Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Friday, May 26, 2017

Cabinet reshuffle creates new problems

Cabinet reshuffle creates new problems
May 26, 2017

Leaving alone solving the existing problems, the cabinet reshuffle of the ‘Yahapaalana’ government has created new problems. It was widely expected that ministers who had been a failure, would lose their positions. But nothing of the sort happened, and only a change of heads occurred.

The new trouble is over the ministers, who have had their portfolios changed, are unwilling to let go of their previous affiliate departments and corporations. Although Ravi Karunanayake left the finance ministry, he had asked, even prior to the cabinet reshuffle, that certain institutions coming under that ministry be attached to his new ministry, foreign affairs, and the prime minister has agreed to that. Accordingly, National Lotteries Board, Development Lotteries Board, SriLankan Airlines, Elkaduwa Plantations and some other institutions are to be given to the foreign ministry, but the relevant gazette notification is yet to be issued. That is because the president has refused to approve that.
In the meantime, the secretary and other top officials in the foreign ministry are reportedly trying to avoid responsibility for the institutions to be newly-attached. That is because the foreign ministry and its institutions are tasked with huge responsibilities, while those to be added are directly involved with the economy. Previously too, when Rohitha Bogollagama was the foreign minister, ministry officials refused to accept responsibility for the institutions coming under his added portfolio of investment promotion. If such a situation occurs, those institutions will have to be come under a separate ministry.
Meanwhile, new lands and parliamentary affairs minister Gayantha Karunatilake has asked that he be allowed to retain the State Printing Department and the State Printing Corporation, which are under his previous portfolio, media. It is a question as to how those institutions qualify to come under his new ministry.
In the event Ravi is given the institutions coming under finance, Gayantha will have to be given what he asks for from the media. If that happens, finance and media minister Mangala Samaraweera will be left with signing the newly-printed currency notes, presenting the annual budget to parliament, holding briefings and issuing statements to the media.
DFT-12-30

logoSaturday, 27 May 2017

India’s new INR 16,210 million ($ 250.9 million) plan to enable Tamil Nadu fishermen to exit fishing in the Palk Bay in three years from this year could end its decades-long row with Sri Lanka over poaching in Sri Lankan waters.

Announced by the Governments of India and Tamil Nadu on Tuesday, it is a three-year scheme to supply 2000 deep sea going tuna long liners to Tamil Nadu fishermen between 2017 and 2020 so that they stop poaching in Sri Lankan waters in the Palk Bay, and go to the deep sea in the Bay of Bengal and beyond into the Indian Ocean.

An order issued by the Tamil Nadu Government in Chennai said that in the first phase (from 2017 to 2018) 500 tuna long liners cum gill netters will be made available at a total cost of INR 4050 million ($ 62.6 million). The cost will be shared by the Governments of India and Tamil Nadu with the Central Government giving INR 2 billion ($ 30.8 million), the Tamil Nadu Government putting in INR 850 million ($ 13 million) and the beneficiaries putting in INR 400 million ($ 6.1 million). The institutional funding (from banks) will be INR 800 million ($ 12.3 million).

In the second phase (2018-2019), another 500 boats will be supplied. In the third and final phase, 1000 boats will be delivered at the same cost.
Untitled-1
The total liability for the Indian Government will be INR 8 billion ($ 123.8 million), and for the Tamil Nadu Government it will be INR 3.2 billion ($ 49.5 million). The fisher beneficiaries will be providing INR 1.6 billion ($ 24.7 million). Institutional borrowing will be INR 3200 million ($ 49.5 million) and the subsistence allowance for the families will be INR 210 million ($ 3.2 million).

As indicated above, the Tamil Nadu Government will play a monthly subsistence allowance to the families of fishermen who have opted to switch over from trawlers to deep sea fishing boats.

This step had to be taken as the fishermen of the south Indian state had been experiencing anxiety over the frequent apprehension of their boats by the Sri Lankan authorities while fishing in the Palk Bay, a Government statement said. It also noted that the fishermen had themselves said that they were ready to switch to deep sea fishing if given three years’ time to do that.

Relief to Sri Lanka

The latest measure will bring great relief to Sri Lanka. Minister for Fisheries Mahinda Amaraweera has said many times that the island nation loses Rs. 9 billion ($ 59 million) a year, due to poaching by Tamil Nadu fishermen. To prevent this, he threatened to slap a heavy fine up to Rs. 150 million ($ 980,000) per vessel.

To deter Tamil Nadu fishermen from crossing the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL) and poaching in Sri Lankan waters, the Sri Lankan Government introduced the practice of seizing their boats and not releasing them. As on date, there are over 130 Tamil Nadu boats in Sri Lankan custody. While the crew are released on humanitarian grounds on appeal from the Government of India, the boats are not.

This has reduced encroachment, but has not eliminated it by any means. The fact is, Tamil Nadu fishermen have no option but to poach in Sri Lankan waters as they have fully exhausted the resources on the Indian side of the IMBL.

Because these trawlers had cost their owners several hundreds of thousands of Indian rupees, they had been consistently and loudly demanding the return of the boats. But to no avail. This was partly because the Indian Government also believed that seizure of the boats and their non-release had brought down encroachment markedly.

