Government distract our goal of Yahapalanaya

 Wednesday, 17 January 2018 

Yes, lots of funny things are happening on the Government side, giving opponents of freedom and good governance (Yahapalanaya) so much fodder for their relentless campaigning and unfettered mobilising. Many backers of Yahapalanaya seem to be getting distracted and confused. In a fit of frenzy, the latter are going astray chasing this political personality and that; this political alternative or that.

The straying supporters have forgotten just one thing, namely that the weird events happening are itself a product of the bad system that Yahapalanaya has to uproot. The faults are systematic – individual politicos all being caught up in a horribly dysfunctional system.

The holes are widened and exaggerated by a liberated media not conscious of the gift of freedom they have won. They are exploited by the MPs and backers of the euphemistically-called “Joint Opposition,” as though the latter have been just incapable of the horrendous charges of dishonour, corruption, abuse, and murder relating to the appalling period of their rule.

In a way, it serves this Government right. In a way, it shows up the mighty talent and resourcefulness of the men in opposition. The overall effect on the 62 lakhs of voters who voted for a revolution is disbelief. Maybe Mahinda Rajapaksa’s countless mantras in sovereign gold tied on his fingers, are, at last, working. Maybe the breaking of coconuts by the Opposition is working.

Alzheimer’s?

First, we have the President himself appearing to speedily head toward Alzheimer’s disease. At least, that is the impression many of us, once admirers of Maithripala Sirisena, do reluctantly entertain. What the truth here is I cannot be sure, I admit. On the other hand, President Sirisena needs, badly, to squash the rumours and announce that he is firmly with the Unity Government. More important, he has to demonstrate that in every public statement he makes. He has to avoid suggestive comments that keep the waiting rumour-base floating.

“I will use my sword,” says the President, “to cut anyone regardless what side he is!” This kind of expression points the finger not at the controversial characters he imported – some of them scumbags from the Mahinda group – but at the MPs of the United National Party and other constituents who, in the first place, had worked hard to catapult Sirisena to this unexpected this high office. President Sirisena must count his fortune.

Words can be knives

Sirisena has to be careful of his words as words can be provocative knives. They have already provoked UNP firebrand lawyer Sujeewa Serasinghe, who wouldn’t keep his mouth shut. One can understand the President must be having reservations about some of the activities of the UNP. The wise approach to sort out differences would be to chat over them with Prime Minister Wickremesinghe. If he believes the PM himself in error, then he can, in private, advice the latter. Or, he could make an inoffensive unilateral move like how he appointed a Commission of Enquiry into the alleged bond scams when the PM was dillydallying and the Opposition roaring.

New ambitions?

It all seems that President Sirisena has got new ambitions like wanting to raise his head in his own right and of building an image of his own as a terrific leader. That is also not blameworthy since the two-year period of contract with the UNP is over. On the other hand, that should be done with some finesse, inoffensively and at the right time. It is his right of passage. Not that Sirisena hasn’t problems and contradictions of his own and relating to his own hurriedly-constructed camp. He has holes in his own armour. I would, rather, not spell them out here, since my purpose is to encourage the Yahapalanaya Government to keep going until it achieves the final goal of a new constitution, which alone can help eradicate the old and rotten system and bring in the promised dawn.

The constitution-making process that is now going on is proceeding along sound principles of broad consultation and creativity. It is the President’s fundamental obligation to have that completed and have it win the public referendum. On the other hand, if he permits this state of affairs to continue and switches over to his own go-it-alone ambitions, he will be doing something that will never work for him and for which the people will never forgive him.

Assessment

To be sure, as I have spelt out in detail in a previous article, this Unity Government headed by Sirisena and Wickremesinghe has achieved a substantial amount of progress. A few days ago, the IMF itself paid tribute to certain positive trends in the economy after its collapse under Mahinda Rajapaksa. Things are happening and the country is raising its head. The economy needs time.

On the other hand, the main fault-line of the Government has been its inability to bring the offenders of the past to book. People are waiting for that. Thus, any attempts by Sirisena to distract himself by a personal adventure at this stage would be suicidal for him and disastrous for all those who joined this Government to install Yahapalanaya. That would be the biggest let-down in Sri Lanka’s political history.

Professor Sarath Wijesooriya’s distraction

Ranil Wickremesinghe has his own lapses. Yet, the hard fact is that he means a lot for the Yahapalanaya movement. He is seen focusing fully on the economic policy, which is his strong area. Wickremesinghe is the hard rock of this Government. Little wonder why the Opposition and their overseas agents are in the habit of targeting Wickremesinghe.

I was surprised to hear professor Sarath Wijesooriya joining a Sirasa program (Sirasa is dedicated to eliminating Wickremesinghe) to criticise the Prime Minister over his behaviour in Parliament the other day as though that was an isolated and unconditioned reaction. This is a good example of distraction from the main goal. Sarath Wijesooriya plays the ball into the hands of the opposing forces of Yahapalanaya.

Conclusion

Every citizen must listen to a wonderful speech by Revd. Dr. Dambara Amila recently where he both warned and advised President Sirisena on similar lines that I have. The link is: https://youtu.be/z9hSfTFQs1U.

President Sirisena must leave aside any private adventures and re-dedicate himself to represent the promised revolution that alone will awaken our nation. If he doesn’t, the struggle will continue into the future probably violent phases – engulfing him, his men, and the country. The simple logical reason is that that Yahapalanaya is a must and the current contradictions must lead to that Hegelian dialectic.

(The writer can be reached via sjturaus@optusnet.com.au.)

An independent Gallup poll reveals results ! Maithri’s SLFP group has not even a slim chance !!

(Lanka-e-News - 16.Jan.2018, 3.40 PM) Prior to the main political parties beginning their election campaigns , an independent  non governmental organization conducted a Gallup poll   (survey to decide on the likely  election  results). Based on this survey, the results of which are now in the possession of Lanka e news ,the  team after  a random sample  survey  in relation to  10, 000 people across the country of various provinces including North and East had  arrived at the following results. 

The percentage of votes the UNP will poll is 38 % of the total.
The Rajapakse group (Flower Bud) of the SLFP will poll 27 %
TNA , Muslim Congress , Mano Ganeshan and minority representative groups will poll 15 %
SLFP Maithri group will poll 13 %
JVP will poll  7%

However as this survey was conducted before the political parties commenced their election campaigns ,hinged on how the parties will be able to sway the voters in their favor during their campaigns , the results can vary by – 2 to 3% (A detailed result of the survey will be released shortly).

