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

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Foreign ministry secretary who awarded foreign scholarship to sex maniac ‘Mal Kumaraya’ ousted !















LEN logo
(Lanka-e-News- 01.Aug.2017, 11.30PM)  Secretary to the ministry of foreign affairs Asela Weerakoon who arranged a foreign scholarship to the Director General Pushpakumara instead of punishing him for his illicit  lascivious involvements  which included sexual molestation of a woman has been removed from his post . Asela organized the scholarship to Pushpakumara despite the fact that the latter was retiring within a year , while giving a transfer to  the victim of this sex pervert !
In place of Pushpakumara ,  popular Prasad Kariyawasam who was the Sri Lanka ambassador to Washington has been appointed as the new secretary to the foreign ministry. 
Asela could carry on duties as secretary to the foreign ministry barely for about a year. He is now appointed as secretary to the ministry of tourism promotion.
Now opportunities are  knocking at the doors  of the maniacal officers in the tourist promotion involved in sexual abuse to secure foreign scholarships via Asela .  That is , they must as far as possible indulge in sexual abuse and illicit immoral activities , if they are to obtain a foreign scholarship through the new secretary. 
Lanka e news while exposing the maladministration on the 28 th questioned ,  where on earth do you find state secretaries who arrange foreign scholarships to sex perverts against whom there is  also a  complaint at  the women’s bureau of the police ?
We are indeed pleased that the report of Lanka e news has reaped the desired result !  
---------------------------
by     (2017-08-01 22:52:08)

Two years in custody Avant-Garde Capt. collapses in Court when told case re-fixed for March 2018

01
logo

Wednesday, 2 August 2017

Two years in custody, the Master of Avant-Garde Capt. Gennadiy Gavrlov yesterday collapsed in the Supreme Court when told his Fundamental Rights Petition would be re-fixed for 12 March next year.

Said to be a cardiac patient, the Ukrainian Capt. was rushed in an ambulance for emergency services at Nawaloka Hospital following his collapse. Despite his health condition he remains in detention without a charge being filed to date.

The Fundamental Rights petition was filed by Gavrlov challenging his alleged illegal arrest and prolonged detention.

The Bench comprised Justices S.E. Wanasundera, Upaly Abeysundera and Prasanna S. Jayawardane.

The Supreme Court on 17 March granted leave to proceed with his Fundamental Rights petition for the alleged infringement of his fundamental rights to equality, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention.

Gavrlov, the 49-year-old Captain of MV Avant-Garde, challenged his arrest in early October 2015 purportedly outside Sri Lankan territorial waters and continued detention at the Galle remand prison.

The Petitioner, a father of one child, is being detained in Galle Remand Prison, and claims that he had absolutely no political affiliations to any group or party in Sri Lanka. He laments that he was unfortunate to be embroiled in a political tug-of-war prevailing in the country.

The Petitioner cited the Officer-in-Charge of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Director CID, DIG in charge of the CID and Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd. (RALL), a Government-owned business undertaking affiliated to the Defence Ministry, Avant-Garde Maritime Services (AGMS), Sri Lanka Shipping Company Ltd., Lanka Maritime Services Ltd., Defence Secretary and the Attorney General as Respondents.

The Petitioner states the MV Avant-Garde, chartered by Avant-Garde Maritime Services belonging to Sri Lanka Shipping Company, had been seized in international waters in early October 2015 in the wake of the change of government.

He alleges some of the Respondents subjected him to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment through the false accusation that he had entered Sri Lankan territorial waters in the vessel of which he took command on 24 July 2015.

He states that SLNS Nandimithra, a Fast Missile Vessel (FMV), had taken ‘MV Avant-Garde’ into custody in international waters 15 nautical miles from the baseline.

He further states though the vessel was to be delivered to Sri Lanka Shipping Company as per instructions received in August  2015, he received subsequent directive through proper channels to reach Galle Port.

He states that a seven-member squad of Sri Lanka Navy personnel boarded the vessel at 7:15 a.m. on 6 October 2015, after he refused directives issued by the SLN to proceed towards the Galle Port and drop near the Galle Port. Initially, he had been directed to proceed towards Panadura and drop anchor.

The Deputy Harbour Master of Galle who is also the Acting Residential Manager of the Galle Port in his statement too had admitted that the vessel was seized outside territorial waters of Sri Lanka, he contends.

Manohara de Silva PC with Arinda Wijesurendra appeared for the petitioner. Romesh de Silva PC with Kuvera de Zoysa PC and Sugath Caldera appeared for Avant-Garde Maritime Services (AGMS) and Sri Lanka Shipping Company Ltd. Deputy Solicitor General Ayesha Jinasena appeared for the CID, Defence Secretary and the Attorney General.

Another revelation on Lalith Jayasinghe; a luxury hotel built with policeman’s salary

Another revelation on Lalith Jayasinghe; a luxury hotel built with policeman’s salary

Aug 02, 2017

Fulfilling a promise given previously by Lanka News Web, published below are pictures of a 20-room hotel, owned by senior DIG Lalith Jayasinghe and located near the beach at Thiranagama, Hikkaduwa in Galle.