The Tamil Nadu fishermen would deny that they crossed the IMBL and would charge that the Sri Lankan Navy attacked them in Indian waters near Kachchativu. They would also argue that they had the right to fish in Sri Lankan waters as per the 1974 India-Sri Lanka Agreement which allowed fishermen of the two countries to exercise their “traditional rights”. But the Tamil Nadu fishermen would conveniently forget that the subsequent 1976 Agreement had nullified this right.

In 2003, the Tamil Nadu Government proposed “licensed fishing” in certain areas of the Palk Strait and Palk Bay where Sri Lankans did not fish. New Delhi took it up with Colombo. The Sri Lankan Government promised to consider it, but there was no follow up.

Jayalalithaa’s

proposal implemented

The Indian and Tamil Nadu Governments’ scheme regarding switching over to deep sea fishing announced this week is only a follow-up of the proposals put forward, and even partially implemented, by the late J. Jayalalithaa from 2011 onwards, when she was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.

Sadly, it has taken the Indian Government six years to respond to her fervent pleas for financial help. Replacing an estimated 2,000 trawlers with multi-day ocean-going boats is not an easy thing to do. It needs finances to buy the boats, train the fishermen and provide the right kind of harbours and technical infrastructure.

When the expected finances did not come from the Union Government, Jayalalithaa started implementing her own scheme. In the 2011 Tamil Nadu budget, she proposed a subsidy of 25% for conversion and in the 2013 budget, she hiked it to 50%. She also sought INR 15,200 million ($ 235.2 million) as grant from the Indian Government for her scheme.

Under the Tamil Nadu scheme, 171 tuna long liners were built by mid-2016.

Tamil Nadu has now got more than it had asked for, namely, INR. 16,210 million ($ 250.9 million). But there is now a need to see that the scheme is implemented. The Union Government should release the funds on time, the Tamil Nadu Government should implement it, and the fishermen should show enthusiasm for the conversion and shed their fear of the deep blue sea.

Vigilance on the part of the Indian, Tamil Nadu and Sri Lankan Governments is called for, as international studies show that fishermen tend to go back to seas and techniques familiar to them even after a “switching over”. The success rate of a switchover to deep sea fishing, internationally, is said to be only 5%.

Basically, it will be the Tamil Nadu Government’s responsibility to see the conversion through, and for that it needs the necessary political will to discipline and motivate the fishermen who are not easy to deal with.

SRI LANKA IN A BALANCING ACT OVER CHINA’S ONE BELT, ONE ROAD PROJECT


Indian PM Modi in jubilant mood with Sri Lankan leaders--Sri Lanka PM with Chinese President

Sri Lanka BriefBy Pradeep Ramanayake/WSWS.-26/05/2017

While participating in last week’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) forum in Beijing, Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe walked a tight rope: seeking economic and other benefits from China while maintaining close relations with its rivals, the US and India.

The forum was held amid heightening tensions between China and the US, together with Washington’s major South Asian ally, India. The US and several European powers decided to send only second-tier delegations to the forum while India boycotted it.

The gathering was attended by the heads of 29 states and 1,500 delegates representing 130 nations, NGOs, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The OBOR project, initiated by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013, is a development strategy, focussed on a land-based “Silk Road Economic Belt” and an oceanic “Maritime Silk Road” between China and Europe.

China’s ambitious scheme is also part of a strategic response to counter the aggressive encirclement pursued by the US and its allies, while opening up further trade and investment opportunities for Chinese capitalism.

Speaking at the second day session of the OBOR Leaders’ Roundtable, Wickremesinghe said: “The Belt and Road Initiative will provide the much-needed hard and soft connectivity in the Indian Ocean region required for rapid economic and social development.” He insisted: “History has shown that peace and ‘freedom of navigation’ in the Indian Ocean always resulted in economic growth and prosperity.”

“Freedom of navigation” is the pretext used by Washington to instigate provocations against China in the South and East China Seas and more broadly in the Indian Ocean. Washington has been trying to block Chinese influence across these highly strategic waters with the help of India, which has become a frontline state against China by hosting facilities for the US Seventh Fleet.

Under the government of Wickremesinghe and President Maithripala Sirisena, Sri Lanka has sided with the strategic interests of the US and India. Just two days before Wickremesinghe left for Beijing, Reuters reported that Sri Lanka rejected China’s request to dock a submarine in the Colombo port this month.
Wickremesinghe tried to appease Washington and New Delhi by declaring categorically that the Colombo establishment is only interested in “the economic benefits” to be achieved by joining Beijing’s project.

Wickremesinghe said Sri Lanka could be an economic hub within the OBOR program, adding: 
“Similarly, the success of this initiative and the hub will also depend on the maintenance of long-term stability in the Indian Ocean by promoting ‘peaceful and non-military’ cooperation.”

Both the US and Indian elites were anxious about the growing ties between Sri Lanka and China under Sirisena’s predecessor Mahinda Rajapakse and were intent on drawing the island into their strategic orbit, particularly after the Obama administration’s declaration of a “pivot to Asia” to combat China’s rise. As a result, Rajapakse was ousted in a regime-change operation engineered by Washington and supported by New Delhi. Via a presidential election, Sirisena and Wickremesinghe were installed in January 2015.

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government took immediate steps to suspend a number of major Chinese-funded projects inaugurated during Rajapakse’s rule. Within months, however, their cash-strapped government was forced to beg Beijing, not only to restart the projects, including the Colombo port city, but to provide new investments to overcome acute balance of payments and debt problems.

