Sunday, March 25, 2018

Sirisena brazenly waltzes with Mahinda

Can Madduma Bandara cope? Or is he a third bot in a spineless trinity?

Kumar David-March 24, 2018, 6:36 pm

Imagine if appointment of a Head of the FBI was scuttled because the Mafia objected! Sarath Fonseka was denied appointment as Law & Order Minister, the President said, because DIGs and senior policemen, who SF alleges are drug-runners and villains, objected. The real reason however is that President Sirisena, now imploring Basil and Mahinda for I don’t know what, will not appoint a Minister who will drag scoundrels of the previous regime before prosecutors and magistrates.

I don’t know him, and don’t know much about the new L&O Minister Madduma Bandara; efforts to find out from political contacts and friends drew little information. What I was able to elicit was that he is a decent bloke who conducts himself well, but he is weak willed. That’s not reassuring. It would be a pity if he turns out to be a third dead body beside an ineffectual PM and distressed President. Post 10 Feb., Sirisena’s panic was like the heart-attack Robinson Crusoe suffered when he saw that footprint on the sand.

The populace, whichever side it voted for on 10 February, wants robust action. The demand is "bring rogues and murders to trial, then convict or acquit". That is the universal cry from all sides of the political spectrum. Damn GMOA, BASL, GL Peries and the pathetic chorus of liberals who snivel, this way and that with the waxing and the waning of the moon. Legislation setting up the six special courts must be enacted; thereafter action must be quick and decisive. But do Pres and PM have appetite for action? In biology textbooks they call sloppy creatures invertebrates. Or in biblical terms: "A house divided against itself will not stand" (Mathew: 12:25).

The sleep-walking UNP

The purpose of this article is not to dishearten those alarmed by a possible Return of the Rajapaksas (some movie that would make) but rather to kick butts and wake people up. Not one greedy, sinecure-hugging, perks-loving, bribe-taking (or not taking) Cabinet, State or Deputy Minister has quit and got down to grassroots work. I do not conceal my dislike of JR but the bloke took his politics seriously, stopped mucking around, and devoted energy to rebuilding the party at grassroots and middle levels when it fell on hard times, as did Ranasinghe Premadasa when his turn arrived. The now-UNP has no one of that calibre willing pull up his sarong, quit the bribe-taking rat-race and get down to mobilisation after the 10 February debacle.

Though the UNP and its leadership is a washout what adds salt to the wound is the game Sirisena is playing. After his entreaty for one more year in office was thrown out by the courts, and throughout the local government election campaign, his conduct, to say the least, has been screwball. He did all he could to undermine his partner in coalition, Ranil and the UNP. He made no secret of the numerous avenues he explored to remove Ranil from PM-ship. His game plan was open, explicit and palpably driven by instructions from the Rajapaksa brotherhood.

Well what’s cooking now? It’s the same but by other means. I have no inside information and no ‘reliable sources’ – journalists who use this terminology end up purveyors of pure b-s. What I do have is political judgement; I hope sound, using information in the public domain. On this basis I submit that Sirisena is working to ensure that the UNP is defeated in 2020. Since he is a dead man walking and since his rump-SLFP is a ghost, he has become a subcontractor. That’s what the evidence adds to? He is dancing with Mahinda and is junior partner in this waltz of death! Poor sod, not all his pirouettes will save him from the stake; Rajapaksas don’t forgive duplicitous hopper-eaters!

If Ranil had had the gumption to stepdown as PM (not UNP leader) on 11 Feb, apologise to the nation, and throw his energy into mobilising and rebuilding for 2020, the UNP would not be mired as it is now. Now it is frozen, petrified, clueless and toothless. Middle-level chaps with grassroots ability – Sajith, Mangala, Ramanayake, Harin – are wedded to posts and perks; Ravi is compromised; Rajitha is dismissed as a loudmouth who contradicts himself daily; Eran, Malik and Harsha are as remote from the masses as an Eskimo is from the Sahara. It would need a tectonic shift to wake up this UNP and delay, if possible, its sleep-walk into the abyss.