Saved his entire salary?
A considerable amount of money is needed to build such a hotel at a location like this. The basic salary of a DIG is around Rs. 60,000. Jayasinghe should be commended for his effort and for having saved his entire salary to build this hotel.
Manoj Mendis gave the land
Leaving aside the money spent, the land on which the hotel is located was given him by former Rathgama Pradeshiya Sabha chairman Manoj Mendis, who was the leading underworld figure in the area. When he was shot dead by his underworld rivals on 23 March 2015, he had 13 murder charges against him, in addition to charges of robbery, assault, extortion and drug dealing. Mendis did all this with the power of the then Rajapaksa regime. We do not know as to why such a thug donated a land to Jayasinghe to build a hotel. But, there is evidence to prove that Jayasinghe had many dealings with the notorious politicians of the area.
Jayasinghe’s ‘contributions’ to tourism
Jayasinghe also made his ‘contributions’ to tourism. He gave protection to the main accused in the murder of British national Khurram Shaikh and gang rape of his Russian girlfriend at a Christmas party on 24 December 2011 at a tourist hotel in Tangalle. The then chairman of Tangalle Pradeshiya Sabha Sampath Pushpachandra Vidanapathirana and his cronies committed the crime. If the country is filled with persons like Jayasinghe, Vidanapathirana could be qualified to hold the tourism minister portfolio from his prison cell.
Jayasinghe’s respect for Tangalle rapist-killer
When the CID went to Tangalle to arrest Vidanapathirana, Jayasinghe took him to them in his jeep, seating him in the front seat. While handing him over, Jayasinghe told the CID officials, “This is our chairman of the Pradeshiya Sabha. He is blamed for others’ wrongs. Do not touch him.” Taking him to Tangalle police, the CID imprisoned him. Jayasinghe followed them to the police station, and seeing Vidanapathirana in the cell, said angrily, “Are you mad? This is our chairman. Can a respectable person like him be kept in the cell?” and took him out. But, the courts have found him guilty and Vidanapathirana is today behind bars.
Not a novice at harbouring criminals
All these make it clear that Jayasinghe is not a novice when it comes to harbouring criminals. He is presently in remand custody for having helped the main accused in the Pungudutivu schoolgirl Vidya gang rape and murder, to flee. The police commission has also suspended him from service.
If proper investigations had taken place previously into the special treatment given to Vidanapathirana as well as the political thug Atha Kota, who had killed the superintendent of Nooriya estate, Jayasinghe would not have remained in the DIG seat to harbour the Vidya murder suspect.
These should be lessons for the future to prevent juniors in the police from following the footsteps of seniors like Jayasinghe. If the police wants to save its face from numerous black marks against it, it should at least ensure that Jayasinghe was given the maximum possible punishment by the law.

Dozens killed in bombing of mosque in Afghan city of Herat

At least 29 dead and more than 60 wounded in blast at Shia mosque, with at least two attackers – including a suicide bomber – thought responsible
 A soldier inspects the mosque where a blast killed dozens of Shia worshippers in Herat. Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Reuters in Herat-Tuesday 1 August 2017

A suicide attack on a Shia mosque in the city of Herat in western Afghanistan has killed at least 29 people and wounded more than 64, officials have said.

More than 1,700 civilians have been killed in attacks in Afghanistan so far this year, hitting confidence in the government of President Ashraf Ghani.
Abdulhai Walizada, a local police spokesman, said there appeared to be more than one attacker, with witnesses describing a suicide bomber who detonated explosives and at least one other, a gunman who threw grenades at worshippers.
“Two attackers entered the mosque and started shooting and throwing grenades at people,” said Mohammad Adi, a worshipper at the mosque who was injured in the attack and taken to hospital.
Mohammad Asif Rahimi, governor of Herat, said at least 29 people were killed and 64 wounded in the incident which came two months after an attack on a 12th-century mosque known as the Jama Masjid in Herat, in which seven people died.
There was no claim of responsibility. The Taliban, fighting to install strict Islamic law and drive foreign troops out of Afghanistan, denied any involvement.
Ghani, whose government has been under mounting pressure because of deteriorating security across the country, condemned the bombing and called on religious scholars to “raise their voices against the terrorist attacks”.
Afghanistan has traditionally been relatively free of the sectarian violence common in Iraq or Syria but hardline Sunni militants from the local branch of Islamic State have repeatedly attacked the mainly Shia Hazara minority in the past year.
The latest attack comes as the Trump administration considers sending more US troops to bolster the Nato-led coalition advising and assisting security forces in Afghanistan. 

Tiny Bhutan finds itself in Sino—Indian cleft stick

Tiny Bhutan, which has earned the epithet of being the “happiest place on earth” as per the new concept of Gross National Happiness (GNH), finds itself in a very unhappy situation today. For the past month and a half, Bhutan has been at the centre of a conflict between its two giant neighbours, China and India, that could put it at the crossroads in economic and political terms.   


2017-08-01
The two Asian powers are fighting over a tiny patch of land called Doklam located in the tri-junction of Bhutan, China, and India. Doklam’s importance is in its strategic location. The Doklam plateau is within striking distance of the Siliguri Corridor which is a tiny “chicken neck” of a link between mainland India and its North East states like Assam.   


Intriguing silence

But Bhutan’s silence on the India-China dispute is intriguing, as the Sino-Indian military confrontation in Doklam is taking place on land claimed by Bhutan and China. Officially, India isn’t party to the dispute, and yet it’s there, ostensibly because of the 2007 Indo-Bhutanese treaty which enjoins close cooperation to protect each other’s national interest.   
"It has also come to light that Bhutan was unaware that the Indian military was crossing the border into Bhutan on June 18, he said. Clearly, Bhutan had been kept in the dark"
According to several commentators, Bhutan’s silence may be a muted expression of the issues it faces vis-à-vis India. Bhutan has already been moving away from India steadily though subtly.   
According to former Indian diplomat M.K.Bhadrakumar, Bhutan’s one and only statement on Doklam, dated June 29, didn’t say anything to the effect that Thimpu had sought Indian help to tackle Chinese intransigence in Doklam, or that it consulted the Indian government. It has also come to light that Bhutan was unaware that the Indian military was crossing the border into Bhutan on June 18, he said. Clearly, Bhutan had been kept in the dark, Bhandrakumar says.  
 
