Stephen Bannon is threatening to blow up the Republican Party

Former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon gave a wide-ranging interview to “60 Minutes.” Here’s what he said about Republican leadership and the Russia investigation.(Amber Ferguson, Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

 
THE MORNING PLUM:

By Greg Sargent September 11 at 10:37 AM

Former Trump strategist Stephen K. Bannon is planning to escalate his war with the GOP establishment, by promoting primary challengers who will run against GOP incumbents on a platform that is fully faithful to Trumpism, multiple news organizations are reporting today.
This is a good raw political development for Democrats in advance of the 2018 midterms, as NBC’s First Read crew notes, because it could deepen divisions among Republicans and potentially replace incumbents with weaker GOP candidates in general elections.

But it’s also a good development for people who value reality-based political discourse. That’s because if these Bannon-backed challenges actually materialize, it will provide an important test of whether there actually is such a thing as a Trumpist agenda — and if so, how much political potency it has, now that President Trump is actually in the White House.

Politico reports that Bannon, allied with mega-donor and hedge-funder Robert Mercer, is working behind the scenes to engineer primary challenges to Dean Heller of Nevada and Jeff Flake of Arizona, and is fully behind religious right candidate Roy Moore’s Alabama GOP primary challenge to Luther Strange, who is backed by GOP leaders. Bannon’s Breitbart will no doubt function as the central propaganda outlet in this effort. Here is the upshot of what this all means:

The anti-incumbent effort could dramatically reshape the 2018 primary landscape if it materializes. It would pit a group of pro-Trump primary challengers against sitting lawmakers who are perceived as more mainstream.

Bannon has privately argued that the Sept. 26 runoff between Moore and Strange is (in the words of Politico) a “defining battle between the conservative base and GOP establishment” and that defeating Strange would “open the floodgates” to more Trumpist candidates to challenge Republicans in other primaries.

But here’s the question: What will these Trumpist challengers actually run on? Obviously one possibility is that they will campaign on things we know Bannon (and Trump) support, such as more protectionist trade deals; tighter restrictions on legal immigration; a demand that congressional Republicans fund Trump’s wall on the southern border; and a deportation dragnet that is expanded well beyond its current reach under Trump.

Indeed, Bannon provided an important clue along these lines in an interview with Charlie Rose, in which Bannon criticized the handling of the “dreamers” by Republicans and Trump as too soft. Trump has canceled protections for hundreds of thousands of people brought here illegally as children, which will drive them out of jobs and possibly subject them to deportation. Republicans are talking about a legislative solution for the dreamers, and Trump has hinted at openness to signing such a measure, or if one does not materialize, to renewing executive protections for them.

But Bannon told Rose that, if Republicans or Trump take action such as this, it will prompt a “civil war inside the Republican Party.” And Bannon flatly stated that we should deny the dreamers work permits so that they “self deport.” This would seem to mean, then, that Bannon-backed GOP primary challengers will campaign on an uncompromising insistence against protecting the dreamers, so that their lives are thrown into such chaos that they leave the United States, with many going back to countries they never knew.

Fine — let them do this. If so, we’ll see how GOP incumbents respond, and what GOP primary voters really think of it. And beyond this, what sort of Trumpist economic agenda will these Bannon-backed challengers run on?

Following the political conversation right now is a bit like being trapped in a hall of mirrors. Ever since Trump cut a short-term debt limit and government funding deal with Democrats, we have been told endlessly that this might signal Trump’s political and ideological independence from the GOP. The idea is supposed to be that there is a yawning gap between Trump’s ideological goals and those of the Republican Party, and if Republicans won’t help realize them, well, maybe Trump will make deals with Democrats to get them done.

But basic realities can’t seem to penetrate this discussion. Trump fully embraced the GOP agenda on multiple fronts. Trump campaigned on a vow to protect the safety net and spend bigly on infrastructure — both of which were said to be important parts of Trump’s agenda of what Bannon likes to call “populist economic nationalism.” But then Trump went all in with Paul Ryan’s health plan and its hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid cuts to finance massive tax cuts for the rich. The vow of robust public spending on infrastructure — a Bannon obsession — quietly disappeared. The pro-worker trade deals have not materialized. If Trump is really ideologically independent of the GOP, where is the evidence of this in policy terms?

Bannon basically copped to this in his interview with Rose, admitting that “the original sin of the administration” was that it “embraced the establishment.” But if Bannon-backed challengers to GOP incumbents really do materialize, perhaps this will offer an occasion for them to run on this Trump agenda that Bannon claims was abandoned. Which means that, in addition to more draconian immigration policies, they will campaign on protecting the safety net, large public infrastructure expenditures and fully fleshed-out protectionist policies that finally explain how these would benefit working people, right?

I’m only partly joking here. You’d think this would finally provide a chance for Bannon and his allies in the economic nationalist movement he keeps touting to show us what a full Trumpist agenda actually looks like. If it exists at all.

* TRUMP QUIETLY PUSHES CONSERVATIVE AGENDA: The New York Times has a good report on how the Trump administration is pushing through conservative priorities on many fronts via regulatory action:

The aggressive regulatory effort, which runs counter to the Trump administration’s less-is-more credo about government meddling, has led to policy changes related to gun ownership, gay rights, reproductive choices, immigration and other divisive political issues … The turnabout stems in part from lobbying by evangelical Christians and other conservative groups. In interviews, these groups said they have regular discussions on domestic and foreign policy with the administration.