That is why Wickremesinghe, in his speech at the OBOR forum, said: “Furthermore, Sri Lanka is strengthening financial connectivity by establishing an offshore financial center in the Port City, which is a Real Estate Development project commenced under the Belt and Road Initiative.”

The predicament faced by the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government was outlined in a Sunday Times editorial on May 21. It said: “With the anticipated inflow of funds not forthcoming from the West, despite a new government more amenable to it here in Sri Lanka, it is becoming clearer that this country’s economic future rests on the broad shoulders of India and China.”

With Washington’s full blessing, India’s right-wing government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has assumed the role of chief policeman in the South Asian region. New Delhi uses its political and economic influence to dictate political terms to every neighbouring country. The Sri Lankan government is caught up in this maelstrom.

In the same week that the OBOR forum met in Beijing, Modi paid his second visit to Sri Lanka in two years. Wickremesinghe attended the forum just after receiving Modi in Colombo.

New Delhi is following the manoeuvres of the Colombo government with utmost vigilance because it sees the relationship re-developing between Sri Lanka and China as a challenge to its own great power ambitions in the region.

The Press Trust of India (PTI) reported that Sri Lankan Minister of Special Assignments Sarath Amunugama, who accompanied Wickremesinghe to Beijing, made a naive attempt to pacify India. 

Amunugama said: “Chinese President Xi Jinping has emphasised connectivity. These countries were connected many centuries ago. Once the regional problems are resolved, then India has to play a big role in the initiative.” He added: “India, anyway, has to play a big role because you cannot think of a belt and road without going over and close to India.”

Justifying India’s boycott of the forum, Amunugama said: “Here especially the Kashmir issue getting dragged into it, makes it difficult for India to be flexible.”

The “Kashmir issue” is the disputed border that had led to many military clashes over the past 70 years between India and Pakistan. The origins of the conflict lie in the arbitrary division of the Indian sub-continent into India and Pakistan, on the basis of Hindu and Muslim religious communalism, in 1947. This was part of the so-called independence deal worked out between the British imperialists and the local Hindu and Muslim bourgeoisie.

India has raised objections to a $US50 billion project to be built as part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to connect Chinese Xinjiang to Gwadar port in Pakistan. The corridor passes through parts of Pakistani-occupied Kashmir, which India claims as Indian territory.

According to the PTI report, Amunugama also lamented his government’s predicament. “We are caught up in a debt crisis,” he said. Sri Lanka is facing a problem of debt repayment.”

Sri Lanka’s fraught stance at the OBOR forum highlights the tensions gripping the South Asian region as a result of US imperialism’s aggressive push against China. Since coming to power three years ago, Modi’s government has been placing India at the forefront of US military preparations to confront China.

However, all the governments in India’s neighbouring countries—Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Maldives and Sri Lanka—are in dire economic difficulties. China has allocated a credit line of $124 billion for OBOR projects, thus ensuring each country would accept Beijing’s invitation to participate.

Israel treats prisoners worse than apartheid, says Robben Island veteran


Adri Nieuwhof-25 May 2017

On 15 May, many South Africans fasted in solidarity with more than 1,300 Palestinian prisoners who have been on hunger strike in Israeli prisons to demand their basic rights.

Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa, more than a dozen members of the government, trade union leaders, icons of the liberation struggle, celebrities and others joined the one-day fast, sending a powerful message of support to imprisoned Palestinians.

During apartheid, South African political prisoners also used hunger strikes to protest their inhumane conditions.

The prisoners on Robben Island, where Nelson MandelaAhmed Kathrada and other leaders were held, were forced to work in a lime quarry in all weather with unsuitable clothing, insufficient food and violent prison guards.

Mandela and his fellow prisoners launched a protest hunger strike in 1966.

Their prison commander felt compelled to address the grievances after only a week, former Robben Island prisoner Sunny Singh recalls.

But now, even as the Palestinian mass hunger strike approaches 40 days, many prisoners have been hospitalized, and yet Israeli prison authorities are refusing to negotiate.

Instead, Israel has reacted with punitive brutality, including placing leaders in solitary confinement.

Struggle “for every imaginable thing”

The situation of the Palestinian prisoners reminds the older generation in South Africa of their past.

Singh, who participated in the 1966 hunger strike, spent 10 years on Robben Island for his involvement in Umkhonto we Sizwe, the military wing of the African National Congress.

I worked with Singh when he acted as the ANC’s representative to the Netherlands.

The demands of the Palestinian prisoners are the same as the political prisoners on Robben Island, Singh wrote in an article for the South African newspaper [Sunday Tribune].

“For us on Robben Island in the early 1960s, there was a struggle for every imaginable thing – against abuse, and for clothing, blankets, medicine, visits – but most importantly, it was a constant struggle for food,” Singh recalls.

“We were beaten by our captors, but never experienced the type of abuse and torture that some of the Palestinian prisoners complain of. It was rare that we were put in solitary confinement, but this seems commonplace in Israeli jails,” Singh adds.

Singh recalls that the hunger strikes were “always successful” and never lasted more than a week before prison authorities addressed the grievances.

He observes that when so many Palestinian prisoners have engaged in such a protracted hunger strike, it means that “they are not only resolute, but they are desperate.”