Meanwhile , though the Maithri group says , after elections it will join with the Rajapakse group  , the latter had categorically repudiated that. Prasanna Ranatunge, a powerful stalwart of the Rajapakse group revealed to the media that  the latter  will not join with the Maithri group to establish local  administration under any circumstances. It is well to recall Maithripala went cringing and crawling to Mahinda Rajapakse group even before elections.

According to the statistics , the group with the president of the country will secure fourth place. If that happens , and when the president tumbles to that despicable and discarded level , the president must realize he has no moral  right to continue in that exalted position though it may be  constitutional .

In a Democracy , the fresh referendum invalidates the previous referendum. Hence , Maithri and his group lose their rights (whatever bit they possess now ) to take decisions as regards the country’s destiny .In that event the best course of action for Maithri is , without further degrading himself , hand over the power to the majority group allowing  the latter  to chart the country’ s destiny, and  honorably go home   after fulfilling the solemn promise he made to 51 % of the population that he will abolish the executive presidency within 100 days.

The stooges ,  parasites, lackeys and lickspittles behind him who are currently playing hell with the country shall  also bow to the fresh referendum , and follow suit. Otherwise , the people will be compelled to take a decision in that regard too.

It is worthy of note , though the SLFP Maithri group said , bus loads of people were not  fetched to attend their recent Anuradhapura rally , Lanka e news is in possession of palpable evidence  that a prominent businessman D.P Jayasinghe supplied the buses to transport crowds to the rally. 

This D.P. Jayasinghe is none other than the owner of a building which has been kept closed for the last nearly three  years , for which the government is yet paying an exorbitant monthly rent of over a Rs. 10 million . This building was supposedly taken  for the agriculture ministry , whose  minister is  Duminda Dissanayake  ,the secretary of the SLFP Maithri group .

---------------------------
by     (2018-01-16 10:14:51)

The Sirisena Saga: On Yahapālana Misogyny

By Chamindra Weerawardhana –January 16, 2018

The National Human Rights Action Plan [hereafter referred to as ‘Action Plan’] is one of the best developments that came out of the otherwise jaundiced Sirisena–Wickremesinghe joint government. A crucial component of the Action Plan was a call to work towards repealing legislation of yesteryear that restrict fundamental freedoms of Sri Lankan citizens.

Last week, Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera MP announced a decision that was part of the gradual implementation of the Action Plan – which involved amending a law passed in the Dominion of Ceylon in 1955. This extremely misogynist ‘law’ banned selling alcohol to women. It also prohibited women from working in bars, distilleries and breweries. Samaraweera’s directive was intended at rescinding this archaic dinosaur of a law, which simply has no place in a country that is even parsimoniously serious about gender equality.

What happened thereafter does not require any reiteration here. The first and the trickiest of elections since the 2015 presidential and parliamentary elections is on the way, and President Sirisena was quick to jump in the bandwagon of fundamentalist and, in the book this writer has read, thoroughly uncultured conservatism. He used presidential powers tooverturn the ministerial directive, reinstating the 1955 monstrosity of a law.

 

This decision can be interpreted as an effort by Sirisena to reap electoral advantage among the non-urban, and to a very large extent socially conservative vote base. It can also be understood as a decision that helps cement Sirisena’s position as a politico from the rural conservative hinterland, as opposed to the urban, cosmopolitan and to follow the much-repeated cliché, ‘westernised’, types heading the UNP.

It can also be argued that Samaraweera, being the seasoned politician he is, ought to have waited until the end of the local government poll to come up with this directive.

At another level, Samaraweera’s directive can also be understood as precisely intended at appealing at a very specific vote base that would be extremely decisive at the forthcoming elections – the Colombo electorate. This time around, the UNP has fielded one of its most progressive voices, Rosie Senanayake, as the Colombo mayoral candidate. To the cosmopolitan Colombo electorate disillusioned by the Joint Government’s many vices,  a directive of this nature would have meant that their 2015 vote was not in vain. A decision with gender equality and fighting misogynist prejudice at its core implemented by her party would have been advantageous to Ms Senanayake.

Leaving political speculations aside, it goes without saying that Sirisena’s reaction to this directive is extremely pathetic and puerile. It is a move that relegates the President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka to the absolute laughing stock of the world. This decision shows where Sirisena stands on the fundamental rights and freedoms of women.

Reactions by many Sri Lankans on social media demonstrate the extent of the presidential decision’s unpopularity.

 

Source: https://www.facebook.com/LordDK82/posts/574798699519022?pnref=story

Source: https://www.facebook.com/Supzter/posts/2315351448490961?pnref=story

Source: https://twitter.com/kavindya_T/status/952659144993132545

Source: Click here.

This decision may come as a shock to some, but to this writer, a member of the LGBTQI+ community, it certainly does not come as a surprise.

Read More

President walks out of the Cabinet meeting

2018-01-16

A deeply dejected and disappointed President Maithripala Sirisena stormed out of the Cabinet meeting this morning after making an emotional speech over the personal attacks levelled at him by the certain members of the UNP, a senior Cabinet Minister said.

President naming those UNP Parliamentarians, who are making statements against him, had also said that a country cannot be ruled in this manner.

He has informed the Ministers present that the Presidential Commission was established by him not to attack the UNP, but to punish the thieves and requested the Ministers to state whether they agree to punishing the thieves or not.

The President who arrived for the Cabinet meeting carried with him a Tape Recorder, and showing it to those present he had said” Some may like to listen to my speech and some may not. But I will make this speech and those who wants to listen to it can do so later”.

President thereafter had spoken for about 35 minutes continuously and had the speech recorded.

“ I left the former government showing my opposition to fraud and corruption, and formed a new government. Is it to continue the same frauds and corruption I ask you. It is true that UNP supporters voted for me, and I owe my gratitude to them. Are the UNP members attacking me to frighten me? Or to chase me out? I do not know whether they are doing these things with a purpose or others leading them to do such things. I walked out that day ignoring the risks I would have to face. Therefore this type of criticisms are not something new to me. Some UNP members are going round saying that the Bond Commission was appointed in order to attack the UNP. I appointed the Bond Commission in order to probe the Bond scam. I have no personal issues with any one. (Sandun A Jayasekera and Ajantha Kumara Agalakada)

Marketing and war are similar; who will win on 10 February?