You’d think this sort of thing, which is designed to keep his constituencies happy, would silence all the chatter about how Trump is now proving his ideological and political independence.
* REPUBLICANS FACE REALITY THAT THEY’RE GETTING NOTHING DONE: Politico takes stock of the GOP’s performance thus far and delivers this stark assessment, citing a previous prediction by House Speaker Paul Ryan:

Ryan predicted in January that tax reform, Obamacare repeal and a border wall would all be done by now. Instead, Obamacare repeal may be completely dead at month’s end, there are just broad strokes on tax reform, and many Republicans oppose the border wall being pushed by their own president. Now GOP lawmakers across the party’s ideological spectrum are agonizing about the party’s stark lack of achievements after getting rolled by Democrats in debt ceiling negotiations this week.

So much for all the dreams about what Republicans would accomplish if only they could recapture unified control of the White House and Congress.
* GET READY FOR THE NEXT IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN: CNN’s Tal Kopan reports that after rescinding protections for the “dreamers,” the Trump administration is weighing a crackdown on another class of immigrants:

At issue is “temporary protected status,” a provision of immigration law that allows the government to grant temporary work authorizations and protection from deportation to undocumented immigrants from certain countries where life remains dangerous. … In the next six months, the Trump administration will weigh whether to extend the status for several countries whose immigrants have lived in the United States for as long as 20 years — with a decision to end that status potentially upending their lives.

Just as he did with the dreamers, Trump will no doubt promise to treat these people (there are around 440,000 of them) with “heart” before scrapping their protections.
* TRUMP IS LYING ABOUT HIS BIG, BEAUTIFUL WALL: Trump loves to say that we need a wall on the Mexican border to stop drugs from entering the country. Post fact checker Nicole Lewis takes apart the claim with help from a 2016 Drug Enforcement Administration report:

The majority of the illicit drugs enter the United States through legal ports of entry …. Many drugs are also smuggled through elaborately built subterranean tunnels that start in Mexico and end inside of stash houses in the United States … Traffickers are also turning to advanced technology and flying drugs over the border using unmanned drones … A wall, no matter how well built, does not address drugs entering the United States via these routes.

Yes, but building a wall will make Trump voters feel as though he’s really tough and strong on drugs and immigration, which is what really matters.
* TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS OVERRUN BY CLIMATE DENIERS:Paul Krugman makes an important point here about all the punditry of late arguing that Trump might be, at long last, pivoting:

Thanks to Trump’s electoral victory, know-nothing, anti-science conservatives are now running the U.S. government. When you read news analyses claiming that Trump’s deal with Democrats to keep the government running for a few months has somehow made him a moderate independent, remember that’s it not just [EPA chief Scott] Pruitt: Almost every senior figure in the Trump administration dealing with the environment or energy is both an establishment Republican and a denier of climate change and of scientific evidence in general.

Indeed. The constant hunt for shards of evidence of Trump’s “moderation” and “independence” is even more puzzling when you consider that the evidence to the contrary continues to be ignored.
* TRUMP IS FAR WEAKER TODAY: E.J. Dionne Jr. adds important context to the debate over Trump’s decision to make a short-term deal with Democrats:

He is a far weaker figure today than he was when he was inaugurated. His poll numbers are terrible, the Russia story has ballooned in importance, and Democrats are in no mood to throw him any lifelines. His words and actions on race and deportations have erected new moral barriers to any pragmatic turn toward working with him. “All he’s done in eight months,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide, “is make the price of cooperation a lot higher.”

That is a dynamic to watch: Will a weakened, unpopular Trump, desperate for accomplishments, concede more ground to Democrats?
* BANNON: COMEY FIRING WAS AN ENORMOUS SCREW-UP: In his interview with Charlie Rose, Bannon also said that Trump’s firing of former FBI director James Comey was the biggest mistake in modern political history. He added:

“I don’t think there’s any doubt that if James Comey had not been fired, then we would not have a special counsel … We would not have the Mueller investigation. We would not have the Mueller investigation in the breadth that clearly Mr. Mueller is going.”

Trump himself appears unable to grasp that his own actions are what led directly to Robert S. Mueller III’s probe. But perhaps he’ll take Bannon’s word for it now.

The German Election Is a Christian Civil War

Germany’s far-right is saying out loud what Angela Merkel’s party has always quietly believed: that Christian culture depends on Christian demographics. 

BY NOAH B. STROTE-SEPTEMBER 11, 2017

The true winner of Germany’s much anticipated chancellor’s debate last week wasn’t even present on stage at the event. Millions of voters tuned in to watch a decisive duel between the leaders of the country’s two largest parties, Angela Merkel of the Christian Democrats and Martin Schulz of the Social Democrats, but what they witnessed instead was a discussion dominated by the specter of a third, ascendant party that has recently burst onto the political scene: Alternative for Germany (AfD), a right-wing organization led by breakaway members of Merkel’s Christian Democratic bloc. According to the latest polls, this populist group has climbed to the number-three spot in the lead up to the general vote on September 24. Political analysts predict it has the potential to become much larger and much more disruptive in the years to come.

Americans would do well to take note of the conflict now unfolding between the AfD and the incumbent chancellor, even if Merkel is widely expected to win a record-tying fourth term. In general, liberals in the United States have been paying far less attention to the German election season compared with the widespread hand-wringing over the growth of populism in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and France earlier this year. But in fact, it will be in stable, boring old Germany where the most dramatic challenge to open borders and multiculturalism comes.

The emergence of a viable alternative to the “establishment” conservative politics Merkel represents is so important because of the role played by her party, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), in the shaping of post-Nazi Germany, where it ruled for almost three quarters of the country’s history. The CDU was founded after World War II by men and women who vowed to protect the Christian character of the German nation and Europe as a whole, but it has always held an on-again, off-again relationship with white nationalists.