It’s probable that there is disquiet in Thimphu about this, as past incidents show. Anticipating objections and trouble from India, Bhutan had had 24 rounds of border talks with China behind India’s back. In these talks, Bhutan had routinely given in to China’s demands without getting the concurrence of India, thus violating the 2007 Indo-Bhutanese accord in spirit.   

Indian Premier Narendra Modi  (right) holds a bilateral meeting with Bhutanese Premier Tshering Tobjay ahead of the BRICS -Bimstec Outreach Summit. 


  • But Bhutan’s silence on the India-China dispute is intriguing

  • India was aware that China had offered Bhutan a “package deal”

  • The Siliguri corridor is the only link mainland India has with some of its North-Eastern states

India’s strategic interest

It was the fear that Bhutan might acquiesce to China’s bid to take over Doklam which made India bypass it to militarily thwart China’s road building effort in Doklam. India was aware that China had offered Bhutan a “package deal” to settle the entire border issue, under which, China would give up a number of claims in other places if Bhutan would drop its claim to Doklam.   
If Bhutan had acquiesced on Doklam too, India’s security would have been in jeopardy, given the fact that China’s sitting on the Doklam plateau, at the tri-junction of India, China and Bhutan, would have seriously threatened the Siliguri corridor in India. Known as the chicken neck, the Siliguri corridor is the only link mainland India has with its North-Eastern states of Assam, Tripura, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, which apart from being insurgency affected, share borders with either China, Myanmar or Bangladesh.

Controversial economic involvement

Even before the standoff over Doklam began on June 16, Bhutan had been looking for friendly relations with China despite getting loads of aid from India.   
According to Indian official figures, Bhutan had received US$ 5.8 billion from India between 2000-2001 and 2016-2017, to be the top most recipient of Indian aid in South Asia. 84% of Bhutan’s exports go to India, and India accounts for 64% of its imports. Hydro power generated by Indian companies accounts for 40% of Bhutan’s GDP and is also the main item of export to India.  

But the heavy economic dependence on India in trade and investment has led to apprehensions in Bhutan and some real problems too. In 2009, India said it would help step up power generation to 10,000 MW by 2020, and purchase all the surplus power. However, Shripad Dharmadhikary of the Manthan Adhyayan Kendra quotes the New Delhi-based Vasudha Foundation to say that the commissioning of new projects was delayed while costs went up. 
"Even before the standoff over Doklam began on June 16, Bhutan had been looking for friendly relations with China despite getting loads of aid from India"

The cost of the 1,200 MW Punatsangchhu-I had gone up from US$ 510 million to US$ 1.46 billion. In the case of the 1,020 MW Punatsangchhu –II project, it went up to US$ 1.1 billion from US$ 570 million. And in the case of the 720 MW Mangdechhu, the cost went up to US$D 675 million from US$ 435 million.   
India was to finance the entire project with a 60% grant component and 40% loan component. But this was reversed, due to “financial difficulties”. The loan component now comprises 60 to 70%. Interest rates have also gone up. The net profit per unit of electricity sold to India has fallen sharply since 2007, the Vasudha Foundation report said.
Hydropower has contributed to a steep rise in Bhutan’s debts, and the report notes that Bhutan is “among 14 other countries that are fast heading towards a debt crisis.” At the same time hydropower projects are causing massive environmental damage and jobless growth, the study pointed out.   


Conflict on international front

According to P. Stobdan, Bhutan didn’t follow India’s stance on the status of landlocked nations at the UN; signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1985; and supported Pakistan’s Nuclear Free Zone South Asia proposal. It is yet to accede to the Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal Motor Vehicle Agreement (BBIN) for the regulation of passenger, personal and cargo vehicular traffic signed under SAARC in June 2015. Bhutan’s first democratically elected government led by Prime Minister Jigme Thinley, increased diplomatic ties from 25 nations in 2011 to 53 in 2013.   
It’s now close to establishing diplomatic ties with China as China wants to discuss the border and other issues directly with it. Commenting on this, diplomat Stobdan wrote: “India looked for an opportunity to punish Thinley. In the days leading up to the Bhutanese General Election in July 2013, New Delhi, in an unambiguous signal, abruptly cut subsidies on gas and kerosene sales (among other tough measures) to Bhutan. Some critics inferred the move was simply meant to rock the election campaign. Others saw a clear message from New Delhi to the Bhutanese – be prepared to face sanctions if Thinley is voted back to power.”  There was scathing criticism in Bhutan of India’s meddling in the elections. The Bhuatanese also nurse a fear that India might absorb Bhutan as it absorbed Sikkim in 1975.   

Fear of china

However, the Bhutanese are apprehensive about China too. They fear that China may grab Bhutan, the way it grabbed Tibet in the 1950s and drove out its temporal and spiritual ruler, the Dalai Lama. The Bhutanese know that China under President Xi Jinping may press its claims by brazen aggression as evident in its actions in the South China Sea. The world’s happiest place is now well and truly in the Sino-Indian cleft stick.   


(P.K.Balachandran is a Colombo-based journalist reporting on South Asia)

Christians urged to heed call for “costly solidarity” with Palestine

Church-based activists are being urged by Palestinian Christian organizations not to be intimidated by Israel’s efforts to bully them into silence and inaction. (via Facebook)

Ryan Rodrick Beiler-1 August 2017

Recent months have seen a host of efforts by churches to apply economic and political pressure in support of Palestinian rights.