 Wednesday, 17 January 2018

If we watch any media channel today, the focus is on the 10 February elections in Sri Lanka. For the first time we see how a local election is being hotly contested whilst the top-of-the-mind topic is the Central Bank bond scam.

Personally, none of my family members or extended family members are connected to politics but I find the most interesting time in any country is at election time. The logic being, we see how a political candidate uses the best practices like segmentation, targeting and positioning, which is very interesting. Gurus of marketing like Al Rise says marketing and war are similar in nature. Let’s see the outcome on 10 February.

Marketing – Research-driven action

If I were to conceptualise the current war on the political stage in Sri Lanka, it can be summarised as research-driven action – the ability to convert an insight about a customer and competitors into a superior strategic position and plan, that persuades voters to choose a specific candidate. When conceived and executed flawlessly, the result is more votes and person getting elected just like a household brand picked by a housewife.

Political marketing ethical?

Given the guerrilla attacks we see in the current Local Government elections in Sri Lanka, a much-discussed theme is, ‘Is it right to market a political candidate to high office like washing powder or toilet soap?’

Some critiques say that it is an ultimate indignity to the democratic process of a country and it must not be encouraged. But the reality is that it is being done in every country. The best in South Asian was Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the Indian elections and in Sri Lanka a trailblazer was former President R. Premadasa in 1977.

These campaigns were not just flukes. They were conceptualised at lengthy boardroom discussions, then researched and tested before being rolled out with multi-million rupee adventuring budgets.

Basics of marketing

If I go back to basics, ‘Marketing’ means identifying what a customer wants and thereafter developing a solution to meet these requirements better than competitors but in a socially responsible manner. In the case of politics, the customer is the voter whilst the solution provider is the politician.

The need analysis is being done on the smallest unit in society – households. The typical issues addressed in a local election context like in Sri Lanka today are timely collection of garbage, hygienic disposal of the dry and solid waste that will not pollute the neighbourhood, reduction/eradicating of dengue, regular maintenance of the road infrastructure, adequate street lighting, maintaining children’s playgrounds, etc., to name a few.

The candidate who can effectively communicate how these needs can be addressed better by their overall solution will garner the support to be voted in on 10 February, which incidentally is marketing at its best. It would not be incorrect to say that it is the discipline of marketing that brings democracy into a system too.

But sadly, the 2018 February elections are taking a different turn of events and are focusing on macro themes like financial governance – the CB bond scam of Rs. 20 billion and the slow economic development resulting in consumption at the household end contracting for the third quarter in a row. In my view these themes are confusing the consumer (voter) and taking away from addressing the real issues that a local parliamentarian must address.

Why right?

There are two key fundamentals that make marketing right in the current situation in Sri Lanka today. The first is that the product/service that is offered by a candidate must communicate effectively how he/she will solve the voters problems – garbage collection, street lights working or the road infrastructure been right.

The second reason on how ‘marketing becomes right’ is that once a consumer (in this case a voter) makes a decision and selects a product (the chosen candidate), he or she must deliver on the promises made at the time of campaigning.

If these two perspectives are understood, then marketing becomes the modus of ensuring democracy is maintained. This means marketing a political candidate for high office is not an indignity to the democratic process of a country and in fact facilitates the decision-making process of a voter.

Why wrong?

Where marketing comes in for criticism is when marketing a candidate fails to deliver on the promise made after being elected. For instance, the collection of garbage daily, street lights not working and even after complaining no action being taken to correct same. Then, marketing of a political candidate to high office can be considered unethical and wrong.

As reported in the media the current Government getting all the flak is on the second reason. Many are asking what has been achieved since 8 January 2015, especially on the front of ‘Governance’ which was the key reason the current candidates were voted in.

The other issue that makes marketing a political candidate wrong is if unethical practices are being executed which includes thuggery, blocking media and sound/street pollution to name a few.

Regulator’s role

One way to correct the ‘unethical practices’ would be to follow similar practices of the entrenched competitive industries like insurance or mobile telecommunications. This is the appointment of a regulator. In the current context in Sri Lanka we see the Election Commissioner playing this key role.

The typical regulator can be asked play an important role when major deviations are seen. This can include share of voice (SOV) issues, may be even the message content so that marketing unearths the true discipline where the truth is revealed.

Some can say that it is a farfetched idea in the case of political marketing but based on the best practices seen in other countries this can be achieved provided that there is a political will in doing so. Sri Lanka is seeing this in the true spirit driven by the President. The challenge is to see this through up to a final decision in a political economy especially in countries in the Asian and African regions.

The problem that can arise in the absence of a regulator when it comes to political marketing is that, the candidate who is less aggressive will not be able to carve out a clear positioning in the minds of the voter, which in turn will result in the competitor doing this for him/her and that can lead to confusion in the minds of a voter. This is something that many less aggressive politicians fail to understand.

Political marketing different?

A point that needs to be highlighted is that there are many clear-cut differences when it comes to marketing political candidates as against a brand of washing powder or breakfast cereal. A political candidate has a sense of urgency as only a three-month window is available to move the voter to purchase. So either one achieves Top of the Mind (TOM) awareness and then carries through to be appointed at the election or you are not picked up. This means that the ruthlessness of the tactics used in marketing a politician will be obviously different in velocity and breadth.

Another key difference is that brands can be switched by consumers if it does not meet their expectations overnight but in the case of political candidates the switching time can be as long as 5-6 years.

This means the purchasing cycles are different. This further justifies the need for one to practice cutting edge marketing so that it gives clarity on the decision that needs to be made at a polling booth. Let us see who will be the clear winners next month in Sri Lanka.

10 February 2018

From the above we see ‘politics’ and ‘brands’ have many aspects in common whilst it has its own industry related peculiarities too. But at the end of the day the winner is the consumer and in this case the voter. Is it ethical? The debate will never stop. Let’s see what happens on 10 February.

(The author is a marketer by profession and business leader. He has served the public sector and private sector at the highest level and gone on to serve the UN. The thoughts are strictly his personal views. He can be contacted on rohantha.athukorala1@gmail.com.)

Money laundering case against Namal & 5 others on 6th February

January 16, 2018

Colombo High Court Judge Sampath Abeyakoon has ordered that the case filed by the Attorney General against Namal Rajapaksa and five others under the Money Laundering Act to be taken up for hearing on 6th February.

