spill case even worse is that the tropical storm Alex which has moved into the gulf, so the cleanup operation will be much more difficult. The forecasters from the U.S. National Hurricane Center said that Alex could become a hurricane in the next 48 hours. It is predicted that Alex will make landfall as a hurricane on Wednesday between Brownsville, Texas, and Tuxpan de Rodriguez Cano in Mexico. The oil spill itself has hit Louisiana’s fragile wetland but Mississippi has escaped damage until Sunday although some oil had tainted its barrier islands. Reuters reporter Jerry Norton reported that the oil has also come ashore in Alabama and Florida’s Gulf Coast. As the responsibility taken, BP said that it had spent $300 million on its Gulf of Mexico oil spill response effort the past three days, so it means that BP has spent $100 million a day, bringing its total bill to $2.65 billion so far. According to the report of Tom Bergin, that statement was released on Monday, and the expense include the cost of trying to cap the well, clean up the damage environment caused by the leaking crude, and pay compensation to those who has been affected by the oil spill. It has received more than 80,000 claims and made more than 40,000 payment.
Beside all the cost it has been paid so far, BP also stated that it remained on track to complete its relief well to kill the leaking one at the point it meets the reservoir, in the three month timeframe initially envisaged, despite progress slowing on the well in recent days. Well, this case is full of political movement, especially from the government and also the giant energy company. However, the effect is getting wider because the spill threatens the other aspects. Foxnews reported that Gulf Coast states are gearing up to follow shirmpers and hotel owners in seeking payouts from BP PLC for lost revenue and other damages stemming from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. So much money has been spent by the British giant energy company as a responsibility for the disaster. Not only the cleanup process it has to help to the affected areas but also some other things like promoting tourism and building sand berms off the coast of Louisiana. Because of the oil spill washed ashore at one of the largest tourist beaches in Mississippi on Monday, the tourists who was having their good time there were forced to pack their bags and evacuate the shore.
The Boycotters of the Boycotted in Arizona
There is always a problem between immigrants and the government. Although it does not happen in every country, this kind of problem makes even the President can not sleep well because the immigrants also have rights to survive in their new land. Talking about immigrants, it is surely unseparatable with the documents they must have in order to be able to live and work at their destination land. In Arizona, this kind of problem especially dealing with the undocumented workers has entered a new period. Foxnews reports that the Supreme Court is entering the nation’s charged debate over immigration, agreeing to hear the challenge from business and civil liberties groups to an Arizona law that cracks down on employers who hire undocumented workers. The justices accepted an appeal from the Chamber of Commerce, American Civil Liberties, Union and others to a lower court ruling that upheld Arizona’s law. The measure requires employers to verify the eligibility of prospective employees through a federal database called E-verify and imposes sanctions on companies that knowingly hire undocumented workers. So it means that the government want to assure the companies that they had better to hire the legally documented workers or employees, so they can reduce the negative possibilities which can happen anytime. The law is separated from the recently adopted Arizona immigration law that is intended to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona and also is being challenged as unconstitutional.
This law itself has been critized by President Barrack Obama, which stated that the law at issue in the case is different from the strict new Arizona immigration law passed earlier this year that requires the police to determine the immigration status of any person which is suspected of being in the country illegally. As reported by Reuters, the Obama administration last month has urged the Supreme Court to rule that the 2007 law was preempted by federal immigration rules and would disrupt the careful legal balance that the U.S. Congress struck nearly 25 years ago. The Arizona law suspends or revokes the licenses to do business in the state to penalize the employers who are illegally hire immigrants or undocumented workers. The employers are also required to use an electronic verification system to check the work authorization status of employees through federal records. However, the undocumented employees or illegal workers who come mostly from the immigrant have to resist their will to get freely work in Arizona, because the lawmakers’ attention is now fully focused on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. As a near state with Mexico, Arizona has surely its own problem with immigrants. So that is why the immigrants have been the major issue for years. The challenger of Arizona employer sanctions law does not only come from the Chamber of Commerce, but also from the American Civil Liberties Union and several immigration groups. These opponents urged the Supreme Court to make clear that the federal government sets national immigration policy and to reject the patchwork of state and local immigration laws, including the one in Arizona.