They include the landslide vote in early July by the Mennonite Church USA to stop investments in occupation-linked corporations.

On 14 July, the World Communion of Reformed Churches called on the more than 80 million people in its member churches worldwide to examine their investments related to the situation in Palestine.

At its 26th General Council in the German city of Leipzig, the body urged leaders to heed a letter from Palestinian Christians calling for “costly solidarity”.

The letter, issued in June by the National Coalition of Christian Organizations in Palestine, asks that churches worldwide “speak in support of economic measures that pressure Israel to stop the occupation and that you support athletic, cultural and academic measures against Israel until it complies with international law and UN resolutions.”

The Palestinian Christian organizations urge fellow believers around the world to resist “Israel’s systemic assault” on nonviolent resistance and solidarity.

“We need brave women and men who are willing to stand in the forefront,” the letter states. “This is no time for shallow diplomacy Christians.”

Welcoming the growing support from churches around the world, the letter nonetheless expresses concern that “some churches have weakened their positions in the last 10 years as a result of this manipulating pressure.”

“Many still hide behind the cover of political neutrality,” the letter adds.

HP-free churches

Also in July, Friends of Sabeel North America announced that 17 US congregations had signed a pledge to boycott Hewlett-Packard due to its complicity in Israeli human rights violations against Palestinians.

Sabeel is a Palestinian Christian liberation theology organization based in Jerusalem, with affiliates around the world.

The boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights has long focused on HP for its use of biometric data technology at Israeli checkpoints and other systems used by the Israeli military, prisons and illegal settlements in occupied territory.

Congregations participating in the HP-Free Church campaign pledge to boycott the company’s computers, printers, inks and other products “until the company and all of its branches end contracts with Israel’s military and cease operations in the occupied West Bank.”

“We can’t continue to denounce occupation and participate in it – with our investments and our choices and our spending habits,” said Reverend David Grishaw-Jones, pastor of Peace United Church of Christ in Santa Cruz, California, in a press release from Friends of Sabeel North America. “Solidarity requires action.”

Methodist momentum

United Methodists for Kairos Response, a grassroots movement within the United Methodist Church, reportedin July that 15 US regional Methodist bodies passed resolutions supporting the HP boycott.

They also encouraged investment in funds that screen other occupation-linked firms, opposed Israel’s abuse of children living under occupation, encouraged engagement with Palestinian Christians and committed to studying further divestment options.

While such regional grassroots efforts continue to gain momentum, Methodists previously voted down explicit divestment resolutions at national assemblies in 2012 and 2016.

Mennonite model

This contrasts with the Mennonite resolution which passed with a 98 percent majority following significant investment by both grassroots activists and church leaders to educate members.

A previous Mennonite resolution in 2015 had been deferred after missteps – such as scheduling Palestinian pastor Reverend Alex Awad to give a keynote address after the resolution was debated.

But Awad credits a church leadership willing to make a considerable financial investment, including salaries and expenses of those commissioned to educate congregations about the issue.

Speakers included Palestinian Christian leaders, rabbis affiliated with Jewish Voice for Peace and learning tours for more than 100 church representatives to visit the region firsthand.

Participation of leaders in the church’s key financial institutions who would eventually implement any investment screens was especially vital to the measure’s success.

“Regrettably, some Christian denominations are fast to make sympathetic resolutions in support of a just peace in the Middle East but are slow to invest in these resolutions with dollars and cents,” Awad writes in the magazine Sojourners. “Christians from all denominations should not only celebrate this landmark resolution, but also consider emulating the strategies Mennonites used.”

Media matters

While largely dismissive of the economic implications of church-based divestment, mainstream media are beginning to catch on to the symbolic impact of such efforts.

Reporting on the Mennonite vote, the Associated Press noted, “Although the economic impact is expected to be minimal, such votes are closely watched as a measure of views on Israel and the Palestinians from within the US, the Jewish state’s closest and most important ally.”

The AP acknowledged that BDS “has gained strength on US college campuses and elsewhere as a means of protesting Israeli policies and bringing moral pressure to end the occupation of Palestinian territories.”

CNBC also quoted Andre Gingerich Stoner, one of the resolution’s authors, who told the financial cable TV network that “the greater impact is the moral statement and the appeal that it’s making to others.”

Right to BDS

Some institutions stop short of endorsing BDS tactics, but they defend the right to engage in it. While at least 20 states have passed laws to penalize or stigmatize BDS efforts, nine Methodist regional bodies representing thousands of clergy and lay delegates and more than one million members have since 2016 approved resolutions defending the right to boycott and divest.

This reflects a mainstream position in defense of free speech; a Los Angeles Times editorial in July defended the right to engage in BDS as “a classic tool of peaceful political expression.”

Defending children

Also in July, the United Church of Christ voted overwhelmingly for a resolution demanding Israel end its systematic abuses of Palestinian children in military detention.

It urged its members to advocate for Palestinian children’s rights, potentially giving a big boost to efforts to pressure members of Congress to hold Israel accountable.

Days later, another denomination, the Disciples of Christ, passed a similar resolution.

“Classmates of mine have been detained at protests and even killed by Israeli soldiers,” Rachel Shomali, a young Palestinian Christian, testified at the Disciples of Christ conference. “Some of those detained are imprisoned for months without being properly charged, without access to trial, family and lawyers.”

Both resolutions call for Israel to be held accountable under the US Foreign Assistance Act, by withholding military aid from Israel due to its violent abuses of Palestinian children.