The case was put off for the 6th February when the counsel representing Attorney General asked time to present documents related to the case to the defendants.

The case has been filed against Mr. Namal Rajapaksa and others for their alleged involvement in a financial transaction worth Rs. 30 million, between Gowers Corporate Services (Pvt) Limited owned by Namal Rajapaksa and another company.

The accused Parliamentarian Namal Rajapaksa, Pavithrika Sujani Bogollagama, Nithya Senani Samaranayaka, an Air Hostess, and Ornella Iresha Silva have been released on bail while the other accused Indika Prabhath Karunajeewa is absconding.

AUSTRALIAN BUSINESSMAN Brian Shaddick tells High Court:-GAMMANPILA FAKED POWER OF ATTORNEY

MP Udaya Gammanpila arriving at the Colombo High Court yesterday.

Law & Order-Lakmal Sooriyagoda-Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Australian businessman Brian Shaddick, 74, a key witness in the alleged financial fraud case filed against Pivithuru Hela Urumaya (PHU) leader MP Udaya Gammanpila yesterday informed Colombo High Court that he or his company had never given a power of attorney to Gammanpila to carry out a share transaction.

Shaddick was yesterday present before Colombo High Judge A.A.R. Heiyanthuduwa in connection with an indictment filed against Udaya Gammanpila and another accused for allegedly misappropriating Rs. 21 million following their alleged fraudulent share transaction that took place in 2000.

Witness Shaddick said that he never signed a document executing the power of attorney to Gammanpila and therefore his signature had been fraudulently used as an authentic one in order to carry out this transaction.

In reply to a question raised by defence counsel Shavindra Fernando, Shaddick affirmed that the document presented to him by the defence was a fake one and further said his signature had been fraudulently used on it.

Shaddick is to be further cross-examined today (17) as well.

Two accused Udaya Gammanpila and Sydney Jayasinghe are currently out on bail.

The Attorney General (AG) alleged that MP Udaya Gammanpila has cheated Rs. 20 million and misappropriated another Rs. 21 million along with Sydney Jayasinghe, the second accused when selling shares of Digital Nominees to a businessman called Dhammika Perera.

The AG further charged that the alleged business transaction had taken place using a fraudulent power of attorney to sell shares belonging to Australian businessman Brian Shaddick.

The AG has listed 20 persons as the witnesses in the case and named 16 documents as production items of the case. MP Gammanpila was arrested in this regard on June 18, 2016.

Deputy Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris with Senior State Counsel Nayana Seneviratne appeared for the Attorney General.

President’s Counsel Shavindra Fernando with Jayantha Weerasinghe, Senior Counsel Nalinda Indatissa appeared for MP Gammanpila.

Palestinians should suspend recognition of Israel, PLO council says

After voting for the suspension of the recognition of Israel, PLO leadership says Oslo agreement no longer stands

PLO leaders also emphasise rejecting the recognition of Israel as a 'Jewish state' (AFP)

Tuesday 16 January 2018

Palestinian leaders voted on Monday to call for the suspension of recognition of Israel as they met in response to US President Donald Trump's declaration of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

The vote ordered the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) to suspend its recognition of Israel until it "recognises the state of Palestine", cancels its annexation of East Jerusalem and stops settlement activity, a statement said.

In a statement released after the meeting, the PLO's Central Council said the obligations of the Oslo agreement "no longer stand", Palestinian news agency Wafa reported.

The council also adopted the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement to “deter Israel’s blatant violations against international law and stop its ongoing aggression against Palestinians and the apartheid system that it imposes on them”.

In 2013, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had voiced opposition to BDS, drawing condemnation from Palestinian human rights activists.

It was unclear if the vote by the council, a high-ranking arm of the PLO, was binding. A previous vote by the council in 2015 to suspend security coordination with Israel was never implemented.

The vote was 74 in favour, two against, with 12 abstentions, according to an AFP journalist present.

The council called on the international community to assume responsibility for ending the Israeli occupation and achieving an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 border lines, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

READ MORE►

Oslo revisited: Was the US ever the 'honest broker'?

Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem in 1967, and it continues to build settlements on Palestinian territories. In December 2016, the UN Security Council denounced the Israeli occupation.

PLO leaders also emphasised rejecting the recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state”. The Palestinian Authority has resisted pressure to accept Israel as a Jewish nation-state out of fear that it may lead to discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel.

The PLO council urged referring Israeli violations, including settlement expansion, abuse against prisoners and war crimes in a 2014 assault on Gaza, to the International Criminal Court.

The leaders also condemned the US for threatening to cut funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which provides essential services to millions of Palestinian refugees.

The PLO Central Council said Washington is trying to absolve itself of responsibility for the Palestinian refugee crisis that it helped create in 1948.

The council's statement came after Abbas called Trump's peace efforts on Sunday the "slap of the century" as he opened the meeting.

New Orleans resolution is victory, test for Palestinian rights movement

Activists celebrate at New Orleans City Hall, 11 January. (New Orleans Palestinian Solidarity Committee)

Nora Barrows-Friedman-12 January 2018

On Thursday, the city of New Orleans, Louisiana, passed a resolution to start screening investments and contracts and divest from corporations that profit from human rights abuses.

New Orleans becomes the first major city in the US South to pass such a measure.

The resolution was drafted by members of the New Orleans Palestinian Solidarity Committee, which has organized protests and called on municipal leaders to declare New Orleans “an apartheid-free city” by banning financial ties to Israel, in accordance with the demands of the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions(BDS) campaign.

“This overwhelming support is the product of only one thing,” Max Geller of the New Orleans Palestinian Solidarity Committee told The Electronic Intifada, “and that is consistent direct action and pressure.”

“No one on the city council went out of their way to help us here – we had to push them every step of the way,” Geller said.

Activists pointed out that US-based companies such as Caterpillar, which sells bulldozers the Israeli military weaponizes and uses to demolish Palestinian homes, and Hewlett Packard (HP), which is deeply invested in Israel’s military and security infrastructure, operate in New Orleans.

Campaigners made the connections between the ongoing displacement of people from New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and Israel’s displacement of Palestinians.

“New Orleans is a city that has a tragic history with human rights,” said Tabitha Mustafa of the New Orleans Palestinian Solidarity Committee. “Whether in Honduras or Palestine or Vietnam, companies that profit from the misery of New Orleanians and our families abroad should not do business with the City of New Orleans.”

