Pakistani PM says 'committed' to seizing Islamist charities

Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi speaks during an interview with Reuters in Islamabad, Pakistan January 22, 2018. REUTERS/Caren Firouz

Drazen Jorgic, Kay Johnson-JANUARY 22, 2018

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi on Monday said his government will push ahead with plans to seize control of charities run by an Islamist designated a terrorist by Washington, and warned the United States not to weaken Pakistan.

Abbasi brushed off U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent tweet accusing Pakistan of “lies and deception” in its commitment to fighting terrorism, as he raised the prospect of charging the United States to use Pakistan’s airspace to resupply NATO troops in Afghanistan.

Under pressure from the United States and international institutions to crack down on terrorist financing, Pakistan last month drew up secret plans for a “takeover” of charities linked to Islamist leader Hafiz Saeed, who Washington blames for the 2008 attacks in Mumbai that killed 166 people.

The United States has labelled the charities Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) and the Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation (FIF) as “terrorist fronts” for Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET), or “Army of the Pure”, a group Saeed founded in 1987 and which Washington and India accuse of carrying out the Mumbai attacks.

Saeed has repeatedly denied involvement in the Mumbai attacks and says the charitable organisations he founded and controls have no ties with militants.

But both he and the organisations have been sanctioned by the United Nations and his freedom in Pakistan, where he holds public rallies, has been a thorn in Islamabad’s relations with India and the United States.

    “Yes, the government will take over the charities which are sanctioned and not allowed to operate,” Abbasi, 59, told Reuters in an interview at the prime minister’s chamber in Pakistan’s Parliament in capital Islamabad.

    Answering specific questions about the proposed takeover of JuD and FIF, Abbasi said the civilian government had the backing of the powerful military, which effectively controls Pakistan’s security and foreign policy.

    “Everybody is on board, everybody is on the same page, everybody is committed to implementation of U.N. sanctions,” he said.

He declined to set a deadline.

JuD and FIF did not respond to Reuters requests for comment. The organisations have previously said they would take legal action if the government tried to take them over. Saeed could not be reached for comment.

SELECTIVE ACTION

There are concerns in Pakistan that the country may face financial sanctions over accusations of selective action against Islamist militant groups and financing.

Pakistan is a base for myriad Islamist movements, and critics accuse Islamabad of only targeting militants who attack the state while leaving unscathed those who target neighbouring Afghanistan and arch-foe India. Pakistan denies those allegations.

Abbasi said Pakistan had made progress in curbing terrorist financing after meetings with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international body that warned Islamabad could be put on a watchlist for not doing enough to stop the practice.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi listens during an interview with Reuters in Islamabad, Pakistan January 22, 2018. REUTERS/Caren Firouz

“We’ve had several meetings on that, and from what I’ve seen a large part of those actions have been taken,” Abbasi said.

A U.N. Security Council team is due to visit Pakistan this month to review progress against U.N.-designated “terrorist” groups, which includes LeT and others such as the Afghan Taliban-allied Haqqani network.

Former petroleum minister Abbasi said any sanctions against Pakistan would be counter-productive to the country’s own battle against Islamist militants, which he called “the largest war on terror in the world”.

“Any constraints put on Pakistan, actually only serve to degrade our capability to fight the war against terror,” he said.

TRUMP MEETING 

Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi reacts during an interview with Reuters in Islamabad, Pakistan January 22, 2018. REUTERS/Caren Firouz

Relations between the United States and its uneasy ally have frayed since Jan. 1, when Trump lashed out against what he called Pakistan’s “lies and deceit” over its alleged support of Afghan Taliban militants battling U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Washington has since suspended aid totalling about $2 billion.

Abbasi said Trump’s tweet was “unacceptable” in its tone and that Pakistan should not be “scapegoated” for U.S. failures in Afghanistan.

“That is something ... we cannot accept because nobody’s suffered more than Pakistan,” Abbasi said, adding that tens of thousands of Pakistani have died from militancy that has inflicted damage worth $120 billion to the economy.

U.S. officials last year warned of tougher measures against Pakistan, including potentially withdrawing its “non-Nato ally” status or even designating it a state sponsor of terrorism.