The star-gazing JVP

The JVP will never grow up. Hordes of people, this columnist included, have been plugging the simple, self-evident and obvious truth that it will never, ever, get anywhere except as a part of a broad left, democratic and progressive alliance. The LSSP, CP and Philip once had a chance in the mid-1960s and blew it. In today’s global phase the Communist parties of India, Nepal, South Africa, Eastern Europe and Russia, as well as the European Left (Britain’s Labour is an exception), and Lanka’s JVP are not going to participate in government in a democracy except in an alliance. JVP nitwits - whether leadership, cadre or both is a little unclear - simply don’t get it! The JVP is timeworn, it is 60 years old, and still thinks the world has not moved on since Lenin, Mao and Guevara. Its intellectual fixity and strategic immobility render it comatose.

So, is it time to write-off the JVP as a has-been? But what are the options? The breakaways peratugami (Frontline) and kurutugami (as I call the break-away from the break-away) live in cloud cuckoo land. Like the post-Trot and post-Mao sects, their full membership can be conveniently packed into one medium sized minivan.

The Rajapaksas are obsessed with power but have proved unfit to wield it. If this bandwagon is beyond the pale because it is a threat to democracy and human rights; if the UNP is a toothless (tusk-less?) pachyderm; if the TNA cheated, again, by Sinhalese people and politicians is down for the count, what then? We are probably heading for a hung parliament and separation of president from parliament in 2020-21 and in the ensuing period.

It’s too narrow to extrapolate from the 10 February frolic, but it is the most recent empirical evidence to hand. A few straightforward corrections can be inserted; for example, it is unlikely that a quarter of the UNP vote base will abstain again (they have kicked Ranil in the butt hard enough) and the Sirisena-SLFP will wither away, possibly into Mahinda’s embrace. Otherwise, linear projection from 10 February is easy as there is little sign yahapalana will get its act together. At least such projection could be an informative starting point for thought.

For arguments sake, take Gota as the Rajapaksa-side presidential nominee; assume that the FPP-cum-PR system is retained; assume most UNP boycotters (13% nationally) return to the polling booth; assume a part of the Sirisena-SLFP 10% rump switches to Gota. Then the equation I have canvassed for a long time still remains true. A non-minority-supported Gota cannot pull more than about 42% in an Executive Presidential (EP) election of the current style. A new constitution or an amendment to abolish EP seems a daydream. Very likely we are stuck with EP and it seems Gota is stuck with his 42% ceiling. This is a very possible scenario.

Parliament is more interesting. In an all-FPP scenario the Rajapaksa group will win a majority of seats in Sinhalese areas – that is outside the North, East, Upcountry and cities. In a mixed 60-40 FPP-PR case, a majority is unlikely, but a pro-Rajapaksa national plurality is possible. This is a linear projection from 10 Feb with the corrections mentioned in the previous para. There will be a tussle for government, but a non-Gota President will try to form a non-Rajapaksa administration if he/she can get away with it at all. Whichever way the chips fall, for folks like you and me the need of the hour is obvious, a strong independent third-force in polity and parliament.

And this is where the wheel is spoked though there is little time left. The JVP does not even understand the language. Other elements of a potential third-force such as the Jan 8 Movement, radical NGOs linked to the UNP, the ULF, CP-DEW wing, Bahu, Muslims under siege and fearful Tamils, are not grouped in a credible ‘Big Tent’ - contrast Italy’s Five Star Movement. The objective, of course, is not governmental power but a credible force to contain power abuse. A defensive electoral strategy complemented by aggressive political action is best. A UNP-led alliance or the Rajapaksa bandwagon may lead one or the other branches (executive and legislative) of government in the 2020s. But no matter, the mobilisation of an independent, democratic and radical movement is essential if this country is to survive as a civilised nation.

The barebones of what the third-force’s programme should be are obvious:

* Aggressive prosecution and imprisonment of corrupt political personalities to satisfy urgent public demands. (That means saying "Damn Sirisena!")