This has been true since even before the beginning. The CDU’s founders, most of whom hailed from the western regions of Germany where Christianity was most historically rooted, originally voted to support Nazism. Far from being a fluke, their alliance was a logical consequence of demographic fears. The man who would go on to become the party’s leader and first chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, was not alone in his belief that the northeastern part of his country — the heart of Prussia, with its capital in Berlin — was populated by a mongrelized, Asiatic, not-entirely-white race whose non-Christian culture threatened to spread. While Adolf Hitler, prior to coming to power was suspect for many reasons, at least he vowed to protect the nation’s Christian identity from such pernicious elements.

After World War II, when Hitler proved more interested in conquest than Christianity, those same politicians emerged to offer a new vision for German, European, and world politics — this time with a more dependable and powerful partner, the United States of America. Distancing themselves from Nazism, they advocated a “Christian image” of politics based on the values of individual freedom, economic liberty, and cultural openness. The vision appealed to the U.S. occupiers, which ended up tipping the scales in the CDU’s favor when it helped the western German regions secede from the Russian-occupied northeast. Though they officially called for reunification during the early part of the Cold War, CDU leaders such as Adenauer were secretly pleased that their Christian heartland was now demographically sealed off from the Asiatics.

But they weren’t pleased for long. Adenauer, who attended Catholic mass every Sunday and ruled until 1963, insisted that the state guarantee a Christian culture by ensuring church leadership in lawmaking, governance, and public education. Since then, the sexual revolution and rising immigration from the non-Christian, non-white part of the world (especially Muslim-majority countries) forced the CDU to change course in order to maintain relevance at the polls. Helmut Kohl, the party’s chancellor of the 1980s and 1990s who oversaw reunification with the East at the end of the Cold War, emphasized the Catholic piety of his parents but rarely attended church himself and kept in place many of the Social Democratic educational policies that de-emphasized religion in schools. He married a non-Catholic woman and raised two sons who went on to marry non-Christians and non-whites (one a Turk, the other a Korean). Over time, the party’s social policy has become less and less distinguishable from Social Democracy, its leadership forced into increasingly difficult acrobatics to justify the word “Christian” in its party’s name.

Merkel, Germany’s current leader, is perhaps the least pious yet of the long-standing CDU chancellors. At the debate last week, when a moderator asked her and her Social Democratic rival if they had been in church earlier that day, both replied in the negative. In this she is representative of the vast majority of Germans, only 10 percent of whom are regular churchgoers, but it makes her vulnerable to a Christian conservative challenger such as the AfD. As the first Protestant to hold her position, she depends largely on the legacy of her Lutheran pastor father for her Christian legitimacy.
She is married to an East German man who was raised without the church and, in her speeches, relies rhetorically on vague appeals to the maintenance of a “Christian image” of humanity, which she seems to define mostly as a commitment to established Western legal freedoms. And for eight of her 12 years as chancellor, she has led a government coalition with the Social Democrats.

But the chancellor’s lack of piety appears not to have bothered the more conservative members of her Christian party — until she made the decision in 2015 to allow hundreds of thousands of non-Christian, non-white refugees from the Middle East into Germany. It was only at that point that many began to jump ship in favor of the new rival Christian conservative party, Alternative for Germany, which had been founded two years prior.

The founders of the AfD took their name from a phrase Merkel used in 2013, “There is no alternative,” when arguing in support of the German-led bailout of the Greek government, which she said was necessary to maintain the economic integrity of the European Union. While signifying its nationalism and Euroskepticism, the word “alternative” pulls double duty as a description of the party’s goal to become the true guardian of Germany’s — and Europe’s — Christian identity.

Despite disavowal by a majority of the country’s bishops, several influential Catholic and Protestant theologians have come out in favor of the AfD or urged their listeners and readers to take their arguments seriously. The manifesto of their organization, “Christen in der AfD,” calls for a strengthening of religious consciousness in public education and warns that an evaporation of Christian identity would “endanger nothing less than the foundations of our system of state and of our civilization.” In this it sounds like a document from the Adenauer era, except that the demographic threat it identifies comes not from Eastern Europe but from North Africa and the Middle East. “The AfD is the new CDU,” supporters were quoted saying at a recent rally.

Beyond their call for the devolution of the European Union, the

AfD’s policy recommendations are easy to sum up: stop Muslim immigration and foster the production of white children through family welfare. Its candidates are citing a recent government report that nearly 400,000 more Syrians could come into the country in 2018 just through “family reunification” policy, creating what she calls “social chaos.” In its election posters, the party shows young women on the beach with the slogan “Burkas? We’re into bikinis” and a young pregnant white woman with the phrase “New Germans? Let’s make them ourselves.”

Although the AfD (like the CDU) came out against last summer’s successful gay marriage bill, its top candidate in the upcoming election, Alice Weidel, is lesbian. The important thing is optics. Weidel is raising two young children birthed by her white Swiss German partner. And the AfD’s party chief, Frauke Petry, is an attractive 41-year-old mother of five white kids — a powerful contrast to the childless Merkel, the “refugee chancellor” whom they implicitly cast as a traitor to her race and religion.

The AfD is eager to show that Merkel and the CDU will not dare to fight for what it has always claimed to value: the conservation of a Christian Germany and Europe. And in doing so, they are exposing the tension inherent in the CDU’s program: the repressed assumption that the maintenance of a certain type of ethnic majority is necessary for that project. The AfD claims it is no more deserving of the “white nationalist” label than the historic CDU upon which it is modeled.

The conflict between the AfD and the CDU in Germany sheds light on the current civil war between the pro-Trump wing and the establishment wing of the Republican Party, the dominant representative of Christian politics in the United States. Like Merkel, Sen. Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan are often seen by their internal challengers as too “politically correct” to clearly articulate the demographic dangers that threaten white Christian America. To appreciate this transatlantic convergence, one might look to the fact that the AfD has has hired Vincent Harris, the young Christian conservative political strategist of Harris Media, to consult on its election media blitz.
Harris became known through his work using sexualized ad campaigns for Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu linking ethnic demographic fear and religious identity.