Abbasi said much of the suspended aid was from the Coalition Support Fund (CSF), a U.S. Defence Department programme to reimburse allies for the costs of supporting counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency operations.

He said the U.S. needed to respect Pakistan’s contribution to the fight against Islamist militancy and raised the prospect of charging Washington for air transport flights that have been resupplying U.S.-led troops and Afghan forces in landlocked Afghanistan.

“If somebody wants to start quantifying expenses and aid, I think let’s put this on the table also. Let’s discuss that,” Abbasi said, though he added that such talk was “hypothetical”.

Abbasi dismissed media reports that Islamabad has ended intelligence sharing with the U.S. military as false.

And he also spoke fondly about a brief discussion he had with Trump in September at a reception at the U.N General Assembly in New York.

“I found him to be fairly warm,” he said. “Somebody that you would like to engage with and talk to.”

Has India Done Enough for Tibet’s Cause?

The fact is that the Jawaharlal Nehru not only kept silent but also virtually recognized the occupation of Tibet by China. If he would not combat China on the Tibetan issue, he could have atleast refrained from providing recognition for China’s occupation of Tibet.

by N.S.Venkataraman-Jan 20, 2018

( January 20, 2018, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) More than six decades have gone after China forcibly entered Tibet and occupied the land and unjustifiably claimed that Tibet belongs to it.. His Holiness the Dalai Lama had no alternative other than leaving Tibet with his disciples and he entered Indian territory on 31st March,1959.

When China occupied Tibet , India led by the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru just kept watching and did nothing to stop China from it’s aggressive move. Obviously, Nehru was very friendly at that time with Chinese government and he did not want to upset China by commenting on China’s occupation of Tibet. While Nehru took such stand, there were many sane voices in India who felt concerned about the inaction of Jawaharlal Nehru and reminded him that he was doing historical mistake.

The fact is that the Jawaharlal Nehru not only kept silent but also virtually recognized the occupation of Tibet by China. If he would not combat China on the Tibetan issue, he could have atleast refrained from providing recognition for China’s occupation of Tibet.

History is certainly pointing to Jawaharlal Nehru for this lapse and many Indians continue to express their anguish about this.

It is now a matter of speculation whether India had the military strength at that time to combat China. When India just remained silent, the rest of the world thought that China could have a case in occupying ,though western countries made some protest noise which appeared to be a cosmetic exercise even at that time.

At that time when China occupied Tibet, China certainly did not have the type of military or economic strength that it now possesses. Certainly, if western countries were to have interfered to stop China from it’s heinous act, things could have been different. The net result was that Tibet went under China and China had the last laugh.

However, the silence of Jawaharlal Nehru while Tibet was suffering disturbed the conscience of large segment of Indians and such disturbed conscience state amongst Indians continue till today.

Jawaharlal Nehru was a great historian and a scholar who would have certainly known about the great traditions and the value systems that the Tibetans cherished. He certainly failed the conscience of India and perhaps, conscience of Nehru also might have disturbed him.

This explains the fact that when the Dalai lama and his disciples entered India, practically no restriction was placed by Jawaharlal Nehru and Tibetans were allowed to settle down with refugee status. Though Nehru placed restrictions on Tibetans that they should not indulge in politics, in practical terms government largely ignored or allowed the protests by Tibetans against the Chinese occupation of their dear country.

The Dalai Lama was treated with the respect that he deserves and was allowed to travel all over India, meet people and attend programmes and meetings. He was also later on allowed to go abroad and convey to the rest of the world about the harm done to Tibet by China. The Tibet government in exile was allowed to be formed in Indian territory and the Central Tibetan administration have a number of office bearers including the Prime Minister in exile.

Jawaharlal Nehru and subsequent governments did not accede to the demand of China that the movement of the Dalai Lama and Tibetans in India should be restricted. While the Indian government was certainly guilty of remaining silent over China’s occupation of Tibet, it tried to make amends to it’s grave mistake by standing upto China and treating the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans in India with dignity.

Coming to the question whether India has done enough for Tibet’s cause, the fact is that the present approach of Indian government towards the Tibetan cause is similar to the act of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Obviously, the present government of India seem to think that the occupation of Tibet should have been prevented from happening but it’s sympathy for the cause of Tibetans now appears to be too late.