* Cost of living concessions, notwithstanding impediments to economic development, and more debt, till public awareness of the trade-off between prudence and growth matures. Greater equity to promote social stability. (This means restraint on Ranil-Mangala-Malik objectives).

* A programme to educate the Sinhalese on minority rights and a ruthless response to communal violence now orchestrated by clergy and incited by the chauvinism of the Rajapaksas. (That calls for political courage, which UNP, SLFP, Rajapaksa coattail intellectuals and JVP, all lack).

I am disappointed that those who should lead are disoriented. Commentary is all descriptive, and fault finding. The creative task of strategizing and alliance building is subdued – frankly, non-existent. Maybe I am impatient; maybe the sleepy left is still groggy; maybe shell-shocked liberals need time to come to their senses.

UPDATE: Flip-flopping on Accountability – A Timeline

Featured image courtesy ada.lk

RAISA WICKREMATUNGE- 03/23/2018

On March 21, 2018, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Tilak Marapana flagged the operationalisation of the Office on Missing Persons, the use of the Right to Information Act, the release of land to civilians, and the replacement of the Prevention of Terrorism Act as points of progress for Sri Lanka, at the 37th session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) session in Geneva.

He also said Cabinet approval had been granted to set up an Office of Reparations, while draft legislation on a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was in an “advanced stage of consultation”.

From the outset, some of these points raised eyebrows. There have been numerous concernsraised with the draft Counter Terrorism Act legislation, on its broad scope as well as admissibility of confessions to the police. In addition, the legislation for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is not in the public domain, and nor is there any publicly available information on the Office of Reparations. The Office on Missing Persons commenced operations only on March 13, just prior to the UNHRC session.

There was one key omission, however – conversation around the judicial mechanism, also a key part of the UNHRC resolution.

The Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non Recurrence, Pablo De Greiff noted that Sri Lanka has suffered “cycles of violence” affecting all communities. The recent violence against Muslims in Digana and Ampara, he said, was another reminder of the importance of the need for ownership of the transitional justice process. However, he too avoided specific mention of the judicial mechanism, alluding only to politicisation. Lawyers and rights activists raised concerns of his avoidance of tackling the topic of accountability after his visit in October 2017.

This is perhaps reflective of the confusion and miscommunication around the topic. Since the Government was elected in January 2015, there have been numerous (and often contradictory) statements around the judicial mechanism. In light of the session, Groundviews updated its timeline tracking statements made by the Government on the inclusion of foreign judges. The timeline shows that the discussion on this topic has become far less frequent.

In a report from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) it was noted that there had been “very little preparatory work for the judicial mechanism” and indeed, that overall, progress on transitional justice mechanisms had been “virtually stalled for over a year”. This does become apparent, reading the statements made by the Government on the topic over the course of 2017, and into early 2018.

View the timeline here, or below.

No confidence motion : Sirisena plays into hands of Rajapakses ; When Ranil loses Sirisena to be ‘decapitated’ –Rajapakses’ plan!

(Lanka-e-News - 24.March 2018, 11.30PM) It is a universally acknowledged truth , president Sirisena of Sri Lanka is breaking records as the most ungrateful inhumane human who ever trod this planet by resorting to every devious , diabolic and dubious machination and method to oust Rani Wickremesinghe from the post of prime minister, the very political leader who was most contributory to put Maithripala on the presidential throne.

Based on latest inside information reports reaching Lanka e news , foolish Sirisena nicknamed Sillysena, by promoting the no confidence motion via his cronies and lackeys against his own P.M. is playing into the hands of most Machiavellian and murderous Rajapakses of the most notorious den of confirmed crooks and criminals who were rejected by the people therefore. It has now come to light the Rajapakses who are eagerly waiting to grab power to suppress all the monumental crimes and crooked activities of theirs as well as those of their clan, have devised a well calculated plan and plot against Sirisena alias Sillysena to cut the throats of Sillysenas , and decapitate the Sillysenas in the event of the no confidence motion turning successful against Ranil. The have made this an opportunity they were longing for.