Singh urges Israel and the world to listen to the prisoners’ demands: “Even political prisoners have basic human rights.”

Robben Island prisoners also shared their grievances with International Committee of the Red Cross representatives.

But the “Red Cross never seemed to take the grievances seriously, which made us quite suspicious,” Singh writes. His criticism may sound familiar to Palestinian prisoners and their families.

Global solidarity

My friend and colleague Dr. Bangani Ngeleza grew up under South African apartheid.

“I am a child of an ANC freedom fighter who was imprisoned on Robben Island for 10 years by the apartheid regime,” he wrote to me. “I join millions of freedom-loving people around the world in supporting the stance taken by Palestinian freedom fighters languishing in Israeli jails to embark on a hunger strike.”

Ngeleza added that the decision to go on hunger strike “represents the highest level of commitment and bravery in asserting one’s dignity and human rights.”

He urges Palestinians to “find solace in the knowledge that there can be no permanence to a system that’s based on injustice and subjugation.”

Meanwhile, solidarity fasts and events are being organized in many countries to draw attention to Israel’s continued violations of the basic rights of Palestinian prisoners.

And the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), which spearheads the global boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, has renewed its calls for urgent action in support of a comprehensive military embargo on Israel.

The BNC states: “As long as military ties continue, the international community is effectively sending Israel a clear message of approval to continue its severe violations of international law, including its violations of basic prisoners’ rights.”

Canadian forced to give birth in Gaza still fighting to get home


Bissan Eid gave birth to her first child, Sarah, in southern Gaza, several months after Israel blocked her from leaving the Palestinian territory

A crippling Israeli-Egyptian blockade of Gaza has led to daily power outages, a lack of medicine and strict restrictions on entering and leaving (Courtesy: Hadi Eid)

Jillian D'Amours's picture
Jillian D'Amours-Friday 26 May 2017

MONTREAL, Canada – The family of a Canadian woman who was forced to give birth in the Gaza Strip earlier this month is calling on Ottawa to intervene to bring her and her newborn daughter home.
Bissan Eid, 24, gave birth to her first child, Sarah, on May 11 in Khan Younis in southern Gaza, several months after she first attempted to leave the beseiged coastal Palestinian territory.
“We are worried about Bissan,” her father, Hadi Eid, told Middle East Eye on Friday.
“We are worried about her health, about her baby’s health. We need our daughter [to] come back and live a normal life here with us.”
A Canadian citizen whose family is Palestinian from the Gaza Strip, Bissan first went to Gaza in June 2016 to get married and visit relatives.
But when she tried to leave, Israel did not grant her a permit to exit Gaza through the Erez border crossing it controls. From there, Bissan had planned to travel to Jordan and fly to Canada.
We need the Canadian government not to discriminate [against] Bissan because of her place of birth, because she’s Palestinian and she’s from Gaza
 - Hadi Eid, Bissan's father
After it became clear she would not be allowed to leave, Bissan was forced to give birth in Gaza.
A crippling Israeli-Egyptian blockade has led to daily power outages, a lack of medicine and other resources, and strict restrictions on freedom of movement in and out of the territory.
The local medical system is under severe strain, and hospitals struggle to meet residents’ needs.
While Bissan had an assisted delivery, her daughter was born healthy, Eid said.
But her protracted struggle to get back to Canada has left her feeling frustrated and alone, her father said.
“She feels so pressured. She’s waiting, waiting, waiting, and she gets frustrated all the time [by] the Canadian government. She feels like she’s left alone in Gaza and no one is asking about her,” Eid said.
The situation also caused Bissan to miss the entire second year in a master’s degree she was pursuing in civil engineering at Concordia University in Montreal.
The Concordia Student Union issued a public call last month for Canadian lawmakers to do more to bring Bissan back, and a petition to that effect has garnered more than 1,350 signatures to date.

‘Treat her as a Canadian’

Originally from Gaza, Eid came to Canada in 2000, and received Canadian citizenship four years later. His family members, including Bissan, were granted Canadian citizenship in 2005.
Eid said the Canadian representative office in Ramallah, which provides consular services in the occupied Palestinian territories, had pledged to help Bissan leave Gaza after her baby was born.
But Eid said the office recently told Bissan that she needed to secure permits for herself and her daughter to enter Jordan, before she would be able to leave Gaza.
“This complicated the situation because to get permission [for] the baby, she needed to make a Palestinian passport,” he said, adding that Bissan also applied for a Canadian passport for her daughter.
Read more ►
He said the situation raises a question as to why Bissan and her daughter, who are Canadian citizens, need visas in advance to enter Jordan, while that is not a requirement for all Canadians.
“Canadians don’t need permission to go to Jordan. They get the visa at the airport… If any Canadian can go to Jordan without a visa, why [do] Bissan and her baby need a visa?” Eid asked.
The Canadian government, he concluded, has shown in his daughter’s case that it “approves [of] the discrimination against Palestinians” exhibited by both the Jordanian and Israeli authorities.
A spokesperson for Global Affairs Canada said the department “is aware that a Canadian Citizen is seeking assistance to depart Gaza”.
“Consular officials are assisting the individual and providing updated information on how to leave the region,” Kristine Racicot told MEE in a brief emailed statement.
A spokesperson for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada said the department could not divulge any specifics about the case without a consent form signed by Bissan.
Meanwhile, Eid said he has not been contacted directly by any officials in Canada, adding that his family feels abandoned.
“We need the Canadian government to treat her as a Canadian,” Eid said.
“We need the Canadian government not to discriminate [against] Bissan because of her place of birth, because she’s Palestinian and she’s from Gaza.”