The ball is in the court of Tibetans and it is for them to chart their course of action, utilizing the goodwill that they enjoy in India and in several parts of the world.

In a world where freedom is never free, we can’t afford to be complacent

By Emma Richards | 19th January 2018 | @EmmaRichards85

Protesters burn an effigy of US President Donald Trump, who is attending the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) Summit and related meetings in Manila, Philippines November 13, 2017. Source: Reuters/Erik De Castro

IT’S been a pretty rough 12 months. Global political rights and civil liberties are at their lowest point in over a decade, press freedom feels like it’s in freefall, and, despite the world’s collective longing, Donald Trump remains in the White House.

It’s easy to feel beaten down and disillusioned by this continual onslaught, and the release of the Human Rights Watch (HRW) report can only have reinforced this sense of powerlessness in the face of rising authoritarianism.

The findings of the report will come as little surprise to anyone who’s so much as glanced at a newspaper in the last couple of years. All the usual suspects were there.

SEE ALSO: Philippine dictator Duterte turns on the media that helped elect him

Myanmar’s State Counsellor and Foreign Minister Aung San Suu Kyi looks on during the opening session of the ASEAN and European Union summit at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC) in Pasay, metro Manila, Philippines on November 14, 2017. Source: Reuters/Dondi Tawatao

Kenneth Roth, head of HRW, warned of authoritarian leaders across the globe being emboldened after Donald Trump’s first year in office.

Nowhere does this seem more evident than parts of Asia-Pacific.

The civil and political rights environment in Cambodia markedly deteriorated under Prime Minister Hun Sen, as the political opposition was dissolved and its leader jailed. Prominent independent media outlets were shuttered and rights activists were arrested.

Burma enjoyed its first full year under a democratically elected civilian government; although at times it was hard to tell. The military remained the primary power-holder, the government increasingly used repressive laws to prosecute critics, and then, of course, there’s the notable issue of ethnic cleansing.

On top of that you’ve got Prayuth Chan-o-cha of Thailand finding any excuse under the sun to postpone elections and cling to power; Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte condoning the slaughter of poor people as part of his drug war and shutting new sites; Najib Razak’s government continuing its crackdown on critical voices and human rights defenders, while championing a less tolerant approach to Islam in Malaysia.

These are just some of the greatest hits. I’m sure there’s more; feel free to insert name here:

“[INSERT NAME] quashed human rights, clamped down on freedom of expression, and imprisoned those who voiced dissent.” – It’s a fairly reliable formula, straight out of the dictator handbook.

SEE ALSO: Rights activists, religious freedom ‘under attack’ in Malaysia

Have I lost you yet? If you’re feeling that creeping sense of helplessness needling its way into your psyche, that’s understandable. But let me stop you there because, while the HRW report didn’t make for pleasant reading, they did offer up a glimmer of hope in all the madness

The pushback that’s rising in response to this wave of populism is starting to take effect.

In his introduction to the new report, Roth writes that when strong voices in government can combine with mobilised publics to fight for human rights principles, the position of anti-rights governments can be disrupted and their rise no longer inevitable.

People take part in a protest against the government of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte in front of the Philippine consulate in the Manhattan borough of New York, U.S., December 10, 2017. Source: Reuters/Eduardo Munoz

“The central lesson of the past year is that despite the considerable headwinds, the defense of human rights can succeed if the proper efforts are made,” says Roth.

The scapegoating of vulnerable minorities that is so common in the rhetoric of these strongmen, acts as a reminder to others of the value of human rights that so many of us have thus far taken for granted.

SEE ALSO: Rise of the strongman: Asia’s top 10 newsmakers in 2017

It is this realisation, and the movements that spring from it, that are the greatest threat to the populist politician.

While it can be tempting to sit back and watch the world burn because dealing with it all is just too exhausting, now is really the time to start to fight back. We cannot afford to become despondent and embrace the inevitability of it all. As Roth says, the troubling state of world politics should be “a call to action rather than a cry of despair.”

Each of us will have a part to play if we want to change the direction of the populist surge. We have to, as Roth says:

“Where capitulation meets their message of hate and exclusion, the populists flourish.”