According to the latest polls after the campaign, the AfD will take around 10 percent of the vote, but this may be just the beginning. According to the Berlin political scientist Oskar Niedermeyer, the potential for its brand of populism is great given the way that migration has polarized German society — a potential that has not yet been fully tapped because of the lack of professionalism in the party’s leadership. Indeed, many of the party’s leading lights are academics or experts with little political experience. (In 2015, the press dubbed it the “party of professors.”) The question is whether young German voters, who are becoming increasingly active in political parties compared to generations past, will embrace its message.

Merkel said in the debate last week that a CDU coalition with the racist AfD was out of the question. She has also insisted that right-wing extremism must be confronted not only in Germany but “no matter where it happens in the world.” What she cannot say in public, however, is that the history of her own party is deeply rooted in the type of politics she now condemns.

Photo credit: CHRISTOPH SCHMIDT/AFP/Getty Images

Interview: Pakistan PM warns U.S. sanctions would be counter-productive

Pakistan's Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi speaks with a Reuters correspondent during an interview at his office in Islamabad, Pakistan September 11, 2017. REUTERS/Faisal Mahmood

Drazen Jorgic -SEPTEMBER 11, 2017

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi said it would be counter-productive for the United States to sanction Pakistani officials or further cut military assistance, warning it would hurt both countries’ fight against militancy.

U.S.-Pakistan relations have frayed since President Donald Trump last month set out a new Afghanistan policy and lashed out at nuclear-armed Pakistan as a fickle ally that gives safe haven to “agents of chaos” by harbouring the Afghan Taliban and other militants.

The United States has already begun conditioning future aid to Pakistan on progress Islamabad makes in tackling the Haqqani network militants who it alleges are Pakistan-based and have helped the Taliban carry out deadly attacks inside Afghanistan.

Pakistan denies hosting militant sanctuaries, and Islamabad bristles at claims it has not done enough to tackle militancy, noting it has borne the brunt of violence in the so-called war on terror, suffering more than 60,000 casualties since 2001.

Former petroleum minister Abbasi, 58, who was installed as prime minister last month after the Supreme Court ousted veteran premier Nawaz Sharif over undeclared income, told Reuters that any targeted sanctions by Washington against Pakistani military and intelligence officials would not help U.S. counter-terrorism efforts.

“We are fighting the war against terror, anything that degrades our effort will only hurt the U.S. effort,” Abbasi said in an interview in Islamabad on Monday. “What does it achieve?”

U.S. officials privately say the targeted sanctions would be aimed at Pakistani officials with ties to extremist groups and are part of an array of options being discussed to pressure Pakistan to change its behaviour, including further aid cuts.

ARMS DEALS WITH CHINA, RUSSIA?

Washington’s civilian and military assistance to Pakistan was less than $1 billion in 2016, down from a recent peak of $3.5 billion in 2011, and Abbasi warned that Washington will not achieve its counter-terrorism aims by starving Pakistan of funds.

“If the military aid cuts degrade our effort to fight war on terror, who does it help?” he said. “Whatever needs to be done here, it needs to be a cooperative effort.”

Abbasi said one practical side-effect of military aid cuts and U.S. Congress blocking the sale of subsidised F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan will be to force Islamabad to buy weapons from China and Russia.

“We’ve had to look at other options to maintain our national defensive forces,” he said.

The Trump administration’s tougher stance is seen as pushing Islamabad closer to Beijing, which has pledged about $60 billion in roads, rail and power infrastructure in Pakistan as part of its ambitious Belt and Road initiative to build vast land and sea trade routes linking Asia with Europe and Africa.

“We have a major economic relationship with (China), we have a major military relationship since the 1960s, so that’s definitely one of our options,” he said.

Pakistan's Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi speaks with a Reuters correspondent during an interview at his office in Islamabad, Pakistan September 11, 2017. REUTERS/Faisal Mahmood

Pakistan's Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi speaks with a Reuters correspondent during an interview at his office in Islamabad, Pakistan September 11, 2017. REUTERS/Faisal Mahmood

Abbasi said it was “unfair” to blame Pakistan for all the troubles in Afghanistan, saying Washington should show more appreciation for Pakistan’s losses from militancy and its role in hosting 3.5 million Afghan refugees.

He added that Afghan-based militants have also launched cross-border attacks on civilians and military in Pakistan, prompting Pakistan to begin investing “several billion dollars” to fence the disputed and porous 2,500 km (1,500 mile) border.

“We intend to fence the whole border to control that situation,” Abbasi added.

ECONOMIC HEADWINDS

Abbasi, a skydiving enthusiast and co-founder of a budget airline, also faces growing headwinds on the economy ahead of a general election, likely in mid-2018.

Growth in Pakistan’s $300 billion economy surged to 5.3 percent in 2016-17, its fastest pace in a decade, but the macro-economic outlook has deteriorated, stoking concerns Pakistan may need an International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout, as it did in 2013, to avert another balance of payments crisis.

Foreign currency reserves have dwindled by almost a quarter to $14.7 billion since last October, while the 2016-17 current account deficit has more than doubled to $12.1 billion.

Abbasi said Islamabad was looking at a raft of measures to alleviate current account pressures to avoid going back to the IMF, including reducing imports of luxury goods, boosting exports, and possibly devaluing its currency.

Finance Minister Ishaq Dar is a staunch opponent of a weaker rupee - whose level against the dollar is effectively controlled by the central bank - but Abbasi said it had been discussed.