Geller said the resolution “is an affirmation that the city feels bound by international human rights doctrine” and is willing to scrutinize its relationships with corporations that profit from abuses in the city and abroad.

As a new member of the New Orleans Palestinian Solidarity Committee, “it’s encouraging to see actual change and action taking place,” said Marco Saah, a student at Loyola University New Orleans.

It was inspiring to see that “my voice, and others’ voices were actually being listened to,” he told The Electronic Intifada.

Saah said that the key to passing this measure in the city council was “extreme persistence.”
“I’ve seen the amount of consistency, work and time that has been put into pressuring officials,” Saah said, and activists pursuing similar resolutions should “not be deterred.”

Making the case

The resolution doesn’t mention Israel or its abuses against Palestinians specifically, which Geller recognized is a point of frustration “because I want to organize around Palestine and I don’t think ending Israel’s human rights abuses is controversial.”

But he said that now activists have a platform to campaign specifically about companies that violate Palestinian rights and “the case against Caterpillar [and others] will be very easy.”

A similar resolution, passed last year in Portland, Oregon, drew criticism from local activists who cautionedagainst omitting Palestinian human rights from the text in order to ensure a wider coalition.

The wording of the New Orleans resolution “is purposely vague,” Geller explained, in order to get the issues on the table, but added that municipal BDS campaigns “are incremental processes.” He urged activists to keep pressure on local, state and federal lawmakers.

Pushing back

The resolution’s passage follows Israel’s announcement last week that it is banning entry to activists from 20 Palestine solidarity organizations around the world, a move reminiscent of South Africa’s apartheid regime.

Meanwhile, more than 20 states across the US have adopted measures aimed at chilling free speech and blacklisting advocates for Palestinian rights. There is also a bill pending in Congress – the Israel Anti-Boycott Act – that could impose large fines and long prison sentences on companies and their personnel if they are deemed to be complying with a boycott on Israel or its settlements called for by an international organization.

The New Orleans resolution gives activists the opportunity to take such legislation and threats head-on, Geller said. “We do see ourselves as the logical test case against them.”

In 2018, Chavismo’s Time May Finally Run Out

U.S. policy toward Venezuela is changing — and so are political dynamics in Latin America.

A pro-government activist holds a portrait of late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, during a demonstration on Aug. 14, 2017. (Ronaldo Schemidt/AFP/Getty Images) 

By José R. Cárdenas-January 16, 2018, 1:05 PM

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s embattled regime ended a tumultuous 2017 by having to suppress renewed food riots resulting from the government’s failure to import sufficient supplies of pork leg, a traditional holiday staple. In one disturbance, a pregnant woman was shot dead by security forces on Christmas Eve.

Yet if 2017 ended poorly for Venezuela, 2018 is shaping up to be even worse.

Already, there have been new outbreaks of looting in the face of rampant shortages of food and basic goods. Inflation, which hit a reported 2,616 percent last year — the highest in the world — will continue to surge in 2018.

And, worst of all, due to bad management and corruption, oil production has fallen to one of its lowest points in three decades, “further depriving the cash-strapped country of its only major source of revenue and adding to the suffering of its people,” according to CNN.

It is difficult not to become inured to the daily drumbeat of catastrophic news coming out of Venezuela.

After all, Venezuela under Chavismo — the movement founded by the late strongman Hugo Chávez — has been this century’s longest ongoing train wreck. Prognostications about a final reckoning have marked the past five years, at least.

What makes 2018 different, however, are two new, important variables that haven’t existed before: One, a more active U.S. policy under U.S. President Donald Trump; and two, changing political dynamics in Latin America.

Ever since an impromptu White House meeting with the wife of a then-imprisoned political prisoner last February, Trump has made clear his intent to discard the Obama administration’s passive Venezuela policy.

Already, the administration has ramped up significantly the targeting of sanctions against individuals involved in human rights abuses, undermining democracy, corruption, and drug trafficking, thereby steadily delegitimizing the government. To date, more than 30 Venezuelan officials — including the president and vice president — have been sanctioned under the Trump administration, including four more this month. Just as important, others are now following the U.S. lead in sanctioning individuals, including Canada, Colombia, the European Union, and Mexico.

Moreover, in August, the administration levied a crucial economic sanction on the Maduro regime, restricting its ability to borrow money from U.S. creditors — severing one of its last economic lifelines. At the time, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said, “Maduro may no longer take advantage of the American financial system to facilitate the wholesale looting of the Venezuelan economy at the expense of the Venezuelan people.”

The ramifications of limiting that funding stream are on display today in Venezuela, with the regime unable to meet the import needs of the country.

Another important development to note is that the most recent sanctions target four senior Venezuelan military officials, suggesting that the Trump administration has decided to focus pressure on the military. Over the past few years, modeled on Cuba, the military has been expanding its reach into the economy by assuming more responsibilities in running state enterprises. It is now directly profiting from the country’s meager economic activity. This gives the generals a stake in maintaining the status quo.

Therefore, sowing division within the Venezuela military is an astute move. While the senior officer corps is stacked with regime loyalists afforded their special economic privileges, mid-level and rank-and-file personnel are not immune to the hardships of the ordinary population. Reports of low morale have been consistent for months. Those concerned about their own fate and disgusted with their corrupt government may be contemplating their unique responsibility to the constitution.

As the Economist put it, “[Maduro’s] future will be decided by the armed forces, not directly by the people. If they withdraw support from his beleaguered regime, change will come soon. If not, hunger and repression will continue.”

At the same time as an invigorated U.S. policy, broader changes underway in the regional landscape will impact Chavismo’s fate. Relying on friendly governments to provide diplomatic cover for his authoritarianism is getting increasingly difficult for Maduro, given the region’s ongoing political shift towards more pragmatic, market-friendly leadership. Beginning with Mauricio Macri’s assumption of the presidency of Argentina in 2015, then Pedro Pablo Kuczynski’s election in Peru in 2016, and the recent re-election of Sebastián Piñera in Chile (he served previously, from 2010 to 2014), voters are electing presidents with no sympathies for radical ideological projects like Chavismo. With six presidential elections scheduled for 2018 — including Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Paraguay — that political realignment will likely continue.

The key issue here will continue to be the transition from rhetorical condemnation of authoritarianism in Venezuela to the implementation of more financial sanctions and diplomatic isolation. Such pressure is key to delegitimizing an unconstitutional government and raising the economic costs to the Maduro regime.