** This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not reflect the views of Asian Correspondent

American Name Society chooses ‘Rohingya’ as Name of the Year for 2017

A Rohingya refugee child, carrying another child, walks along a bridge from no-man's land to Bangladesh, at the Bangladesh-Myanmar border near Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh January 12, 2018. Source: Reuters/Tyrone Siu

Max Walden | January 19, 2018 | @maxwalden_

‘Rohingya’ was the most important name of 2017 according to a group of leading academics.

The American Name Society (ANS) – an organisation which promotes onomastics (the study of names and naming practices) in the United States and abroad – decided to choose the name of the persecuted Muslim minority from Burma (Myanmar) earlier this month at its annual meeting.

More than 650,000 Rohingya have fled from Rakhine State into Bangladesh since violence broke out on Aug 25, part of what many in the international community have deemed ethnic cleansing and worse.

According to a statement from the ANS, the Tatmadaw army of Burma has “perpetrated massacres that have the earmarks of genocide. Myanmar’s government has tried to prevent people, including Pope Francis, from using the name Rohingya.”

It noted that the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein has said: “to strip their name from them is dehumanising to the point where you begin to believe that anything is possible.”

Headed up by Dr Iman Nick from the Germanic Society for Forensic Linguistics and Dr Dorothy Dodge Robbins from Louisiana Tech University, the ANS has chosen a Name of the Year through a vote of its members since 2004.

People participate in a “MeToo” protest march for survivors of sexual assault and their supporters in Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, U.S. on Nov 12, 2017. Source: Reuters/Lucy Nicholson

In 2017, it chose Maria as Personal Name of the Year in honour of Hurricane Maria which devastated the US territory of Puerto Rico in September and October last year. Miscellaneous Name of the Year was given to #MeToo – the women’s movement aimed at sharing experiences of sexual harassment.

The college town Charlottesville was chosen as Place Name of the Year for becoming “a symbol of racism and resistance” in 2017 after a white supremacist rally there in August, leading to the death of a counter-protester Heath Heyer.

Nambia, meanwhile, was Fictional Name of the Year. US President Donald Trump “lavished praise” on the healthcare system of Nambia during a speech at the UN in September, according to the ANS.

Source: Reuters/Carlos Barria

Of course, there is no such country as Nambia (although Namibia and The Gambia are real countries).

The ANS was founded in 1951 and is a “non-profit organisation that seeks to find out what really is in a name, and to investigate cultural insights, settlement history, and linguistic characteristics revealed in names.”

Its members also include academics from the University of Calabria in Italy, Australia’s Macquarie University and the University of Reading in the UK.

Liked this? Then you’ll love…

Human rights educators to visit Stanford, Harvard amid Rohingya crisis

Cornell University becomes Noah’s Ark for Puerto Rican students

Brazil declares yellow fever emergency in Minas Gerais

21 January 2018

Brazil's south-eastern state of Minas Gerais has declared a public health emergency following a deadly outbreak of yellow fever.

At least 15 people have died there since December. Many areas, including the state capital Belo Horizonte, have been affected.

A mass vaccination programme is in place in three southern states.

But queues have formed outside clinics in Rio and Sao Paulo amid concerns that vaccines could run out.

In neighbouring Argentina, there have also been long queues for the vaccine in Buenos Aires and other cities as thousands of prospective tourists prepare to travel to Brazil for carnival.

On Tuesday the WHO recommended that travellers to Sao Paulo state get a yellow fever vaccine before visiting.

Minas Gerais has been the hardest-hit Brazilian state. In the year up to June last year, 475 cases were confirmed in the state and 162 people died.

The health emergency will be in place for six months and will allow local authorities to commission special services and buy in emergency materials.

What is yellow fever?

AFP-WHO advises people to get a vaccine at least 10 days before travelling to a yellow-fever area

• Caused by a virus that is transmitted to humans by mosquitoes
• Difficult to diagnose and often confused with other diseases or fevers
• Most people recover after the first phase of infection that usually involves fever, muscle and back pain, headache, shivers, loss of appetite, and nausea or vomiting
• About 15% of people face a second, more serious phase involving high fever, jaundice, bleeding and deteriorating kidney function
• Half of those who enter the "toxic" phase usually die within 10 to 14 days

Source: WHO

---

The WHO's advice is for all travellers to Sao Paulo to get a vaccination at least 10 days before travelling and to take measures to avoid mosquito bites.