“There are pros and cons to devaluation, but that could be a decision we take,” he said, adding that any devaluation would not be drastic, and “today, it’s not on the table yet.”

Abbasi, who has hinted his former boss remains the power behind the throne by repeatedly calling him “the people’s prime minister”, said the three-time premier remains hugely popular despite his disqualification by the Supreme Court on July 28.

“Politics is not decided in courts,” said Abbasi, who was jailed along with Sharif after the 1999 military coup. “Politically, Nawaz Sharif is stronger today than he was on July 28.”

Abbasi is also pushing ahead with a wide-ranging tax reform agenda before the elections - a tough task in a nation that has one of the world’s lowest tax-to-GDP ratios and where tax evasion is rampant and often culturally acceptable.

The ruling PML-N party is looking for cross-party support for the reforms, but Abbasi said radical changes would require an integrated approach, including building confidence among tax payers, reducing income taxes and making it less attractive to invest in a real estate sector that attracts black money.

“You not only need to have a stick, you need to have a carrot also,” he said.

INDIA: The murder of the ‘other’

People gathered on Wednesday in Bengaluru to pay respects to the journalist Gauri Lankesh, who was killed outside her home the night before. CreditManjunath Kiran/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Investigators outside Ms. Lankesh’s home, where the shooting took place.CreditManjunath Kiran/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

September 8, 2017

In India, Another Government Critic Is Silenced by Bullets’, is how the New York Times reported the murder of Gauri Lankesh, a gutsy journalist known for her fierce opposition of the religious right wing regime currently in power in India. The heading that the New York Times chose says it all.
Yes, Lankesh is ‘another’ victim of an increasingly violent and bloodthirsty fundamentalism that is turning India into the killing fields of journalists, academicians, rationalists and seculars. Lankesh was shot dead right in front of her house in Bengaluru on Sep 5, 2017.She ran the Kannada tabloid, Gauri Lankesh Patrike, a fiercely outspoken, anti-communal publication that frequently criticized right-wing and Hindutva politics and stances. Lankesh was also actively involved in helping former Naxalites rejoin the mainstream, and this has given rise to a war of words on social media. Exploiting this, right-wing communalists have alleged that the Naxalites could be behind her killings.

The modus operandi of her killing was similar to that of Malleshappa Madivalappa Kalburgi, who was killed on 30 August, 2015 in his home in Dharwad, Karnataka. Kalburgi, a professor and academic had challenged the religious right-wing, opposed superstitious practices and traditions, and advocated a secular, plural society. Earlier, two other rationalists, Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare too were killed in August 2013 and February 2015,respectively. Lankesh has in fact herself pointed out the threats to her and similarly minded intellectuals in her public speeches, interviews and writings. After the death of journalist Linganna Satyampet, Lankesh was quoted in an article saying “We’ve made a list based on how many times the Hindutva groups spew venom on us and how strongly”.

The debate, anger and angst surrounding Lankesh’s murder and the murder of other rationalists before her would not be complete without examining the climate of fear and violence that exists in India today. The proliferation of new media and the anonymity provided by social media online, especially on fora like Facebook and Twitter that allow real time interactions, have created troops of people that are willing to offend and take offence at the slightest provocation.

Glee-filled proclamations after Lankesh’s murder and messages threatening rape and death to those who have a counter-view, to feminists online who dare to raise their voice and to anyone else who expresses counter-majoritarian opinions, show how easy it is to unleash violence, even if it is not physical. It also shows how easy it is to ignore this form of violence, to belittle and downplay it, to feign ignorance and allow the complexities of cyberspace to excuse inaction.

Yet, that said, the political narrative and continuing debates surrounding the gruesome killing cannot be allowed to roll the law and order debate aside. A murder, whether political or not, is a murder and thus a crime against the state. Blaming the ideology that makes people murder is a part of the conversation. But it is not enough. It is the duty of the state to bring the guilty to book, prosecute and punish them to ensure both justice and deterrence.

Of course, no government can guarantee zero killings. But then, with law and order being the state’s responsibility, they must proactively try to create an environment where people feel safe and criminals are wary of the prowess of the state. The murders of Kalburgi, Pansare and Dabholkar, and the death of Satyampet remain unsolved even today, years after their assassination. Evidently, the assassins of Lankesh had nothing to fear. They know that they could kill her with impunity and go scot free.

India was also recently witness to the Panchkula incident where diabolical, rampaging mobs caused deaths and major destruction of public property in the wake of Ram Rahim Singh’s conviction, effectively permitted to do so by state inaction. Further, incidents of cow vigilantism are on the rise, with Muslims and Dalits usually at the receiving end of mob violence and police apathy. It is thus important for the state to use intelligence effectively to pre-empt and prevent such violence.

The Indian state needs to come out of its stupor, put its act together and ensure that the killers of Lankesh and those of other rationalists before her, are brought to justice. The police need to understand better the violence online and how it could translate to physical violence, and the ways to upgrade policing accordingly.

Alongside, it is time for the Indian state to show its commitment to fostering an environment of true tolerance, secularism and fraternity, Constitutional ideals that are struggling to survive, gasping for air. The Union Government as well as the States must commit to evolving and implementing a policy of encouraging and harnessing dissent for the greater good of the nation, where people on opposite ends of the spectrum are taught to respect and engage, not murder and extinguish – both lives and opinions.