Given Chavismo’s capacity to muddle through on repression and by forcing discontented Venezuelans to migrate, it is always risky to make predictions. But what is certain for 2018 is that conditions are worsening in Venezuela, there is less money coming in (it is now offering to purchase imports with diamonds), and Maduro has fewer friends in the region. There may or may not be a presidential election in Venezuela this year, but it may not matter either way. Chavismo’s time may finally be running out.

Inside the tense, profane White House meeting on immigration

President Trump on Jan. 14, said "I am not a racist" and blamed Democrats for the delay in passing deal on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. (The Washington Post)

By Josh Dawsey, Robert Costa and Ashley Parker January 15 at 8:48 PM

When President Trump spoke by phone with Sen. Richard J. Durbin around 10:15 a.m. last Thursday, he expressed pleasure with Durbin’s outline of a bipartisan immigration pact and praised the high-ranking Illinois Democrat’s efforts, according to White House officials and congressional aides.

The president then asked if Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), his onetime foe turned ally, was on board, which Durbin affirmed. Trump invited the lawmakers to visit with him at noon, the people familiar with the call said.

But when they arrived at the Oval Office, the two senators were surprised to find that Trump was far from ready to finalize the agreement. He was “fired up” and surrounded by hard-line conservatives such as Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who seemed confident that the president was now aligned with them, according to one person with knowledge of the meeting.

Trump told the group he wasn’t interested in the terms of the bipartisan deal that Durbin and Graham had been putting together. And as he shrugged off suggestions from Durbin and others, the president called nations from Africa “shithole countries,” denigrated Haiti and grew angry. The meeting was short, tense and often dominated by loud cross-talk and swearing, according to Republicans and Democrats familiar with the meeting.

Trump’s ping-ponging from dealmaking to feuding, from elation to fury, has come to define the contentious immigration talks between the White House and Congress, perplexing members of both parties as they navigate the president’s vulgarities, his combativeness and his willingness to suddenly change his position. The blowup has derailed those negotiations yet again and increased the possibility of a government shutdown over the fate of hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants known as “dreamers.”

This account of the events surrounding Thursday’s explosive meeting is based on interviews with more than a dozen White House officials, Capitol Hill aides and lawmakers.

The fight has left congressional leaders unsure of whether they will eventually come to an agreement. Some remain optimistic that Trump can be walked back to the political center and will cut a deal that expands border security while protecting those under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which Trump has ordered ended.

“The president is indispensable to getting a deal,” Graham said in an interview. “Time will tell.”

As President Trump denied calling Haiti and African countries 'shithole countries,' Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) confirmed and condemned his language. (Video: Jenny Starrs/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Last Thursday was a critical moment in the stalled negotiations, revealing the president’s priorities even as the discussion fell apart.

Trump complained that there wasn’t enough money included in the deal for his promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. He also objected that Democratic proposals to adjust the visa lottery and federal policy for immigrants with temporary protected status were going to drive more people from countries he deemed undesirable into the United States instead of attracting immigrants from places like Norway and Asia, people familiar with the meeting said.

Attendees who were alarmed by the racial undertones of Trump’s remarks were further disturbed when the topic of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) came up, these people said.

At one point, Durbin told the president that members of that caucus — an influential House group — would be more likely to agree to a deal if certain countries were included in the proposed protections, according to people familiar with the meeting.

Trump was curt and dismissive, saying he was not making immigration policy to cater to the CBC and did not particularly care about that bloc’s demands, according to people briefed on the meeting. “You’ve got to be joking,” one adviser said, describing Trump’s reaction.

White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly was in the room and was largely stone-faced, not giving any visible reaction when Trump said “shithole countries” or when he said Haitians should not be part of any deal, White House advisers said.

At one point, Graham told Trump he should use different language to discuss immigration, people briefed on the meeting said.

As Trump batted back the Democrats, he was urged on by Republican lawmakers. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) told Graham and Durbin their proposal would not fly, and he told the group they should instead embrace his more conservative bill. Durbin was not interested, White House officials said.

After Graham left, he told associates that he was disturbed by what he heard in the Oval Office, according to people who spoke with him, and that it was evident the deal’s antagonists had gotten to Trump. Graham and Durbin also told allies that they were stunned that the other lawmakers were present — and that Trump’s tone seemed so different than it had been days or even hours before, according to people close to them.

 Graham declined to comment on the president’s reported obscenity. He has told others in his circle that commenting would only hurt the chance of a deal and that he wants to keep a relationship with the president.

There had initially been hope for the Thursday meeting. Trump had told lawmakers during a partially televised session two days earlier that he was flexible. “I’ll sign it,” he said Tuesday of whatever bill was brought to him. He even said he would be willing to lock the door of the Cabinet room if they wanted to negotiate at the White House, according to people who heard his comments.

Trump went on to say at the earlier meeting that he wanted a deal and that even those in the conservative House Freedom Caucus should work with Durbin. In the hours and days afterward, a bipartisan group of senators — Graham, Durbin, Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), and Sens. Michael F. Bennet (D) and Cory Gardner (R) of Colorado — began meeting and broadly agreed to a proposal.

But some White House officials, including conservative adviser Stephen Miller, feared that Graham and Durbin would try to trick Trump into signing a bill that was damaging to him and would hurt him with his political base. As word trickled out Thursday morning on Capitol Hill that Durbin and Graham were heading over to the White House, legislative affairs director Marc Short began to make calls to lawmakers and shared many of Miller’s concerns.

Soon, Goodlatte, one of the more conservative House members on immigration, was headed to the White House. Trump also called House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and asked him to come, McCarthy said. Sens. David Perdue (R-Ga.) and Cotton were also invited to rush over.

The Fix’s Eugene Scott explains how Trump’s “shithole countries” comment is the latest example of his history of demeaning statements on nonwhite immigrants.(Video: Bastien Inzaurralde/Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post)

In the late morning, before Durbin and Graham arrived, Kelly — who had already been briefed on the deal — talked to Trump to tell him that the proposal would probably not be good for his agenda, White House officials said. Kelly, a former secretary of homeland security, has taken an increasingly aggressive and influential role in the immigration negotiations, calling lawmakers and meeting with White House aides daily — more than he has on other topics. He has “very strong feelings,” in the words of one official. But he’s not a lone voice. Trump in recent weeks has also been talking more to conservatives such as Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) on immigration, these people said.