Brazilian Health Minister Antonio Nardi responded by saying that most people attending Brazil's carnival celebrations in February should be safe as they are held in large cities and not the rural and forested areas which have seen the biggest increase in yellow fever cases.

Mr Nardi said Sao Paulo state authorities would speed up their vaccination campaign with the aim of vaccinating half of the state's population by the end of February.

More than 45 million people live in Sao Paulo state.

Democracy With Sri Lankan Characteristics

By Aravinth Kumar –January 21, 2018

Multi-party democratic rule in Sri Lanka and socialist rule in China commenced around the same time in the late 1940s. Both political systems proved to be complete disasters, stifling the growth and development of the two nations. Fortunately for China, the visionary Deng Xiaoping fully understood that the socialist system was failing his country and adapted “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. In doing so, China went from a poverty stricken nation to becoming the second largest economy in a generation. In fact, it has transformed so rapidly that it has been predicted that China will have the largest economy by 2040 (if not sooner). Sri Lanka on the other hand has persisted with a flawed multi-party democracy, trapping itself in a cycle. If Sri Lanka has any intention of breaking this trap and emulating China, Sri Lanka too will need to adapt its “democracy with Sri Lankan characteristics”.

How has a multi-party democracy trapped Sri Lanka’s economy? Well, since gaining independence from the British in 1948, Sri Lanka’s democracy has charted the following disastrous political cycle:

• An election is called. All political parties issue their mandate of what they wish to achieve if given power. Usually, these political parties offer a populist manifesto completely disregarding the impact on the economy (or national unity). During the campaign, political parties provide all thoughts of tangible goodies to entice the citizens to vote for them. As Lee Kuan Yew famously stated, Sri Lanka’s elections are an “auctions of non-existent resources”.
• The people vote in a party which is usually either an UNP or SLFP led alliance. The party forms a government for a period of 5 years.
• Once in power, the UNP/SLFP looks to pay back those who helped with their election win, as well as help family and friends. This is usually through providing jobs in the public sector thus depriving the state of competent individuals. Unaffordable populist measures as stated in their manifesto are enacted, such as public sector pay rises or fuel subsidies, requiring the government to borrow high interest loans creating economic instability e.g. balances of payment crises, increasing inflation and currency collapses.
• In the rare case that a government does attempt meaningful development, be it from a change in law or a physical infrastructure project, the opposition parties will block it just to prevent their “enemy” taking credit for helping the nation to develop. In doing so, the opposition can then claim that the current government has done nothing of benefit and the people should vote them into power.   
• With the economy suffering and the next set of elections around the corner, the government of the day starts scapegoating and trying to turn people’s attention away from their poor mismanagement by stroking nationalistic/ethnic/religious sentiment and/or (further) offering economically damaging policies.
• With the government not having made any meaningful action to improve the country, come the next election, the people usually turn to the opposition (i.e. if it’s an UNP backed government then power shifts to a SLFP backed government and vice versa).

Whilst the above political cycle is somewhat generalised, on the whole, it is fair to say that for the last 70 years, Sri Lanka has mostly seen its economy move forward only to falter and move three steps back.  This is primarily down to the multi-party democracy practised in Sri Lanka which consists of three fundamental flaws:

1. Firstly, it’s too short term focused. Governments are only interested in making quick short term changes which can be easily seen and felt by the citizens before the next round of elections. They therefore have no incentive to take any notice of the impact on the country or economy in the mid/long term.
2. Secondly, the opposition will always oppose anything even if it brings benefits. Allowing their rival to develop the country would be like shooting oneself in the foot i.e. preventing them obtaining their primary goal; political power.
3. Lastly, whilst citizens of a country demand improvements in their life, most are scared about the impact of major but necessary changes. Opposition parties latch on to this inherent fear and play the political card. There are numerous times when parties have tried to introduce well meaningful laws only to feel a hostile reaction from some in the voting public backed by opposition members. Wanting to retain power, many governments have scrapped and fallen to the demands of the people, which usually creates/furthers a negative impact on the economy.   