Already a majority (except 8 ) of the SLFP of Sirisena are on the sly in league with the Rajapakses. After Sirisena’s SLFP has slid down to a 4 % , and having come to know they would never again be able to enter parliament through Sirisena’s SLFP have like weather vanes changed direction with the prevailing wind to align themselves with the Rajapakses. In the circumstances , if by any chance , some UNP ers break away , and the no confidence motion is passed with a majority , it is the plan of power greedy Machiavellian Rajapakses to appoint former speaker Chamal Rajapakse as the speaker at the same time and bring an impeachment motion against the president .

Impeachment motion – the two charges

Though one charge is sufficient against the president when a no confidence motion is being tabled , the Machiavellian Rajapakses have already prepared two charges in accordance with their own calculations: the appointment of two ministers by the president in violation of the constitution, namely Piyasena Gamage and Muthu Sivalingam . Under the 19 th amendment to the constitution , the president can appoint ministers only with the consent of the P.M. In these two instances the P.M.’s consent was neither sought nor has the P.M. given his written consent. Hence the president has committed these two offences by these two appointments – giving way for charges necessary for the impeachment motion.

Impeachment - procedure

The procedure to be followed under the constitution when an impeachment motion is to be brought against the president is as follows :
If the impeachment motion is signed by over two third of the members of parliament , the speaker is bound to accept it without questioning. On the other hand if it lacks that number and only one more than 50 % of the signatures are there , the speaker can refuse to accept it. He can say the charges are not acceptable and refuse such an impeachment motion.

Under the laws , if the signatures are just only above 50 % , and if only the speaker decides the charges can be accepted ,it is then and only then he accepts the motion. That is why in case the P.M. is defeated , the Rajapakses want to first and foremost appoint Chamal Rajapakse as the speaker.

Even as the speaker accepts the impeachment motion , the executive powers of the president gets restricted . He cannot make any appointments. He cannot also legally sign as the head of the state since the speaker has to forward the impeachment motion to the supreme court(SC) to ascertain whether it is in accordance with the law.

Nevertheless ,Sirisena has the opportunity to go before the SC and prove he is not guilty. But as the two charges are very lucid, undoubtedly it will not be possible for Sirisena to escape from the liabilities.

Thereafter the SC decision should be passed in parliament with a two third majority . With that the term of the president ends, and the speaker of parliament takes over as acting president . The speaker must within three months call for presidential elections to appoint a president .

It is also the perception of manipulative Rajapakses that if Ranil is defeated with the aiding and abetting of Sirisena , certainly the UNP which will bear an inveterate grudge against Sirisena will extend the necessary support for the two third majority needed for the impeachment motion against Sirisena.

Therefore under the political climate noted in the foregoing paragraphs , Sirisena the epitome of gratitude by trying to slit the throat of Ranil will only become an easy prey to the gory guillotine of ruthless Rajapakses who were even anxiously waiting to send him six feet underground during the last presidential elections. Thus it will be like defeating King Sangabo . Poor foolish Sirisena who is now rightly dubbed Sillysena is sowing the wind only to reap the whirlwind .

---------------------------
by (2018-03-24 19:28:34)

Liability Management Act passed

Enacted by Parliament despite glitches
Electronic voting system records erroneous vote results
Gets 51 votes for and 2 against
JO stages protest and walks out

By Ashwin Hemmathagama and Skandha Gunasekara- Saturday, 24 March 2018

Despite chaos reigning in Parliament once again, the much awaited Active Liability Management Bill was passed by the House yesterday (23 March) with the Bill receiving a comfortable majority of 51 votes for and only 2 against.

The Joint Opposition staged yet another protest, following a technical glitch in the electronic voting system.

When the Bill was put to a vote around 6 pm, it initially received 53 votes in favour and 33 against. However, when Speaker Karu Jayasuriya announced the results and attempted to move to the Committee Stage for the Third reading vote, Joint Opposition MP Dr. Bandula Gunawardana objected that result of the vote could not be accepted.