Textbook criticism

But as church-based solidarity increases, detractors are sticking to outdated arguments.
Objecting to the resolutions on Palestinian children, the American Jewish Committee trotted out the well-worn victim-blaming myth that Palestinian textbooks demonize Israel and incite Palestinian children to violence.

US government-sponsored research debunked this perennial Israel lobby talking point years ago.
While the American Jewish Committee accuses the resolutions of being “lopsided,” the Disciples of Christ acknowledge another kind of imbalance.


Their resolution states: “Justice and peace are impeded today by those who hide behind a false equivalency, refusing to acknowledge the gross imbalance of military and police power between Israelis and Palestinians, or refusing to recognize that the impact of occupation falls with greater weight on the occupied, not the occupier.”
President Trump is now directly implicated in trying to cover up the Russia scandal
President Trump has repeatedly lashed out with insults to defend himself as the Russia investigation unfolds. Here are some of his go-to attacks. (Video: Jenny Starrs/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

 

If the Russia scandal is nothing but a witch hunt, as President Trump so often says, it’s awfully strange that he’s going to so much trouble to cover it up.

Last night, Ashley Parker, Carol D. Leonnig, Philip Rucker and Tom Hamburger broke the latest blockbuster story in this scandal, in which the president dictated a misleading statement about the nature of the fateful meeting his son Donald Trump Jr., his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and his then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort had with a group of Russians during the campaign:
On the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in Germany last month, President Trump’s advisers discussed how to respond to a new revelation that Trump’s oldest son had met with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign — a disclosure the advisers knew carried political and potentially legal peril. 
The strategy, the advisers agreed, should be for Donald Trump Jr. to release a statement to get ahead of the story. They wanted to be truthful, so their account couldn’t be repudiated later if the full details emerged. 
But within hours, at the president’s direction, the plan changed. 
Flying home from Germany on July 8 aboard Air Force One, Trump personally dictated a statement in which Trump Jr. said that he and the Russian lawyer had “primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children” when they met in June 2016, according to multiple people with knowledge of the deliberations. The statement, issued to the New York Times as it prepared an article, emphasized that the subject of the meeting was “not a campaign issue at the time.” 
The claims were later shown to be misleading.
President Trump personally dictated a statement that was issued after revelations that Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 election. The Washington Post's Philip Rucker and Carol D. Leonnig explain. (Video: Bastien Inzaurralde/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

In case you haven’t been following, the meeting occurred because Trump Jr. was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton that was presented to him as coming from the Russian government.

 He summoned Kushner and Manafort, forwarding them the email in which that offer was made. They joined him at the meeting, which was attended by a lawyer with close ties to the Kremlin, a former Russian intelligence officer and a gentleman who was once the subject of a congressional inquiry into an enormous Russian money-laundering operation. According to Trump Jr. and Kushner’s version of events, the damaging information didn’t materialize, and the Russians were more interested in discussing the potential repeal of the Magnitsky Act, which sanctioned certain Russian individuals accused of corruption and human rights abuses. So the line from the Trump team is essentially that they were trying to collude with the Russian government to help their campaign, but the attempt was unsuccessful.

This latest story is clearly one of the most significant developments in this scandal to date, for two reasons. First, it describes an organized effort to mislead the public — not to spin, or minimize the story, or distract from it, or throw out wild accusations about someone else, but to intentionally fool everyone into believing something false. Second, it implicates the president himself. Indeed, the most extraordinary part of the picture this story paints is that while other people involved were recommending some measure of transparency on the assumption that the truth would come out eventually, they were overruled by the president, who personally dictated the misleading statement.

A timeline of Donald Trump Jr.'s comments and contradictions about his meeting with a Russian lawyer in June of 2016. (Meg Kelly/The Washington Post)

And it gets worse. Once the story broke, Trump’s own lawyer went to the mediaand denied that the president was involved in the drafting of the misleading statement. In two televised interviews, Jay Sekulow said “the president was not involved in the drafting of the statement,” “The president didn’t sign off on anything,” and “The president wasn’t involved in that.” While it’s theoretically possible that Sekulow would make emphatic statements of fact like those about what his client did or didn’t do without actually asking Trump, that seems almost impossible to believe. Sekulow is a prominent attorney who knows exactly what kind of trouble that could bring, both to himself and his client. So the only reasonable conclusion is that he was repeating what Trump told him.

So, to put this together: The president of the United States personally wrote a statement about this meeting with the Russians, a statement that everyone involved knew to be false. Going further, he then either lied to his own lawyer about his involvement so that the lawyer would repeat that lie publicly (highly likely) or was candid with his lawyer and persuaded him to lie to the media on his behalf (much less likely).

We all know what the official White House line about this story is going to be: The real problem isn’t what Trump did; it’s the fact that it was leaked! I’m reminded of something the sadly departed Anthony Scaramucci said during his brief tenure as White House communication director: “There are people inside the administration who think it is their job to save America from this president.” He was right — or at the very least, they’re trying to save him from himself.

It has been entertaining to watch the ongoing soap opera of this White House — the infighting, the backstabbing, the firings, the general air of chaos — but it’s important to remember that the biggest problem it has is the man who sits in the Oval Office. The fact that Trump assumed that he could engineer this mini-coverup and the truth would never get out, both about the meeting itself and about his role in misleading the public about it, shows just how deluded he is about how his own White House works.

Let’s return to that scene on Air Force One. A damaging story is breaking, and Trump’s advisers are facing the dilemma many administrations have faced before: How do we deal with it? How much information should we voluntarily reveal? Is there a way to make the story go away that won’t set us up for even more trouble down the road? While they were debating those questions, the one person to whom no one could say no told them how it was going to be: They were going to lie. And as is so often the case with Trump, the lie was quickly revealed for what it was.