Late-night TV takes on Trump's 'toxic culture of hostility towards the press'

Comics, including Seth Meyers and Stephen Colbert, speak about the assault on a Guardian reporter and the problems with the Republican healthcare plan

 ‘The GOP healthcare plan is so bad, Republicans would rather body-slam reporters than answer a question about it’ … Seth Meyers. Photograph: YouTube

Friday 26 May 2017

Late-night hosts discussed the recent attack on the Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs after he asked Greg Gianforte, a Republican running for Congress in Montana, a question about the GOP healthcare plan.
On The Late Show, Stephen Colbert spoke about the CBO analysis of the proposal, which has, again, uncovered deep-rooted problems. “They were so excited about providing the affordable healthcare to everyone that they didn’t wait to find out if they were providing affordable healthcare to anyone,” he said.
The report found that 23 million people would be without healthcare if the plan goes ahead. “To put that into perspective, if you laid 23 million people end to end, they would reach a country where you can get healthcare,” Colbert said.

He then joked: “I think the GOP repealed and replaced your grandpa.”

He then brought up Gianforte, who “body-slammed” Jacobs after he asked him about the problems attached to the CBO assessment. “I just don’t know how anyone could vote for a candidate who body-slams people,” Colbert said, before playing a clip of Donald Trump taking down Vince McMahon at WrestleMania some years ago.

“I forgot, nothing matters,” the host then said.

Colbert then played the campaign ads of Gianforte and his Democratic rival Rob Quist, both of which featured them using guns. “Guys, please stop shooting things,” he said. “Just cut out the metaphorical middle-man and have a penis sword fight.”

On Late Night with Seth Meyers, the host spoke about Trump’s strange array of handshakes, most recently deployed on his foreign trip. “He grabbed it like he was going to keep it,” he said. “If you get a body part close enough to Trump, he thinks it’s a gift.”
He continued: “Let’s face it. Trump is so happy that someone will finally hold his hand.”

Meyers then discussed the clip of Trump pushing the Montengrin prime minister, DuÅ¡ko Marković, out of the way to get to the front of a group of Nato leaders. “Trump’s idea of presidential is trying to get to the conference room before the free pizza is gone,” he said.

The House speaker, Paul Ryan, has been on the defensive this week, trying to reassure people that everything is going well within the Republican party. “It’s not good when you have to tell people, unprompted, that the government is not in chaos,” he said. “That’s like getting an all-caps text from an ex at 3am that says I’M DOING FINE!”

He then moved onto the Gianforte assault. “The GOP healthcare plan is so bad, Republicans would rather body-slam reporters than answer a question about it,” he said.

Gianforte’s initial statement criticized Jacobs for asking him questions in the first place. Meyers said: 

“You can’t become a veterinarian and then go, ‘You’re not going to believe this: some guy just walked in my office and brought in a sick cat!’”

Meyers felt that the support for Jacobs from a Fox News reporter, who corroborated his account, had been a surprise. “Well, here’s a sentence I never thought I’d say: thank you, Fox News, for telling us the truth,” he said.

Meyers then spoke about Trump’s “toxic culture of hostility towards the free press” and used examples of other Republicans acting aggressively towards journalists.
Finally, on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, the host spoke about Trump’s difficulty with giving speeches, using the example of his many simplistic attempts on his foreign tour.

“When Trump gives these speeches, he reads from a script, which is a good idea,” he said. “He’s done that a lot on this trip, but I’ve noticed, though: it sounds a lot like a fourth-grade book report. He speaks very slowly and simply, not too bigly.”

Kimmel then used actual fourth-graders to recite his speeches.

The Debrief: An occasional series offering a reporter’s insights

Republican businessman Greg Gianforte won Montana's House seat a day after being charged with attacking a Guardian reporter. He gave an apology during his acceptance speech. (AP)

 

The angry forces that propelled President Trump’s rise are beginning to frame and define the rest of the Republican Party.

When GOP House candidate Greg Gianforte assaulted a reporter who had attempted to ask him a question Wednesday night in Montana, many saw not an isolated outburst by an individual, but the obvious, violent result of Trump’s charge that journalists are “the enemy of the people.” Nonetheless, Gianforte won Thursday’s special election to fill a safe Republican seat.

“Respectfully, I’d submit that the president has unearthed some demons,” Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) said. “I’ve talked to a number of people about it back home. They say, ‘Well, look, if the president can say whatever, why can’t I say whatever?’ He’s given them license.”

Trump — and specifically, his character and his conduct — now thoroughly dominate the national political conversation.

Traditional policy arguments over whether entitlement programs should be overhauled, or taxes cut, are regularly upstaged by a new burst of pyrotechnics.