White House officials say Kelly is determined to secure a deal on dreamers and border security and has told Trump that the southwestern border is worse than it was a few years ago — and that he can be the president to change the status quo.

“Once we saw what was going on in the meeting a few days earlier, we were freaked out,” said immigration hard-liner Mark Krikorian, who runs the Center for Immigration Studies. Trump, he said, “has hawkish instincts on immigration, but they aren’t well-developed, and he hasn’t ever been through these kind of legislative fights.”

After the Thursday meeting, Trump began telling allies that the proposal was a “terrible deal for me,” according to a friend he spoke with, and that Kelly and other aides and confidants were correct in advising him to back away.

“It wasn’t a serious proposal. It was not viewed as a serious proposal because it did so little to address the immigration issues that the president has been vocal about,” said Meadows, who leads the conservative House Freedom Caucus. “It was, if I had to put it in a 1-to-10 range, with 10 being the most conservative and 1 being the most liberal, I would give it a 2.5.”

Trump was not particularly upset by the coverage of the meeting and his vulgarity after it was first reported by The Washington Post, calling friends and asking how they expected it to play with his political supporters, aides said.

“Everyone was saying it would help with the base,” which would agree with his characterization, one person who spoke with the president said.

By Thursday evening, many White House aides were concerned that the story was exploding beyond the usual level for a Trump controversy, but they carried on with their plans for the night: a send-off for deputy national security adviser Dina Powell, a former Goldman Sachs executive and ally of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump. Nearly every top official ducked into the exclusive Italian restaurant Cafe Milano in Georgetown to toast Powell. There was little effort to significantly push back on the story that night because aides knew that Trump had said it and that the president wasn’t even too upset, according to people involved in the talks.

Then Friday morning, Trump appeared to suggest in a tweet that he had not used the objectionable word at all: “The language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough, but this was not the language used.”

Three White House officials said Perdue and Cotton told the White House that they heard “shithouse” rather than “shithole,” allowing them to deny the president’s comments on television over the weekend. The two men initially said publicly that they could not recall what the president said.
Representatives for both men declined to comment.

Going forward, a path to an immigration deal remains hazy.

“I expect that we’ll get more Republican support for the proposal because it’s really the only game in town. I expect there will be more negotiations — we didn’t write the Bible,” Graham said Monday. “We wrote a proposal that over time we can make it better.”

Meadows said he and Goodlatte were working to add a merit-based immigration policy to their conservative version. He said a majority of Republicans were not going to line up behind Graham and Durbin and should instead rally behind his proposal, which is unlikely to win support from Democrats.

“Based on what they proposed originally, Durbin and Graham are running a marathon, and they’re only in Mile 2,” Meadows said.

Philip Rucker and Ed O’Keefe contributed to this report.

‘Is whistleblowing worth prison or a life in exile?’: Edward Snowden talks to Daniel Ellsberg

The two most famous whistleblowers in modern history discuss Steven Spielberg’s new film, The Post, about Ellsberg’s leaking of the Pentagon Papers, the personal cost of what they did – and if they’d advise anybody to follow in their footsteps. Introduced by Ewen MacAskill



Ewen MacAskill, Edward Snowden and Daniel Ellsberg Tue 16 Jan 2018 12.34 GMT

Daniel Ellsberg, the US whistleblower celebrated in Steven Spielberg’s new film, The Post, was called “the most dangerous man in America” by the Nixon administration in the 70s. More than 40 years later, the man he helped inspire, Edward Snowden, was called “the terrible traitor” by Donald Trump, as he called for Snowden’s execution.

The Guardian has brought the two together – the most famous whistleblower of the 20th century and the most famous of the 21st so far – to discuss leaks, press freedom and other issues raised in Spielberg’s film.

Starring Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks, The Post deals with Ellsberg’s 1971 leak of the Pentagon Papers, which revealed presidents from Truman to Nixon lying about the Vietnam war. It deals, too, with the battle of the US media, primarily the Washington Post and the New York Times, to protect press freedom.

During a two-hour internet linkup between Ellsberg in Berkeley, California, Snowden in Moscow and the Guardian in London, the whistleblowers discussed the ethics, practicalities and agonised internal debate involved in whistleblowing and how The Post has a special resonance today in Trump’s America.

They are worried about Trump’s assault on press freedom and express fear that journalists could be indicted for the first time in US history. And they are alarmed by the prospect of a US nuclear strike against North Korea, urging a new generation of whistleblowers to come forward from the Pentagon or White House to stop it.


Matthew Rhys as Daniel Ellsberg in The Post.

“It is madly reckless for this president to be doing what he is doing. Whether he is, in some clinical sense, crazy or not, what he is doing is crazy,” says Ellsberg. His book based on his experience as a defence analyst and nuclear war planner, The Doomsday Machine, was published in December.
Back when Snowden was debating whether to leak secret NSA documents, showing the scale of government mass surveillance, he found inspiration in a 2009 documentary, The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. After Snowden handed over material to journalists in 2013, Ellsberg was among the first to express support and the two became friends, with Ellsberg visiting Snowden, who is living in exile in Moscow, in 2015.

They have a shared interest in press freedom. Ellsberg cofounded the US-based, not-for-profit Freedom of the Press Foundation, which helped organise the linkup. Snowden, who also serves on the foundation’s board, devotes much of his time in Moscow to developing tools that help journalists protect their communications and sources.

Ewen MacAskill: How has whistleblowing changed in the 40-plus years between your leaks? One of the striking images from The Post is of leaked documents having to be laboriously photocopied, in contrast with today.

Daniel Ellsberg: Certainly, the ability to copy and release hundreds of thousands of files or documents, as Chelsea Manning did, or millions of pages, as Ed Snowden did, was quite impossible then. I was using the cutting-edge technology of the day, Xerox, to do what I did do, which was to copy 7,000 “top secret” pages. That could not have been done before Xerox.

So, in a sense, it is easier to get the truth out now than it was in my day. It took me months of effort – copying night after night. On the other hand, unless you are an expert like Ed or Chelsea, their ability to trace who has done the leak is probably greater than it used to be. You can’t do it safely. As I understand it from Ed – you tell me, Ed, if I am wrong here – you felt with your counterespionage expertise you probably could have done it anonymously, but you chose not to do so. But others would be more likely to be caught.