I promise you, the substantial number of people involved in that discussion were profoundly uncomfortable with Trump’s instructions. For a political flack, nothing inspires more dread than putting out a story that you know is bogus and that you don’t think will hold up.

Their fears were inevitably realized, and now the Russia scandal has reached all the way to the president himself. Something tells me there’s more to come.

Reflections on Woodward, Bernstein and penthouses

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein


2017-08-01
In the United States of America the discerning reporter isn’t a hero; he’s a star. When Hollywood was born, and the Americans took over the task of fermenting the world’s youngest art-form from the French, their first scriptwriters came from newspapers and magazines. In earlier periods they were the real storytellers, not the directors, so it wasn’t much of a surprise that the movies they wrote featured their own kind as the protagonists. Somewhere in the fifties, when the world became more cynical, they were, to be sure, characterised as villains (as with Billy Wilder’s Ace in the Hole), but these were exceptions for the most. So when the sixties and seventies came and the American people began suspecting their own leaders, directors and scriptwriters painted the men and women of the press as the people’s heroes.   
The difference with Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the protagonists of Alan J. Pakula’s All the President’s Men (1976), was that unlike other reporters valourised before them in the movies, they were real. Woodward and Bernstein were an odd couple, which meant that they were perfectly equipped to uncovering the links that would take them from a simple break-in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters to Richard Nixon’s resignation. They were the heroes behind Watergate, with the caveat that they were only doing their job by respecting the truth; had Richard Nixon not been the villain, Watergate wouldn’t have been as popular, but these two wouldn’t have given a damn about that. It was a gentler time, certainly more idealistic, when reporters treasured hard facts over yellow speculation.   
All the President’s Men was the last of a trilogy of films that Pakula made about the culture of paranoia which swept across America after the Kennedy assassinations. All in all, it was the most realistic of the three, not least because it was based on a real-life incident and was hence driven less by conjecture than by historical actuality. Looking back now, it’s seems a little dated, but still transcends the limits of its medium. When Cary Grant and Joel McCrea and Kirk Douglas acted as reporters, they really did act. But when Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford acted in Pakula’s film, however, they weren’t performers. They were those they had been taken in to act out.   
"When the sixties came, and when we began to move away from America and moved into Bergman, Fellini, and Antonioni, we knew the world wasn’t so simple. We were taught that the corrupt were purveyors of decency, that at times they were so successful at this deception that we fooled ourselves into trusting them"
Of course All the President’s Men isn’t about this odd journalistic couple only, since if that were the case it wouldn’t have been different to all those films that Grant, McCrea, and Douglas had acted in before. It’s about an intricate political web built on intrigue, vagueness, and confusion; from the five White House “plumbers” and their connection to the CIA to the dubiously named Committee to Re-elect the President (with the acronym CREEP) that Nixon used to smear his political rivals, that web was so carefully crafted, so well oiled, that it was bound to be discovered.   
Watergate was to the seventies what Monica Lewinsky was to the nineties, with the caveat that Bill Clinton’s extramarital affairs never really dampened his base because no one had the moral authority to vilify him, definitely not the Republicans. Richard Nixon, on the other hand, inspired derision from the beginning of his presidency. As Michael O’Leary points out in a series of articles on the man, he was a precursor to Donald Trump, obsessive over hunting rivals as both were. Even before Watergate, he was on his way out. The American political culture had shifted from George Washington, who couldn’t tell a lie, to Nixon, who couldn’t tell the truth.   

What is it about political cover-ups that inspires so much derision and hatred among us, the people, apart from the fact that those cover-ups tend to affect the people badly? I rather think the movies were a good indicator of how we reacted to them. The directors of the thirties told us that things would only get better. The directors who emerged after World War II told us that good would triumph over evil. But that was a time when political decency was a given, a by default quality no one seriously questioned. When the sixties came, and when we began to move away from America and moved into Bergman, Fellini, and Antonioni, we knew the world wasn’t so simple. We were taught that the corrupt were purveyors of decency, that at times they were so successful at this deception that we fooled ourselves into trusting them.   
"When Cary Grant and Joel McCrea and Kirk Douglas acted as reporters, they really did act. But when Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford acted in Pakula’s film, however, they weren’t performers"

Harry Caul (Gene Hackman) attempts to listen in on a private conversation in Francis Ford Coppola’s The Conversation (1974)


Popular culture, as I implied in my political column last week, has a tendency of making the most obvious things in life seem ambivalent. One can’t blame the artist, because he or she has to work with limited resources and is compelled to use those resources even with the most generous budget. At times, however, this culture of ambivalence tends to contradict even the most commendable intentions of that artist. I remember my friend Dhanuka Bandara contending, for instance, that after the fall of Mahinda Rajapaksa our playwrights ran out of so much steam in their work that they became bankrupt. The same can, I believe, be said of our movie makers.   