“The voting list of MPs on the digital monitor shows that Minister S B Dissanayake had cast a vote when he is not even present in the Chambers. How is this possible?” Dr Gunawardana queried, causing the Joint Opposition to invade the Well of the House in protest.

Thereafter when the voting list was examined, it was found that the e-voting device fixed to the seat of Minister S B Dissanayake, who was absent at the time, had recorded his fingerprint casting a vote; while Minister Mangala Samaraweera’s vote in favour of the Bill had failed to be recorded by the system.

At this point, the Speaker suspended Sittings for 10 minutes to convene a Party Leaders meeting to address the matter. When Sittings resumed around 6.30 pm, the Speaker informed the House that a technical glitch had caused the flaw.

“We will hold the Second Reading vote once more,” the Speaker stated.

Nevertheless, the Joint Opposition group MPs left the Chamber in objection.
The Speaker continued with the Second Reading and Third Reading without the JO MPs, and the Bill was passed in the Committee Stage with a majority of 51 votes.

JVP MPs Nalinda Jayatissa and Bimal Ratnayake were the only MPs to vote against the Bill.

The Active Responsibility Management Act paves the way for the Government to authorise the raising of loans within the country or offshore to improve public debt management. It also ensures that the financial needs and payment obligations of the Government are met at the lowest possible cost over the medium to long-term, consistent with a prudent degree of risk.

However, unlike any other Act, the Active Responsibility Management Act has limited its defence in criminal or civil liabilities to Central Bank employees for anything done or purported to be done in the discharge or intended discharge of obligations under the Act or any regulation, Order, decision or directive issued and made thereunder, if the respective employee proves that the employee acted in good faith and exercised all due diligence, reasonable care and skill.

State Minister of National Policies and Economic Affairs Niroshan Perera assured the House that provisions in the bill giving legal immunity to certain Central Bank officials and the subject Minister in charge of the Central Bank would be done away with before the Bill was put to a vote.

“We will bring in amendments to the provisions giving immunity to the subject Minister and Central Bank officials and have them removed as well as ensuring that the Bill is brought under established monetary laws,” Minister Perera said.

According to the available provisions, Parliament may, from time to time, by resolution, approve to raise a sum of money during a particular financial year which will not exceed 10% of the total outstanding debt as at the end of the preceding financial year, as a loan whether in or outside Sri Lanka, in terms of the relevant laws for moneys to be raised including the provisions of the Monetary Law Act (Chapter 422), the Local Treasury Bills Ordinance (Chapter 417), Registered Stocks and Securities Ordinance (Chapter 420), or the Foreign Loans Act, No. 29 of 1957, for and on behalf of the Government for the purposes of refinancing and pre-financing of public debts of the Government.

Sri Lanka to get surface-to-air missiles from Russia

(March 25, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Defence Ministry is now negotiating with Russia to procure a Radar Controlled Missile System for the Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF), Colombo based Sunday Times reported.

According to the report, “Among those under consideration are S 300 and Buk 27 missiles. Both these surface-to-air missiles are capable of engaging aircraft and UAVs (umanned aerial vehicles) in addition to providing some cruise and ballistic missile defence capability.”

S-300 surface-to-air missile systems supplied to Iran by Russia in 2017

Featured Image: Kapila Jayampathi, incumbent Air Force Commander of Sri Lanka is receiving a gift from the Deputy CEO – Director of Air Force Equipment Export Department of a blacklisted Russian company JSC Rosoboronexport, Sergey K. Kornev, during his visit in Russia.

Gold jewellery worth Rs. 1.3 million nabbed at BIA

Friday, March 23, 2018

A Sri Lankan national was nabbed while attempting to smuggle gold jewellery worth Rs. 1, 300, 000 to Singapore by the Bandaranaike International Airport (BIA) Customs earlier today.

The individual who attempted to smuggle the gold was nabbed while existing at the Green Channel.

Further investigations are underway.