Republican Greg Gianforte won Montana's special congressional election on May 25, a day after he was charged with assaulting a reporter. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

The dynamic is shaping the contours of this year’s smattering of special congressional elections and contests for governor, as well as the jockeying ahead of the 2018 midterm elections.
“It’s an entirely different atmosphere,” Michael Steele, a former Republican National Committee chairman, said. “The president isn’t ideological and ideology is no longer the anchor. So when reporters put microphones in candidates’ faces, they’re asking about the president, tweets, character, your moral outlook and not about a particular policy.”

Few Republicans expect party leaders to do anything to lessen the toxicity.

Charlie Sykes, a conservative former talk-show host in Wisconsin and author of the forthcoming “How the Right Lost Its Mind,” said “every time something like Montana happens, Republicans adjust their standards and put an emphasis on team loyalty. They normalize and accept previously unacceptable behavior.”

Those who still navigate by the old maps are having trouble staying on course.

Karen Handel, a conventional Republican running in next month’s special House election in Georgia, has railed against Obamacare, and campaigned alongside House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), who called her “tested and true.” But she has been scorched endlessly on television for her support of the president her Democratic opponent has claimed “embarrasses our country” and “acts recklessly.”
Other GOP candidates, emboldened by Trump’s success at shattering norms, have ventured further to test the limits of what the electorate can stomach.

Corey Stewart, a former state chairman for Trump’s presidential campaign, has embraced Confederate symbols as his gubernatorial bid has flailed in Virginia, horrifying party leaders ahead of the June 13 primary and forcing the GOP front-runner to respond.

His primary opponent, former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie, has seen his steady, well-funded campaign for governor all but drowned out recently by Stewart’s rage over the effort to remove Confederate statues from public spaces, which Stewart has said is proof that “ISIS has won.” Their primary clashes have been more over style and political correctness than any issue.

Gillespie has kept the edge. “Corey has labeled himself as Trump’s Mini-Me, but the mojo ain’t there,” Shaun Kenney, the former executive director of Virginia’s Republican Party, said earlier this year. But it remains to be seen whether Stewart has damaged the GOP brand for the general election.

Other polished exemplars of the establishment have struggled to set themselves apart.

Handel, a fixture of state politics, has seen suburban voters in her district, which has been in Republican hands since 1979, grow so uneasy about Trump that her once unknown Democratic challenger, Jon Ossoff, has taken the lead in polls.

Appealing to voters weary over Trump’s comportment, Ossoff has seized on Trump’s decision to fire James B. Comey as the FBI director investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential race.

But for some Republican contenders, Trump has been a model — nowhere more so than in deeply red Montana. Gianforte, a wealthy businessman, touted his full-throated support for the president and pledged to “drain the swamp” in his campaign against Rob Quist, a country music artist.

Gianforte’s election-eve eruption capped weeks of frothing frustration within the ranks in Montana and elsewhere about scrutiny of Trump and Republicans in the media, with the Trump-friendly candidate fuming and reacting physically to a question from Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs.

Ryan, who has labored to swing the spotlight away from GOP missteps and toward his agenda, criticized Gianforte’s actions and said, “There is no time a physical altercation should occur.” But he did not rescind his endorsement and, along with other Republicans, plodded forward Thursday reluctant to delve into a character debate. “I’m going to let the people of Montana decide,” he said.

The Republican lurch away from running highly disciplined, by-the-book campaigns on curbing spending and stoking economic growth is, in part, the evidence of how fully Trump has upended the party. Republicans haven’t abandoned the views and positions they have cultivated since Ronald Reagan’s presidency, but instead appear unable to focus on them.

Trump’s barrage of news-making and controversy drives the GOP even at its lowest levels, with his raucous populism and blustering behavior reshaping its identity. Candidates often are either adopting aspects of his persona or finding themselves having to fitfully explain why they back him. Coupled with a national conservative media complex that sears the press as much as it does Democrats, they are navigating a highly charged and volatile environment.

Fox News, the network beloved by Republicans, has also found itself dealing with the right’s disruptive fury and questions of conduct, even among its high-profile hosts. Sean Hannity has been criticized and lost advertisers for promoting a conspiratorial account of the slaying of a former Democratic National Committee staffer. Hannity has reacted by charging that “liberal fascists” were conspiring to cripple his career.

Some advocates for the press say that the culture Trump has created within his party is responsible and has had a cascading effect on the way 2017 campaigns have unfolded.

“Before the 2016 campaign, we could at least expect civility from candidates and their staffs,” Lucy A. Dalglish, the dean of Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland, said. “Trump has declared open season on journalists, and politicians and members of his Cabinet have joined the hunt.”
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, added: “By casting the press as the enemy of the American people, Donald Trump has contributed to a climate of discourse consistent with assaulting a reporter for asking an inconvenient question.”

For Democrats, the GOP disarray presents perhaps the ripest opportunity for a blue political wave in over a decade, especially if the Republicans are alienating suburban professionals and independents.
In Georgia, for instance, Democrat Ossoff is running not as a vocal young progressive but a thoughtful, middle-of-the-road and careful Democrat. Republicans Gillespie and Handel are shying away from Trump-style theatrics.

Democrats, who are in the midst of their own political tug-of-war between progressives and centrists, have not yet been able to translate the Republican scandals and Trump tiffs into convincing wins.

Ossoff nearly captured the Georgia seat last month, but did not garner enough votes and the race went to a runoff.

Yet there have been flashes of opportunity: Democrats won two special state legislative elections this week in New York, with one of the pickups coming in a district that Trump won.