Philippines: US extends aid for Marawi recovery, deploys another plane to Mindanao

A evacuee gets drinking water from a tap outside an evacuation centre, as government troops continues their operations against pro-IS militants which seized Marawi city, in Baloi village, Lanao Del Norte, southern Philippines September 7, 2017. Source: Reuters/Romeo Ranoco-Evacuees collect water at an improvised drinking station after fleeing to an evacuation centre with their families in Saguiaran town, Lanao Del Sur, southern Philippines, on Sept 10, 2017. Source: Reuters/Romeo Ranoco

A Gray Eagle Unmanned Aircraft System ready for flight. Source: US Embassy in Manila-Government soldiers on patrol walk near damaged buildings and houses as troops continue their assault on its 105th day of clearing operations against pro-IS militants who have seized control of large parts of Marawi City, Philippines, on Sept 4, 2017. Source: Reuters/Romeo Ranoco

By Bong S. Sarmiento | 11th September 2017

THE UNITED STATES has allocated PHP730 million (US$14.3 million) to help in the recovery of embattled Marawi City, as Washington continued on Monday to beef up the military capability of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in a bid to end the almost four month-old siege staged by the Islamic State-inspired Maute Group.

US Ambassador to the Philippines Sung Kim announced the multi-million peso assistance for the recovery and rehabilitation of besieged Marawi, as government troops and the Islamist militants are still engaged in combat. Ongoing fighting means tens of thousands of individuals remain in evacuation centers or with their relatives in nearby areas.

Kim revealed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has allocated the amount to help in emergency relief and recovery assistance for communities affected by the ongoing conflict in Marawi.

SEE ALSO: Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia eye joint task force for fighting IS

Kim noted the Philippines remains a partner of the United States despite the bid of President Rodrigo Duterte to pursue an “independent foreign policy.” The firebrand president declared “a military and economic separation” from the US in a state visit to China last year as he seeks closer ties not only with Beijing but also Russia.

“The United States is deeply committed to this relationship and remains ready to support our friend and ally as we face the challenges and opportunities,” the envoy said.

.@USAmbManila announces 102 million pesos new assistance from @StateDept Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement. pic.twitter.com/sbJhe5QWrG

— U.S. Embassy Manila (@usembassymanila) 8 September 2017

U.S. Embassy Manila‏Verified account @usembassymanila

.@USAmbManila announces 102 million pesos new assistance from @StateDept Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement.

3:04 am - 8 Sep 2017

“We all look forward to the end of the crisis, and the end of the fighting and suffering.  We have been and will continue to support the Philippine government’s efforts to deal with the crisis,” he added.

The US government will coordinate with the Philippine government and humanitarian organisations on the ground to deliver critical relief supplies such as safe drinking water, hygiene kits, kitchen sets, and shelter materials that will improve conditions in evacuation centers and other alternative housing.

USAID will also provide 18 facilities in Marawi with critical supplies and services to address tuberculosis and maternal, newborn and child health needs.

In addition to this, USAID will help bolster the early recovery of Marawi by restoring basic public services such as health care, water and electricity.

The aid agency will support Marawi’s longer-term stabilisation and rehabilitation by jumpstarting livelihoods, promoting community dialogue, rebuilding resilient health systems, and offering skills training and psychosocial counseling for youth.

Last July, Washington provided access to potable water by distributing 12,000 water containers and nearly 100,000 chlorine tablets to 12,000 families staying in evacuation sites in Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur and Iligan City.

The US government has likewise committed to supply 6,500 tablet armchairs, which will be distributed to schools in Mindanao where displaced Marawi students are currently enrolled.

USAID supports peace and community development in Mindanao through 25 ongoing projects that improve local governance, strengthen the government’s capacity to deliver services, especially in health and education, and promote civic engagement.

SEE ALSO: Marawi conflict: 100 days on, tens of thousands of civilians still endure hardship

As this developed, the US embassy on Monday announced another deployment of a state-of-the-art surveillance aircraft in Mindanao as part of its commitment to beef up AFP’s defence capability in fighting Islamist militants and other lawless armed groups.

The embassy said a Gray Eagle Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) was deployed to the southern Philippines for additional surveillance in support of AFP’s counterterrorism efforts.

“Compared to current surveillance platforms used in the region, the Gray Eagle has a longer flight duration which will enable a larger area of reconnaissance and surveillance,” it said in a statement.

Government troops remained locked in a battle with the Maute Group in Marawi, a southern Philippine island of Mindanao. Clashes erupted between government troops and the Maute Group on May 23, prompting President Rodrigo Duterte to put the entire Mindanao under martial law.

The firefight in Marawi continues to displace some 360,000 people, who have sought refuge in evacuation centres or stayed with their relatives. As the crisis wears on, many evacuees have complained of lack of relief assistance and lost economic opportunities.

Speaking at the “Mindanao Hour” press briefing Monday aired live on state television, AFP spokesman Brig. Gen. Restituto Padilla said the military offensive in Marawi “is on the final push.”

Padilla said there will be no more negotiations with the Maute Group, which is still holding several hostages including a Catholic priest, noting “the end of the crisis in Marawi is near.”

Even before the clashes in Marawi erupted, the US has extended humanitarian and defence assistance to the Philippines, despite Duterte’s pivot to strengthen relations with China and Russia.

Over the past three years, the US has provided the Philippines with assistance valued at over PHP15 billion (US$295 million), to establish better command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities for the AFP.

Recent US intelligence equipment delivered to the Philippines include a Raven tactical UAS and two Cessna-208B surveillance aircraft, as well as various munitions and weapons to support urgent defence and counterterrorism needs.

The strong, long-standing military relationship with the Philippines enables the US to respond quickly to the AFP’s needs and to support the army’s modernisation goals, according to the statement.

SEE ALSO: Women and children fighting alongside Islamic State militants in Marawi

Late last month, the Joint United States Military Assistance Group delivered 1,000 M40 field protective masks and C2 filter canisters to the Philippine Navy (PN) through the Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (MLSA).

The PN requested the gas masks in order to better prepare Filipino sailors and marines to respond to chemical threats as the fighting continues in Marawi.