Politics is data

Sanjana Hattotuwa-March 24, 2018, 6:40 pm

The video and contracts are already forgotten. In 2011, the now disgraced and defunct Bell Pottinger PR firm based in the UK was caught on tape, as part of a sting operation run by British media, boasting that they had in fact written a key speech of then President Mahinda Rajapaksa to the United Nations in 2010, a year after the brutal end of the war. The speech was an interesting one, eighteen months after the end of the war, calling for the re-evaluation of the Geneva Conventions, a tacit acknowledgement that the government’s victory came at the cost of compliance around established international humanitarian law as well as rules of engagement. Issues concerning accountability persist, and will endure for many years, if not decades to come. The speech by Bell Pottinger, the company’s Chairperson at the time David Wilson notes, was chosen over a version Sri Lanka’s own Foreign Ministry had drafted. A BBC article published at the time also noted that in 2010 alone, the Sri Lankan government paid the company 4.7 million dollars for what is euphemistically called ‘reputation management’.

The Rajapaksa regime needed blood washed off its hands. Bell Pottinger, at the time, was good at doing just this and for many other brutal, violent regimes around the world, through a range of methods that included the strategic injection of content online in such a manner, over time, that Googling for information around a sensitive keyword, topic, person, place or issue would result only in content favourable to the government being presented first. In this way, inconvenient truths published online (at a time when domestic mainstream media was brutally suppressed) were buried from easy discovery, and over time, eventually lost under a mountain of content which was built around, or organically grew from what was initially seeded. How the company eventually faced bankruptcy and public shame last year for its insidious work in South Africa which the Public Relations and Communications Association (PRCA) of Britain said likely contributed to the inflammation of racial discord is, thankfully, not a story it was able to bury.

And yet, though the company is gone, the tactics have evolved, and how. What’s happening in the world of political communication today makes what Bell Pottinger did and stood for look positively benign or quaint. Bell Pottinger’s foray into the construction of alternative realities and manipulation of facts in South Africa dabbled with digital propaganda, more commonly known as fake news. The phenomenon involves the production, at great scale and speed, material that drowns out other narratives, or is directed to attack those who promote, produce and disseminate inconvenient truths. Either way, the aim is to create a tsunami of content partial to a specific narrative that in turn is favourable to the party that has invested in its production. The net gain, which can range from greater political clout or profit to the demise of competitors and opponents, outweighs the large expense to produce and sustain this sort of media operation.

Enter Cambridge Analytica. What Bell Pottinger did in South Africa, Cambridge Analytica did better for its client, Uhuru Kenyatta, in Kenya’s 2017 general elections, marred by widespread partisan and communal violence leading to many deaths. Kenyatta is the head of the Jubilee Party, which now rules the country. Last week’s revelations on Cambridge Analytica based on a sting operation conducted by the UK’s Channel 4 TV station captures Mark Turnbull, Managing Director of Cambridge Analytica, noting that his company had rebranded the entire Jubilee Party twice, written their manifesto, done two rounds surveys involving tens of thousands of people, written all the speeches and staged just about every element of Kenyatta’s campaign. The puppet master is revealed, and the sight is not pretty.

Kenyan writer Nanjala Nyabola writing to Al Jazeera this week made an important distinction in dealing with the fallout of Cambridge Analytica in Kenya, which has broader resonance in countries like Sri Lanka, where successive governments have tried their hand at reputation management and significant investments are already visible around the weaponisation of social media for political gain. Nyabola avers that precision is necessary in responding to the significant, dangerous and growing challenges to electoral processes and the timbre of democracy posed by entities like Cambridge Analytica, using information gleaned from Facebook and other companies.

One part of the problem lies with what’s called data analytics – how companies like Facebook or Google are able to monetise information gathered by them, generated by us, in the aggregate. Companies like Cambridge Analytica are then able to use this information to base their content production and targeting on, which is at a level of sophistication that is mind-boggling, and as the senior management in the Channel 4 videos boast, clearly deliver and shape intended outcomes. The question will remain, despite assurances given by Facebook, whether greater regulatory oversight is needed around how large social media companies govern data generated by hundreds of millions of users, which in effect is to scrutinise in much greater detail how these global influence engines work. The focus Nyabola notes and I agree, should not be on the regulation of end user generation of content or use of social media but instead on what companies do with the data downstream, with third parties who are then free to retain and reuse this data as they see fit.