It’s a telling indictment on our society, but we (perhaps because of our movies, television serials, and satirical plays) have conditioned ourselves to be infatuated with the corrupt. In America the corrupt were always villains, so much so that those who played the stakes against them, even if they were dishonest crooks, were valorised as heroes. (Like Paul Newman and Robert Redford from The Sting, the conmen who won us over because they went up against a very dislikeable mob leader.)   
The Americans taught us to croon over crooks as long as they were undoing bigger crooks. The problem with our directors and scriptwriters, today, is that our political culture is full of those bigger crooks. What we lack are the smaller crooks to be infatuated with. The closest to such a figure, from our history, was Saradiel. In the hands of our directors, however, he was never made out to be the Newman-Hoffman-Redford kind of hero. The television serial on Saradiel has none of the vibrancy or potency that Rienzi Crusz’s poems on him contain, to give just one example.   
"I remember my friend Dhanuka Bandara contending, for instance, that after the fall of Mahinda Rajapaksa our playwrights ran out of so much steam in their work that they became bankrupt. The same can, I believe, be said of our movie makers"
Watergate was, as Pauline Kael once idiosyncratically observed, the culmination of what the movies had been telling us. Frank Wills, the security guard at the Watergate complex, discovered the burglary at the DNC Headquarters on the night of June 17, 1972. The Godfather was released two months before, on March 15. Richard Nixon tendered his resignation on August 9, 1974. The Conversation was released three months before, on April 7. Francis Ford Coppola, who directed both, was one of the few prophets that Hollywood bred, surprising because Hollywood, with its preference for predictable, commercially oriented plotlines, despised prophets. Both those movies were about the underworld, in the mafia and within the government.   

The intricate web those behind Watergate strung around it was, as I mentioned before, so well oiled that it was bound to come out. Sooner or later. I can’t help, but feel that we are seeing this same process of unravelling, despite the best attempts of various corporate, political, and journalistic elites, with respect to the Bond Commission and Perpetual Treasuries. The signs seem to be there; days and even weeks of nothing happening followed by a sensationalist discovery, the most recent being Anika Wijesuriya’s submissions about the 165 million rupee penthouse deal.   

A still from the film ‘All the President’s Men’


We are like the America of the seventies; decency in politics today is the exception, not the norm. Because of the faith we have lost in those we elect, at times soon after they are elected, we repose our trust in those who reveal them for who they are. Journalists, once despised as harbingers of sensationalism (especially during the war years), are more revered now than ever before. They currently serve the function they served in the West after the Kennedy assassinations, Watergate, the Contras, and Monica Lewinsky; restore the public’s taste for the truth. A coincidence?
  
I for one think not. We revel in seeing the worst of ourselves reflected in the worst of those who hold public office. We are opposed to transparency because we want to lead private lives. Politicians can’t be like that, but politicians are as much the human beings we are. The Bond Commission, from its inception, was tainted by a sensationalist clamour for conspiracy theories, from its connection with Mahinda Rajapaksa (allegedly linked to Arjun Aloysius, nephew of the former Central Bank Governor) to its latest development, the penthouse deals. We are secretly as opposed to openness as those involved in this fiasco are, but we are also curious. The Bond conspiracy theories, going by that, reflect our desire to unravel, to demystify.   

It’s simplistic to compare Bond 2017 to Watergate 1972. Except for one important point; like the latter, the former is driven by an inchoate mixture of mystery and discovery. Weeks, sometimes months, go by without anything being reported about the Commission. And then, just like that, it captures five column headlines. Just the other day I was reading about a concerted effort by both governing parties to oust the man at the centre of this fiasco. Whether or not that happens is something not even prophets are qualified to answer, but I wonder; will it unravel the way Watergate did through Bernstein and Woodward? Perhaps a movie, as prescient as Coppola’s or Pakula’s, might be just what we need. Until then, however, we can only conjecture.   

UDAKDEV1@GMAIL.COM

Limits of Human Rights

“The challenge for every advocate of democracy and human rights lies in restoring a sense of inclusion, dignity and self-respect to the millions of people who are considered ‘useless’ today.”