The transfer was part of a series of ongoing transfers from the US military to multiple branches of the AFP through both MLSA and the security assistance program.

Through the MLSA, the AFP is able to receive select munitions and equipment from US military stock in an accelerated process reserved for allies and close partners of the US

Myanmar treatment of Rohingya looks like 'textbook ethnic cleansing', says UN

Top human rights official denounces ‘brutal operation’ against Muslim minority in Rakhine state

Michael Safi in Delhi-Monday 11 September 2017 

Myanmar’s treatment of its Muslim Rohingya minority appears to be a “textbook example” of ethnic cleansing, the top United Nations human rights official has said.

In an address to the UN human rights council in Geneva, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein denounced the “brutal security operation” against the Rohingya in Rakhine state, which he said was “clearly disproportionate” to insurgent attacks carried out last month.

More than 310,000 people have fled to Bangladesh in recent weeks, with more trapped on the border, amid reports of the burning of villages and extrajudicial killings.

“I call on the government to end its current cruel military operation, with accountability for all violations that have occurred, and to reverse the pattern of severe and widespread discrimination against the Rohingya population,” Hussein said.

“The situation seems a textbook example of ethnic cleansing.”

With international pressure mounting on Monday, the country’s foreign affairs ministry – which is headed by the country’s de facto leader, Aung San Suu Kyi – said it shared global concerns at the displacement and suffering of “all communities” in the latest violence.

The statement failed to mention the Rohingya, who are not a recognised ethnic group in Myanmar, but listed other affected communities in Rakhine state, including other Muslim groups, whose fate it said was “sadly overlooked by the world”.

It added that the security forces had been instructed “to exercise all due restraint and to take full measures to avoid collateral damage and the harming of innocent civilians”.

Human rights violations and other crimes would be addressed “in accordance with the strict norms of justice”, it said.

The latest crackdown against the Muslim minority was triggered on 25 August when a Rohingya insurgent group attacked more than two dozen security sites and killed 12 people.

Militia groups, local security forces and the Burmese army responded with “clearance operations” that have forced refugees into Bangladesh and left tens of thousands more displaced inside the state.

The foreign ministry said the attacks were deliberately timed to sabotage the release of a report by the former UN secretary general Kofi Annan advising on ways to overcome the decades-old tension between the Rohingya and Myanmar’s leaders.

Annan’s report, which also did not name the Rohingya at Aung San Suu Kyi’s request, recommended that the government begin lifting longstanding restrictions on the community’s ability to participate in politics, move freely and gain citizenship.

On Sunday Bangladesh’s foreign minister accused the Myanmar government of committing genocide against the Rohingya. Analysts said that AH Mahmood Ali’s language was the strongest yet from Myanmar’s neighbour, and reflected intense frustration in Dhaka at the continuing influx of Rohingya refugees.

Over the weekend the Dalai Lama became the latest Nobel peace prize laureate to speak out about the crisis, telling the Burmese forces involved in attacks on the ethnic Muslim minority to “remember Buddha”.

Ali told diplomats on Sunday that unofficial sources had put the Rohingya death toll from the latest unrest in Rakhine at about 3,000.

“The international community is saying it is a genocide. We also say it is a genocide,” Ali told reporters in Dhaka. He said the influx of refugees in the past month took the total number of Rohingya in Bangladesh to more than 700,000. “It is now a national problem,” he said.

Ali said about 10,000 homes had been burned in Rakhine state, a figure that cannot be verified as Myanmar has restricted independent access to the state.

Scores of refugees in Bangladesh have given accounts of arson by Burmese security forces. On Sunday Human Rights Watch said that satellite analysis had shown evidence of fire damage in urban areas populated by Rohingya as well as in isolated villages.

Myanmar says it is targeting armed insurgents, including fighters from the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (Arsa), the group which claimed responsibility for the August attacks and reportedly controls small areas of Rakhine.

Arsa, which has been accused of carrying out attacks against Buddhist and Hindu civilians, called for a month-long “humanitarian pause” on Sunday to deal with the refugee crisis. The truce was dismissed by Myanmar authorities, which said they did not negotiate with “terrorists”.

The International Organisation for Migration estimated about 313,000 Rohingya had crossed into Bangladesh by Monday, noting that the influx appeared to be slowing. Many new arrivals were on the move inside Bangladesh and could not be counted, it said.

Rohingya people have been systematically persecuted for decades by the Burmese government, which, contrary to historical evidence, regards them as illegal migrants from Bangladesh and restricts their citizenship rights and access to government services.

The UN has described earlier security operations as possible “crimes against humanity”, but the scale of the latest violence – and allegations that Burmese forces are mining the border – have led to speculation the military is trying remove the Rohingya from the country for good.

The Dalai Lama spoke about the crisis for the first time on Friday. “Those people who are sort of harassing some Muslims, they should remember Buddha,” he told journalists. “He would definitely give help to those poor Muslims. So still I feel that. So very sad.”

Myanmar’s population is overwhelmingly Buddhist and there is widespread hatred for the Rohingya. Buddhist nationalists, led by firebrand monks, have operated a long Islamophobic campaign calling for them to be pushed out of the country.

Aung San Suu Kyi has been condemned for her refusal to intervene in support of the Rohingya.

Associated Press and Agence France-Presse contributed to this report

Roots of Turkey’s interest in solving the problem of Rohingyas in Myanmar

 Saturday, 9 September 2017

The mounting humanitarian crisis concerning the Rohingya Muslims of Rakhine State in North Western Myanmar, which has displaced an estimated 365,000 and led to the death of about 400 so far, has invited strong condemnatory statements from the UN Secretary General Antonia Guterres, who warned of the risk of “ethnic cleansing” and Pope Frances, who spoke of the “persecution” of the Rohingyas.