It probably explains why, of all the newly independent nations which have become developed countries in the last 30 years, such as Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea etc., none of them operated an open multi-party democracy like in Sri Lanka. In fact, it even fails in the countries which first embraced democracy! However, in such countries, which are usually already a developed nation, the model of democracy is not a major hindrance. This is mainly because significant changes are not required as compared to a developing country like Sri Lanka. Take for example the UK. There have been ongoing proposals to create a third runway at London Heathrow Airport. However, there is a large amount of opposition from certain citizens as well as some political parties. However, let’s assume building this runway is a good thing, not constructing the runway is not going to have a major impact as there is already two other runways in operation.  Additionally, there are numerous high class airports situated around the country including three situated in close proximity to London.

Now, compare this to a developing country like Sri Lanka where the need for infrastructure is vital.  Take travelling between Colombo and the second city, Kandy. Whilst there are methods of travelling between the two cities these aren’t on the scale as in a country like the UK. Travelling by public transport is not the most enjoyable trip, with the infrastructure old and dilapidated and buses/trains leaving at irregular times. If one where to drive this 71 mile journey, it could sometimes take the same amount of time as it would to fly from Colombo to Singapore! Thus, any improvements of either a road or a new rail link would create major economic benefits.

So, considering the benefits which can be gained, why has Sri Lanka not invested money into improving transport links? Answer: Sri Lanka’s multi-party democracy. Sri Lanka has two major parties that power has alternated between since independence. Both parties are keen to develop the country (or they state), yet at the same time both parties are keen to prevent their rival from being the one in charge of such development.

Thus, the intention of the SLFP/UNP when in opposition is to oppose just so credit is not given to the government of the day. A case in point is the construction of the Colombo Port City, a large 269 hectare of sea filled land being built by the Chinese at a cost of $1.4 billion. The project was initiated in 2014 by the previous Rajapaksa government with much objection by the UNP. So much so, that during the parliamentary election campaign in 2015, the leader of the UNP, Ranil Wickremesinghe, stated they would stop construction on the grounds of environmental concerns. Whilst there was a standstill for a year after the UNP gained power, construction is back in full swing with the Prime Minister having made a site visit in the first week of January 2018. Funnily enough, even though Ranil Wickremesinghe had proposed scrapping the Port City project during the 2015 election campaign, it was actually he himself who had initially proposed the idea in 2002 whilst he was Prime Minster. However with the loss of power in the 2004 election, the actual credit for commencing the project was to be taken by Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Read More

In Election Times

"...questioning honestly and reflecting upon the truth of what has been lived through, what has been done."

Nadine Gordimer (Living in Hope and History: Notes from our Century)

Tisaranee Gunasekara-January 20, 2018, 6:28 pm 

The 19th Amendment was the greatest achievement of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration. President Maithripala Sirisena played an active role in making it happen. He helped craft it and spearheaded it through a fractious parliament in a 12-hour marathon session. Without his committed and tireless efforts, the Amendment would not have garnered the SLFP’s support and would have failed to pass for that reason. It was the finest hour of the man, and of the new government he headed.

Had Mr. Sirisena reread the 19th Amendment, he would have recalled that the five-year presidential term applies to him as well. Had he casted his mind back to those stirring times, he would have remembered that was the way he wanted it, in 2015. He even said that his personal preference was for a four-year presidential term.

Those were the heydays of the new government, when hope was bright and good governance appeared semi-achievable. President Sirisena’s legacy seemed assured as a rare political leader who worked hard to reduce his own powers. When, three years on, the same man sought a court ruling extending his presidential term by one year, he caused grievous and needless harm to his image and his legacy.

But that incident also served a useful purpose. It revealed how far Sri Lanka has travelled since Mahinda Rajapaksa railroaded both the judiciary and the parliament into abolishing presidential term-limits and enhancing presidential powers via the 18th Amendment. In 2010 the judiciary was nothing but an appendage of an all powerful executive. Even the judges of the country’s highest court feared the wrath of the Rajapaksas. The fear was well-grounded, as the then Chief Justice discovered the first and the only time she dared to give a judgement displeasing to the Rajapaksas. Shirani Bandaranayake was hounded out of her position via an illegal and uncouth impeachment in 2013 for the crime of not giving a blanket approval to Basil Rajapaksa’s Divineguma Bill.