by Chris Stone-
( August 1, 2017, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) The most significant contributions of great scholars are often made after death, as reality catches up with their insights and their work is more deeply understood. I expect that this will be true of Wiktor OsiatyÅ„ski, a professor of constitutional law and human rights who served for many years on the Global Board of the Open Society Foundations, and who died this month in his native Poland.
I first met Wiktor OsiatyÅ„ski in 2004. Then in 2012, when I succeeded Aryeh Neier as president of the Open Society Foundations, he became one of my most active and provocative advisors. Wiktor was always ready to travel to any country to meet with anyone if it could advance the Foundations’ pursuit of justice and human rights. As a result, he was on the move on the Foundations’ behalf every year until his cancer restricted him to telephone visits.
While the memory of these visits burns bright today in the minds of those he met, Wiktor’s scholarship will shine more brightly over time, and I expect it will be his final book, Human Rights and Their Limits, that leaves the longest-lasting impression. Published in 2009, more than a year before the start of the Arab Spring and at the very start of the Obama presidency, the book was a decade ahead of its time.
Even then, Wiktor recognized the diminishing utility of human rights claims in an age when both liberal and illiberal democracies had replaced dictatorships as the most prominent violators of human rights, and he focused his attention on strategic conundrums still unresolved today. As the Harvard Law Review described his contribution at the time of publication, Wiktor had succeeded in “redefining universal rights in more pragmatic terms.”
Rereading Wiktor’s last book today, three of its arguments seem particularly striking.
First, Wiktor was not deceived by any temporary enthusiasm for human rights among one or another of the great powers. He develops this most carefully in his account of the birth of the United Nations, starting with the British and the American promises of human rights guarantees in the Atlantic Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the height of the Second World War.
Wiktor details how this may have been a successful gambit to bring people and nations to their side in the war, but the promises were insincere, or at least short-lived. By 1944, at Dumbarton Oaks, the British and Americans agreed with the other great powers that they would oppose any meaningful protection of human rights as part of the United Nations, and this opposition was in full force a year later at the San Francisco conference of the United Nations.
For Wiktor, this cynical invocation of rights by those in power was not just a 20th century phenomenon. He saw the same temporary alignment of powerful actors with rights defining the history of rights since Magna Carta. “Powerful barons in the year 1215, the advancing bourgeoisie of the eighteenth century, and the new political elites in 1948 and 1989 all adopted the idea of rights at a time when it could foster their interests. Once they had assured access to power for themselves, they often abandoned the idea of rights.”
The most recent and most cynical of these invocations of human rights by great powers came from the U.S. administration of George W. Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq, after the threat of weapons of mass destruction proved baseless. The obvious sham in that justification signaled the end of an era, and Wiktor recognized long before the European refugee crisis or the candidacy of Donald Trump that the cause of human rights was no longer useful to these powers.
“In the United States, the war on terror has dominated the internal political agenda, pushing away civil liberties and being used to justify undue increase of unaccountable presidential power. In Western Europe, the need to deal with growing immigration and the fear of Muslim minorities has taken priority over the protection of human rights.” Most striking here is Wiktor’s realist conclusion that “[t]he present crisis of the idea of rights seems primarily related to the fact that there exists no strong power that could foster its own political interests under the banner of human rights.”
Perhaps because of his cynical view of states, the second striking argument that Wiktor makes concerns the vital role of NGOs in constitutional democracies. It is civil society, not states, that contribute most to the protection of rights. In his formulation: “The exercise of freedom and protection of rights is proportional to the strength and institutional organization of civil society.”
Wiktor Osiatyński, a cherished member of the Open Society family, recently passed away.
What makes this striking is Wiktor’s anchoring the role of civil society in the nature of constitutional protections—protections that are beyond the reach in normal circumstances of the executive and legislative branches of government. Constitutions have become the strongest vehicles for making human rights enforceable. But even when they are enshrined in constitutions, these rights can only be claimed effectively by those with access to the courts, the press, and other public forums. The rich have no need for civil society in this regard, for they can go to court to assert their rights on their own; but for everyone else, public interest NGOs play this crucial role. When rights are made enforceable through other mechanisms, such as international treaties, NGOs again play this vital role. The analogy that Wiktor makes is to the role of political parties in democratic theory.
In the nineteenth century, democratic theory accepted party systems as a necessary mediating institution between individual voters and their representation in government. Similarly, constitutional democracy should acknowledge the need for institutions without which individual rights are of limited use to anyone who is not rich and powerful …. Public interest NGOs should be elevated to similar status in the theory and practice of constitutional democracy as political parties.
Third, and perhaps most prescient, Wiktor saw the need for the human rights movement to repair the gap that had opened up between itself and the majority of the public. That gap needed to be closed, both in how human rights organizations communicate with the public, and in whose cause these human rights organizations take up. Communication had to become less legalistic, more evocative. And the movement had to embrace those left behind by economic growth in an era of globalization.
This last point would be the biggest challenge. The international human rights mechanisms remained elite institutions, as did the entire UN system. Wiktor thought it imperative that we develop a “system of global governance that would be sensitive to the needs of the poor.” Yes, there were institutions that were supposed to benefit the poor, but this was too close to humanitarianism, and not the promise of human rights. To claim rights, the poor would need real power.
As Wiktor explained it, “The idea of rights has seldom served the poor, destitute, dispossessed, and oppressed. Such people usually do not claim rights. Instead they ask for mercy, expect charity, and seek benefits from benevolent masters …. [R]ights have usually been claimed by those strong enough to demand them.”
Wiktor did not need Brexit, the Trump election, or the refugee crisis to understand how globalization had opened up a schism between human rights and people whose poverty seemed invisible to the masters of globalization. “The challenge for every advocate of democracy and human rights lies in restoring a sense of inclusion, dignity and self-respect to the millions of people who are considered ‘useless’ today.”
The human rights movement has lost precious time since Wiktor wrote about the limits of rights, and the situation today is even worse than Wiktor imagined it in 2009. Not only did he assume that President Obama would succeed in closing Guantanamo, but he assumed that the human rights movement would have closed those gaps with the public by now. Instead, those gaps seem to be yawning even wider.
It’s time to catch up with Wiktor OsiatyÅ„ski. We need to recognize that the embrace of human rights by great powers is always likely to be cynical, tactical, and short-lived. That’s not a reason to avoid it, but to recognize that those moments of human rights ascendance must be leveraged by civil society to make more progress than the great powers have conceded. We also have to insist on the legitimacy of civil society organizations as independent pillars of constitutional democracy, able to call on the moral and financial support of friends worldwide. And those NGOs must themselves close the gap with the public that threatens their relevance today.
Perhaps most important, to fully realize rights one has to recognize their limits. Rights are only one instrument for embedding strong values in our governance. Politics is another, and Wiktor was increasingly aware of the danger of crowding out politics with too many rights. He considered constitutions important crucibles for rights, but he recognized that democracies are equally important containers for politics.
If human relations are reduced simply to the fulfillment of rights, he cautioned, our lives, indeed our humanity, will be greatly diminished. We would do well to heed the advice he gave his students and with which he concluded his last book: “Do not try to use rights as a universal key that will open every door in front of you. Rights are very important for humankind. Do not take part in their abuse or abet their inflation to the point that they may fall into oblivion.” He signed that advice, “Your grateful teacher,” and I, for one, count myself his grateful student.
Chris Stone is the president of the Open Society Foundations, where this peice first appeared. He is an international expert on criminal justice reform and on the leadership and governance of nonprofits. Prior to joining Open Society, he was the Guggenheim Professor of the Practice of Criminal Justice at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and director of the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations. Before that, Stone spent a decade as director of the Vera Institute of Justice. He founded the Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem and served as a founding director of the New York State Capital Defender Office and of the Altus Global Alliance.