Among the world’s Muslim countries, Indonesia and Turkey have gone beyond expressing concern and intervened to mitigate the suffering of the Rohingyas. Indonesian Foreign Minister, Retno Marsudi, telephoned her Bangladeshi counterpart, A.H. Mahmood Ali. In December last year, Marsudi had visited Bangladesh to hold talks on the Rohingya issue and visit refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar.

The Turkish President and current chair of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Recep Tayyip Erdogan, sent First Lady Emine Erdogan to Bangladesh to personally interact with the Rohingya refugees living in squalid camps in Cox’s Bazaar and offer help. At Cox’s Bazaar, the Turkish First Lady called on the international community “not to stay silent to this humanitarian tragedy, unacceptable in this day and age.”

With an estimated 165,000 Rohingyas arriving in Bangladesh in the last fortnight, the World Food Program estimates that the total number of arrivals can go up to 300,000. Bangladesh had already been hosting 200,000 Rohingyas and is desperately in need of international aid today. President Erdogan has been discussing the issue with several Muslim leaders to find a solution.

Meanwhile, Bangladesh allowed the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency or TIKA to distribute 1,000 tons of aid to Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine. This is part of the 10,000 tons pledged by Erdogan. Turkey has asked Bangladesh to open its borders to the fleeing Rohingyas, vowing to bear the cost of relief and rehabilitation of 100,000 Rohingya families.


Turkey’s interest in the Rohingyas 

Since Myanmar’s democratic transition began in 2011, violence between the country’s majority Buddhists and its Muslim minority has escalated. The 2012 riots in Rakhine State, where Muslims are 45% of the population, had led to several deaths and mass displacement of Muslims. There were riots in October 2016 and a Rohingya Islamic insurgent attack on 30 Security Forces camps on 25 August this year. Retaliatory actions led to mass displacement.

Having opened its embassy in Myanmar in March 2011, Turkey had adopted an active stance towards the Rohingya’s plight. It took the issue to the UN and initiated the formation of the Rohingya Contact Group under the OIC. The Turkish Red Crescent, Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TIKA), and the Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD), got actively involved in Myanmar.

“Humanitarian assistance and mediation efforts in international conflicts has become a key point in Turkey’s foreign policy. In this context, Turkey is playing a proactive stance in the Rohingya issue,” Dr. Altay Atli, a researcher on International Politics and Economics in the Asian Rregion in Istanbul’s Sabanci University told Xinhua.

Erdogan has been wanting Turkey to be the “hope for the oppressed.” And this is much appreciated by the Turkish masses who are conservative and pious. His pro-poor policies within the framework of Islam have kept him in power since 2002, even though he is criticised by the West and human rights groups for being authoritarian.

Turkey ranks second in the world after the US in foreign assistance with $ 6 billion spent in 2016, half of this amount having been used for the 3.5 million Syrian refugees that it hosts on its soil since the beginning of the civil war there in 2011.

According to Global Humanitarian Assistance Initiative (GHAI), Myanmar is the seventh largest recipient of Turkey’s humanitarian assistance, after Syria, Somalia, West Bank and Gaza Strip, Iraq , Jordan, and Pakistan.

Several humanitarian NGOs, like the Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), one of Turkey’s leading aid group also active in Somalia and Syria, have launched donation campaigns in Turkey and are currently active in Bangladesh to directly channel assistance for the Rohingya refugees.

Referring to Erdogan’s support to the Rohingyas, researcher Dr.Ataly Atli tol Xinhua: “There is much sensibility in Turkey for the cause of this community. People appreciate that the Turkish Government stays active there. The Turkish press reports daily of killing against Muslims in Myanmar amid growing popular interest for this issue that was totally unknown to a vast majority of Turkey until some years ago.”



Erdogan’s humble origins

Erdogan’s concern for the suffering Rohingyas could be traced to his own humble origins. According to former US Ambassador Robert Pearson and researcher Gregory Kist, Erdogan spent his youth in the poor Kasımpaşa district of Istanbul. As a young man, he attended a religious Imam Hatip school, never learned English and had little or no overseas experience. The urge to challenge the existing order is ingrained in him.

“Like any underdog, Erdogan developed a conviction that he had to fight the established structures in order to succeed. This conviction only hardened as the traditional parties and Turkish state tried repeatedly to destroy his political career. In his view, the Turkish establishment gave him no quarter, and he gives them none in return,” Pearson and Kist observe.

“The second component of Erdogan’s mind-set is the Millî Görüş Islamist movement, which has its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood and forms his core political philosophy. In the early days, Erdogan believed in ‘street Islam,’ a populist twist on the more theocratic political Islam of the time, emphasising the role of the people, rather than institutions, as the backbone of political power.”

Erdogan has not touched the secular basis of the Turkish republic in any way. Instead, he has used existing structures to give religion a greater role in society and thus bring the government closer to the ethos of the Turkish people.

In primary and secondary schools, religious studies are compulsory, and the curriculum based on Sunni Islam, is set by the State. Houses of worship of other religions or of other sects of Islam, like churches or cemevis (the prayer houses of Alevis), do not get government support, unlike the sanctioned Diyanet mosques.

By using state institutions to give Sunni Islam a greater role in society, Erdogan serves the interest of his voter base which is overwhelmingly Sunni and pious too. For example, discrimination against women wearing the head scarf has ended. That enables pious Islamic women to attend universities and get elected to parliament.

Erdogan has combined modernity with tradition, while ruling like Putin. The Islamic populism he has fostered has helped him secure domestic support for humanitarian projects abroad such as the one he is hoping to execute among the Rohingyas in distant Bangladesh and Myanmar.