2018 is not 2010 or 2013; 2018 is a more democratic time when even the topmost men of the land have to abide by the law, mostly. Today the judiciary is not scared to rule against the manifest wish of a sitting president and can do so without fearing a tsunami of presidential wrath. Whatever President Sirisena’s private feelings, in public he has no option but to accept that ruling with as much good grace as possible. This is an indubitable improvement, an improvement worth preserving.

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration is corrupt, incompetent and clueless, but the return of Rajapaksa Rule would mean the return of a time when impunity was the norm and even a rugby referee couldn’t give a decision displeasing to rugby-playing Rajapaksa sons without risking bodily harm. Maithripala Sirisena is a weak and a brittle president, but Gotabhaya Rajapaksa would be an infinitely worse one, a dictatorial racist, a deadly cross between Benito Mussolini and Donald Trump. Ranil Wickremesinghe has turned himself into non/anti-Mr. Clean with his indefensible defence of the two Arjunas, but with Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister we will have more (not less) corruption and absolutely no space even to complain about it.

The Twin Millstones: Bond Scam and Cost of Living

The UNP, rather than Mahinda Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka Peoples Party (SLPP), is likely to come first in the upcoming local government election, but the chances of the SLPP becoming a strong second is considerable. If the SLPP does become a strong second (either in terms of the number of councils won or the total number of votes gained), if it succeeds in pushing Maithripala Sirisena’s SLFP into third place, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration is bound to careen into a crisis from which it may never recover. Both Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe will be losers in such a situation. And they would have none to blame but themselves for bringing such a disaster on their parties, the country and the 6.8 million Lankans who placed their collective trust in them in January and August 2015.

If that disaster does happen, it would have been brought about primarily by the needless mishandling of two issues – rice prices and the bond scam. Reducing living costs and minimising corruption were cornerstones of the good governance undertaking. Both these promises have been broken again and again. For many a voter who opted for the swan and the elephant in 2015 in the hope of a better life and an honest government, February 10 would be payback time.

If Maithripala Sirisena acted fast and determinedly to prevent the skyrocketing of rice prices, the cost-of-living problem would not have become the political millstone it is today. Had he prioritised the welfare of ordinary Lankans over the super-profits of the rice-miller mafia (which allegedly includes his brother) his SLFP would have been vying with the UNP for the first place instead of facing the ignominy of becoming a poor third. The fault lies mainly with Mr. Sirisena. For almost three years he ignored the economic plight of a majority of Lankan people. And by failing to tackle the issue of prices in general and rice prices in particular Mr. Sirisena disappointed and alienated SLFP’s core-voters – the rural/suburban poor and middle classes.

Last week, Mr. Sirisena sprang into outraged action when Minister Mangala Samaraweera issued a gazette cancelling a silly colonial-era law banning women from buying or selling alcohol. Had he displayed one half of that speed and single-mindedness in dealing with the issue of rice and coconut prices or the drought (which has victimised two million Lankans) or the still ongoing fertiliser shortage, he would not be in the electoral plight he is today.

If Ranil Wickremesinghe handled the bond scam differently, he could have been confident of not just winning the LG polls, but also doing so massively. His laughable attempts to deny the existence of any wrongdoing, his unwillingness to remove Ravi Karunanayake from deputy leadership even after the Monarch Penthouse scandal came to light and his unconditional defence of Arjuna Mahendran had disgusted and alienated key components of the UNP’s core support base – the urban middle and upper-middle classes and the business community.

Mr. Wickremesinghe can mitigate these negatives if he backs President Sirisena’s call to institute immediate legal action against those named in the Bond Commission Report. He can also demand that Arjuna Mahendran return to Sri Lanka to face charges against him once those charges are filed. He can even apologise for a lapse of judgement on his part. All of this would go a considerable way in improving his public image and the UNP’s chances of winning handsomely on February 10. He can, but he is not likely to. The supposed appointment of a three-member committee indicates that Mr. Wickremesinghe is still counting on evasion and obfuscation to get himself and the UNP out of the bond scam morass.