In early April, Republicans fended off a strong Democratic challenger in ruby-red Kansas in this year’s first special House election, following last-minute support from Trump and Vice President Pence. 

Republican Ron Estes won by eight percentage points; two years earlier a Republican had won the seat by 31 percentage points.

Meanwhile, in New Jersey’s gubernatorial campaign, the two leading Republicans running ahead of a June 6 primary — Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno and Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli — are dealing with the cloud not only of Trump but of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), whose tumultuous leadership and bridge-closing scandal has left the state GOP fractured and been a burden on the Republican hopefuls.

Longtime watchers of Trump do not expect him to speak out against Gianforte or to urge his party against the politics of bellicosity.

They recalled that he fiercely defended his then-campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, when he was accused last year of grabbing a female reporter’s arm. Trump himself once said of a protester at one of his campaign rallies: “I’d like to punch him in the face.”

In Sicily at a G-7 summit on Friday, Trump praised Gianforte for a “great win in Montana.”

In the Trump era, it is far from clear what is over the line — or even if a line exists any more.

“There is a total weirdness out there,” Sanford said. “People feel like, if the president of the United States can say anything to anybody at any time, then I guess I can too. And that is a very dangerous phenomenon.”

Mike DeBonis and Paul Schwartzman contributed to this report.
Riyadh summit: The Trump card was a joker

2017-05-26
The Arabic word Riyadh means meadow. A slight variation of the word, or if one adds the letter Ta Marbuta at the end, the word will read Riyadhah, meaning a sport. Well, what a spectacle Donald Trump’s Riyadh reception last week was? Its dangerous repercussions were felt on Monday night in Manchester where during a pop concert, 22 people, mostly children, died in a suicide bomb attack carried out by a killer who allegedly professed the very extremism that Trump condemned and wanted his Arab-Islamic hosts to fight.
It was a spectacle, nay charade, because the Trump speech lacked depth and it sounded as though it was custom-made for the Saudis.  There was more Iran bashing than ISIS bashing. In fact, Iran was projected as a bigger terrorist than ISIS. It made aging Saudi King Salman happy.
But no one is pointing a finger at Iran for the Manchester bomb. Instead, the focus should be on Saudi Arabia. But Britain, the United States or any other European power won’t point the finger at Saudi Arabia because of economic relations. They all milk the Saudi cow which also offers ideological milk to terrorists.

No condemnation of extremism is complete if it does not denounce forces behind such extremism. Well, it is no secret that some of the Riyadh summit leaders are culpable for the spread of violence in the name of Islam to achieve political ends.
Money, munitions and ideological support from Gulf Arab nations and Sunni bigots sustain the monster the Manchester bomber represented. In its insatiable thirst for human blood, millions of people – both Muslims and non-Muslims -- in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, France, Belgium, Britain, the United States and scores of other countries have become its victims since 9/11.  
Nevertheless, many Arab nations struck a strategic alliance with the extremists for a regime-change game first in Libya and then in Syria.  Joining this unholy alliance was the West, including Britain and France. The Europe nations turned a blind eye when hundreds, if not thousands, of European-based jihadi extremists moved to Libya and Syria, while the United States sent special forces to train the extremists, whom the West, by way of deception, called moderate rebels.  
After the success in Libya, the rich and powerful Arab nations together with the Western powers turned their attention to topple the Bashar al-Assad regime, and they did not mind even if it meant an alliance with the most ruthless terrorist groups. The Manchester massacre was a result of such myopic policies. It is said that Manchester bomber Salman Abedi was radicalised by Libyan extremists.
Trump’s Riyadh speech was at best a sales talk, for it deliberately avoided including any mention of these home truths -- or where the roots of this dangerous ideology lay – and secured US$ 450 billion sales.  Absent in Trump’s fake speech was any mention that the ISIS follows the same Wahhabi-Salafi Islam that is zealously promoted by Saudi Arabia. It was an ideology rooted in Ash’arism that stopped the progressive march of Mutazilism or rational Islam, which, during the Abbasid Caliphate (from the 8th to 13th century), took the Islamic world to the peak of science and philosophy, and brought life to an intellectually dying world, especially Europe.  Ash’arism, with its anthropomorphic interpretation of matters spiritual contributed to the intellectual fall of the Islamic world.  With its rise, the method of inquiry-based Islamic learning disappeared.  Taqlid, or blindly following so-called scholars, became established. The spirit of Islam was ignored and the letter was liberally misused to suit the agendas of the ruling elite.  Centuries later, with the discovery of oil and the establishment of Wahhabism, the Arab world became servile to the technologically advanced and militarily superior West. With all the money generated from oil, none of the Arab states, which came into being after the Arab betrayal of the Ottoman Empire, could rise as a knowledge-based nation, capable of making discoveries in science and medicine.  Since they emerged as independent nations, their statecraft has been putting their trusts in one big power or another for survival, while suppressing dissent and democracy at home.
The dependence was evident when Saudi Arabia signed US$ 450 billion worth deals with the United States during the visit of Trump. The leader of the world’s most vibrant democracy said nothing about the Arab world’s pathetic human rights record or lack of democracy.  The US$ 450 billion deal was a form of bribe to keep the new US president, a maverick of sort, on the side of Saudi Arabia, vis-à-vis the Sunni kingdoms hostility towards Shiite Iran and the Assad regime in Syria. The bribe is also to buy the Trump administration’s connivance so that the Saudis could continue their excesses with impunity in Yemen, where thousands of children die of cholera and malnutrition if they are not killed by Saudi bombs.
Days after selling US$ 110 billion worth of arms to the Saudis, Trump the arms salesman on Wednesday had no qualms about meeting Pope Francis, who has denounced the arms industry as an evil that promotes conflicts and prevents peace. The meeting with the pontiff came after his visits to Israel and the West Bank, where just as his fake speech in Riyadh, his pledge to revive the peace process sounded empty.
Incidentally, whatever the arms the Saudis buy from the US cannot be used against Israel: That’s the caveat linked to the deal.  Even if they are allowed to, it is unlikely that the Saudis will take up arms against Israel to free Palestine.
They will fight only weak enemies – the poverty-stricken and under-nourished Yemenis or the unarmed pro-democracy protesters in Bahrain. Neither the Saudis nor any of the 50-odd Arab and Islamic leaders at the so-called Arab-Islamic-American summit corrected Trump for linking Palestinian group Hamas with al-Qaeda, Isis and Hezbollah. Ritualistic-minded Saudi King Salman told Trump not to drink from his left hand, but would not tell him that Hamas is a liberation movement. So much for their commitment to the liberation of Palestine!
Trump in his Sunday sermon to the Saudis said he did not come to lecture Arabs and Muslims what to do, but then he went on to give a lecture, urging the Muslims to condemn Islamic terrorism, and then assuming a holier-than-thou position, described the fight against Islamic terrorism as a war between good and evil.
In the runup to the presidential election, Trump had called for “a complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” He had said “Islam hates us”.  Embattled at home for his alleged Russian connections, Trump is neither an Islamophobe nor an admirer of Islam, the faith of the world’s 1.7 billion people.  He is a salesman and bully. And he got what he wanted from the Riyadh visit – billions of dollars and the Arab world’s submission.