Edward Snowden in 2014. Photograph: Alan Rusbridger for the Guardian

Edward Snowden: First of all, a small correction for the record. Dan said I gave millions of documents to journalists. The figure is thousands. The point between the period of Dan’s activities and mine is the expansion of reach of a particular source who witnessed some wrongdoing. In Dan’s case, what he had in his safe was the limitation of his reach. My reach was across a network rather than the confines of a safe … And what this ultimately results in is a dynamic where a particular employee can plausibly – in fact, not just plausibly but demonstrably – have more access at their fingertips than the director of an office or a unit or a group or an agency – or perhaps even the president.

EM: Another difference is Ed was able to operate solo whereas you, Dan, needed a team of volunteers.

DE: There was a kind of pickup crew, largely graduate students at Harvard, who helped find us places to stay and helped transport these papers. They were known as the Lavender Hill Mob, after the British movie in which a random bunch of petty criminals carry off a great heist. When my book, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, came out in 2003, I wanted to tell their story, but they still did not want their names known because they thought the attorney general, John Ashcroft (who was in George W Bush’s administration), might have imprisoned them. I was signing books and people were giving me little cards with the inscriptions they wanted me to write. A little card appeared: “To the Lavender Hill Mob.” And there was someone I had not seen in 40 years.

EM: How do you feel about your portrayal in The Post?

DE: I am portrayed by a very handsome actor, Matthew Rhys. So my wife and I are quite satisfied with that. The movie is incredibly timely because we are dealing with a president who lies as he breathes, unapologetically. Also, a president who is contemptuous of the press. Nixon called the press the enemy. And Trump’s people say it is the opposition party, which is of course the enemy. When I was watching the film’s premiere, I was thinking: this is a question of freedom of the press.
EM: How about you, Ed, your portrayal by Joseph Gordon-Levitt in Oliver Stone’s 2016 movie? Did it have the impact you hoped for?

ES: I loved Joseph Gordon-Levitt. One of the funny things is they have trapped me in time over the course of my existence as the way I looked when I came forward, always wearing glasses, kind of nerdy. But the funny thing is most of my life, even today, I never wore glasses. I wear glasses in professional settings not because I love the look or whatever. For all the complexities of the film, which was basically slapped together in a hurry because events were developing around the world, they got the core of it, the most important part of it, right, which is what is happening with mass surveillance and why it matters.


Daniel Ellsberg (left) with his co-defendant, Anthony Russo, outside the federal court in 1973. Photograph: AP

When we talk about the impact that it produced in the public, I see responses to this day from people who had seen this but who have not seen Citizenfour [Laura Poitras’s 2014 documentary about Snowden], which is the real documentary. And they just had not understood the issue. News reports had not reached them, but cinema did. They might not be the type to watch documentaries but they are the type to watch a drama. I think that is an incredible thing.

EM: What motivated you to take the final step in becoming a whistleblower?

DE: I would not have thought of doing what I did, which I knew would risk prison for life, without the public example of young Americans going to prison to make a strong statement that the Vietnam war was wrong and they would not participate, even at the cost of their own freedom. Without them, there would have been no Pentagon Papers. Courage is contagious. I have heard you say, Ed, that The Most Dangerous Man in America was a factor in encouraging you to do what you did.

ES: That is absolutely true. While I was weighing up whether to come forward or not – and this was an agonising process because it was certainly life-changing – I watched that documentary. Dan’s example, hearing the arguments from someone who has lived through this, it helps prepare someone to make that jump themselves.

I read, Dan, that you were described, maybe it was by Nixon, as self-righteous. But there is in whistleblowing a kind of righteousness that is required, even self-righteousness. Everything in your head, in society and everything we have been indoctrinated into believing is screaming: “Don’t do this!” And yet there is some voice that builds over time that has to persuade a person that they do not just have the right to do this but a responsibility to do so; to make the move that will certainly burn their life to the ground. But, theoretically, the wellspring of hope that is the motivational force behind this is that it will redress some wrongdoing.


Joseph Gordon-Levitt in Snowden. Photograph: Allstar

EM: Is the threat posed by Trump greater than that posed by Nixon?

DE: I believe this president will indict journalists, which has not happened yet in our country. We fought a revolution to avoid that. And we have not yet broken that first amendment, which protects press freedom, in our constitution. But this president is likely to do so. The climate has changed. And that was true under Obama, who prosecuted three times as many people for leaking as all previous presidents put together – he prosecuted nine. I think Trump will build on that precedent. He will go further and do what Obama did not do and directly indict journalists.

EM: Is the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and fearful of extradition to the US, one of those at risk?

ES: Julian’s best defence, perhaps his only enduring defence, is that he is a publisher and has never even tried, as far as we are aware, to publish something untruthful. There are lots of criticisms, many of which are legitimate, to be said about his political views or his personal expressions or the way he put things or his agenda. But ultimately the truth speaks for itself.

DE: Assange is in danger. There are those who say that Julian does not have to fear extradition if he came out of the embassy and served a brief sentence, if anything at all, for violating the rules. I think that is absurd. I think Britain would ship him over here [to the US] in a minute and we would never see or hear from him again … under Trump, he may well be the first journalist in this country to be indicted.

EM: What about whistleblowing to prevent a US attack on North Korea?

DE: I am sure there are thousands of people in the Pentagon and the White House who know an attack on North Korea would be disastrous because they have estimates and studies that show the outcome of a supposedly limited attack would be catastrophic in terms of hundreds of thousands of lives, millions of lives and what comes after.

ES: What would you say, Dan, to the next whistleblower, who is sitting in the Pentagon? They have seen the attack on North Korea planned, they have seen the consequences and it can be stopped.

DE: They have, of course, something I did not have then, which is they can go directly to the internet. And that is not something I would advise them to do. I think that, let’s see, in your case you went to the Guardian, you did not put the stuff on the net directly as you could have done. I think you did the right thing … If the New York Times does not do it, if the Guardian does not do it, you have the internet to go to.

EM: Was whistleblowing worth it?

DE: I once read a statement by Ed Snowden that there are things worth dying for. And I read the same thing by Manning, who said she was ready to go to prison or even face a death sentence for what she was doing. And I read those comments and I thought: that is what I felt. That is right. It is worth it. Is it worth someone’s freedom or life to avert a war with North Korea? I would say unhesitatingly: “Yes, of course.” Was it worth Ed Snowden spending his life in exile to do what he did? Was it worth it for Manning, spending seven and a half years in prison? Yes, I think so. And I think they think so. And I think they are right.