So Maithripala Sirisena will not move against the rice-miller mafia and Ranil Wickremesinghe will not turn his guns against the alleged bond-scammers. Their twin failures, in conjunction, can open the Rajapaksa flood gates on February 10. If so, the LG election of 2018 will mark the beginning of the end of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration.

Bad and Worse

When the UN General Assembly introduced a resolution condemning Trump Administration’s decision to shift American embassy to Jerusalem, President Donald Trump threatened dire consequences to any country which votes against America. The absolute majority of the world’s countries did, including Sri Lanka.

Mr. Trump would have liked to follow up on his threat, but the US being a democracy, he has very little real capacity to act like an avenging cowboy. Some SLPP heavyweights have claimed that Sri Lanka lost America’s GSP plus facility because of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration’s principled decision to vote with the Palestinian people, but this is a lie. American GSP plus facility lapses automatically after a designated period and has to be renewedi. So far this renewal has been done retroactively so the 120 countries covered by it (including Sri Lanka) do not lose out. For example, GSP plus lapsed in 2013 and was renewed by the Obama Administration in 2015, retroactively.

The Americans did engage in strong arm tactics once, to compel third world countries to toe the line, but today such blackmailing is more a Chinese or a Russian thing. Sri Lanka experienced this first hand last December over its failed attempts to ban asbestos.

Asbestos, including white asbestos (chrysotile) permitted in Sri Lanka, has been designated as carcinogenic by the World Health Organisationii. The WHO is actively campaigning for a global ban on asbestos and President Sirisena’s decision to forbid the importation of asbestos from 2018 was on par with this. Sri Lanka is a major asbestos importer and Russia is the country from which we import our asbestos. Russia’s sudden ban on not just Lankan tea, but also other Lankan exports, was clearly aimed at preventing this asbestos import-ban from coming into effect. The strong-arming worked. Faced with the prospect of losing a major tea market, Colombo backed down in pretty short order. Had the Americans done something even half as execrable, there would have been howls of protests, and rightly so. But there was not even a whimper about Russian blackmailing.

The entire episode illustrates the damning incompetence of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration. The government’s decision to ban the importation and use of asbestos was correct. Where it went wrong was in not anticipating Russian reaction (probably because it forgot that this is not Vladimir Lenin’s Soviet Union but Vladimir Putin’s Russian Republic). The government also failed to educate and prepare the people and the market about the ban. When Russian strong-arming happened, the government couldn’t rely even on the support of its own public because most Lankans are unaware of asbestos’ propensity to cause lung and other types of cancer - another needless failure, to be added to a list of similar failures.

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration has been a severe disappointment in multiple areas and in ways big and small. Today the term good governance seems more like a bad joke. The government has lost not just its moral compass but also its basic commonsense. The positives it has achieved are few in comparison to the multitude of forgotten and broken promises. But those few positives mark the difference between a country that is the private fiefdom of a single family and a country which is a flawed democracy.

To paraphrase Georges Clemenceau, politics is too dangerous an undertaking to be left to politicians, especially the kind Sri Lanka seems to be producing by the bushel. So laws and institutions are of paramount importance, because they can act as barriers to abuses, inanities and excesses politicians tend to gravitate towards. This is the lesson of the President’s failed attempt to add one more year to his presidential term and the Prime Minister’s failing attempts to protect the two Arjuns. Had the democratisation of 2015 not happened, Mr. Sirisena would have got his additional year and there would not have been a Bond Commission. And the Election Commission would not be acting with such praiseworthy independence to stymie lawbreakers of all hues and to ensure a free and fair election.

So three years on that is what Sri Lanka is: flawed and democratic. In between elections it is necessary to focus on the flawed part of the equation, because without criticism and opposition, there can be no change for the better. But in election times the focus has to be on democracy part of the equation. Even to gripe about how flawed things are without fear of white-vans, we need to keep this bumbling democracy alive.

ihttps://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/gsp/FAQs-on-GSP-Expiration-January-2018.pdf

http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/asbestos/en/

http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/chrysotile_asbestos_summary.pdf