Are Tory cuts to police budgets the reason we need troops on the streets?



Theresa May announced on Tuesday that she has authorised up to 5,000 troops to be deployed across the country in the wake of Monday night’s terror attack.

The Prime Minister said that this was part of Operation Temperer, which was planned in 2015 after the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris.

On Wednesday, the Chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales, Steve White, said that although military support was “welcome”, the police “simply do not have the resources to manage an event like this on our own”.

Are cuts to police funding the reason the government has had to deploy troops this week? We’ve taken a look at the numbers.

How bad are the cuts?

Since the Tories have been in office, they have increased funding for counter terror policing, but cut the overall budget for everyday policing in England and Wales.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, central government spending on the Police Main Grant fell by 14 per cent in real terms between 2010-11 and 2014-15.

But police forces also get part of their funding through local council taxes, and total budgets have “remained broadly flat in cash-terms”, mainly because of top-ups from council tax.

The Home Office also gives a separate pot of money to forces in England and Wales specifically for counter terror operations, separate from the Police Main Grant.

IFS data suggests that in 2010-11 the level of the Counter Terrorism Police Grant was £471 million. That figure rose to £564 million in 2014-15, and rose again in 2016-17 to £670 million.

How does that translate into numbers of armed police?

More money for counter terrorism has not led into more armed police on the streets.
The Home Office told us that in March 2016, there were 5,639 firearms officers in England and Wales. When the Tories took office in 2010, that figure stood at 6,653.

So between 2010 and 2016, armed police numbers fell by 1,014 – despite the fact that the Counter Terrorism Police Grant was increased over that period.

The Home Office were keen to remind us that it’s for police chiefs to decide how many firearms officers they need, and that forces make that choice “based on a thorough assessment of threat and risk”.

But, despite saying that they’re not directly responsible for officer numbers, the government announced in 2016 that it would provide £143 million of new funding specifically to train 1,500 firearms officers to protect the public from terrorism. That would seem to replace the 1,014 officers and then some.
Problem solved? Not quite.

A little digging shows the numbers aren’t quite as they seem. For starters, the central government money pledged last year will only fund 1,000 of that headline 1,500 figure.

Forces will have to stump up for the remaining 500 officers using their council tax budget top-up.

We also noticed that the increased government grant will be spread over a five year period, starting from 2016 when the commitment was announced, so the additional officers will come in phases.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council told us that phase one of the “uplift” is complete, and that 640 new officers should have now begun their duties.

That means there should now be 640 more firearms officers on the streets than this time last year. But that doesn’t cancel out the decline of more than 1,000 armed officers that the Tories have presided over since 2010.

The figures we have been given suggest there are 374 fewer armed officers on the streets of England and Wales today than there were in 2010. The troops deployed this week in Operation Temperer are certainly filling those gaps.

So are Tory cuts the reason we need the army on the streets?

Theresa May said in her statement on Tuesday that the decision to deploy troops to the streets after Monday’s attack was part of a “long-established” plan.

In fact, Operation Temperer was drawn up in 2015, when the number of firearms officers had been falling consistently for five years.

The obvious question is whether the plan to put troops on the streets was a tacit admission that armed police numbers had fallen to dangerously low levels.

A spokesperson for the Conservatives told us that such a suggestion was “incorrect” and that they would “refute it in the strongest possible terms”.