Nyabola flags that the other side of the problem is around political consulting by firms like Cambridge Analytica, which on the face of it isn’t illegal though extremely expensive. What usually happens though is that through progressive capture or enticement, clients are blinded to and campaigns get mired in tactics which justify anything as a means to a desired end. The problem in both Kenya and Sri Lanka is one of political culture, where elections are always zero-sum exercises, with a winner takes all approach fuelling partisan violence. Late last year, I met with the Elections Commissioner to warn him of threats to Sri Lanka’s electoral architecture outside known risks and mitigation strategies.

These range from highly technical cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure that disrupts and discredits results, to what I call the hacking of minds – content that’s appealing to and stokes the fears of swing voters, first time voters and in particular a demographic between 18-34, which in Sri Lanka today is around 15% of the electorate. There is not an insignificant amount of money spent on analysing the psychological, geographic, econometric and demographic makeup of our electorate. Underlying communal tensions, unaddressed by successive governments and indeed, exploited for expedient ends, feed into all this, since over and on social media, existing fears and anxieties of both majority and minority communities can be exploited or channelled in creative ways, often anchored to a political and partisan power dynamic.

To understand any of this is power. Today’s politics go well beyond physical rallies, posters, the usual negative campaigning on TV and radio, spot ads, false covers, mugs, stickers or branded bric-a-brac. Social media mediates political opinion. Companies that own and operate social media platforms aren’t governed by domestic legislation. They are themselves struggling to accommodate the imperatives of making profit, the safety of their users, and maintaining their privacy. Lax governance and technical loopholes are exploited by companies like Cambridge Analytica – one of many others out there – which weaponise information voluntarily produced by individual users, often against them, without their knowledge. There are many implications around all this. In and for politics, we have entered a new era where data is more valuable than votes, an analyst able to crunch numbers is as important as a political mastermind able to broker coalitions of convenience, and any political communications specialist with expertise in social media is now in high demand because a younger vote base is both extremely important in the final count and extremely vulnerable to manipulation through viral, compelling, divisive content online.

How we interrogate this matters a great deal, because ultimately, it is not about Cambridge Analytica or Facebook we are talking about. It is about the quality, strength and vitality of our democracy and the dialogues that sustain it. This goes beyond party political lines. It is a question for all of polity and society to embrace, because the tools of political manipulation and their suave, mercenary agents know no loyalty or patriotism beyond the colour of money.

Targeting Palestinian unity

Rami Hamdallah, the Palestinian Authority prime minister, is escorted by bodyguards upon arrival to attend the inauguration of a waste treatment plant, after an explosion targeted his convoy in the northern Gaza Strip, 13 March.Ashraf AmraAPA images

23 March 2018

The political fallout from the bomb attack in Gaza last week on Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah’s visiting convoy suggests Palestinian reconciliation attempts are now almost certainly at an unsuccessful end yet again.

On Thursday, Hamas security forces engaged who they said was the main suspect for the attack in a firefight in Gaza. The man, another gunman and two security officers were killed in the battle.
Whether that will prove enough to assuage Mahmoud Abbas, the PA leader, remains to be seen. But the signs are not good.

A spokesperson has already called Thursday’s gun battle a “weak story” and reiterated that Hamdallah’s government still holds Hamas responsible for the 13 March attack.

On 19 March, Abbas had laid blame for the attack squarely on Hamas, and refused any investigation.
“We do not want them to investigate, we do not want information from them, we do not want anything from them because we know exactly that they, the Hamas movement, were the ones who committed this incident,” Abbas, who is also the head of the Fatah movement, said at a meeting of the Palestinian Authority leadership in Ramallah.

Abbas did not openly take unity off the table, but he also fingered Hamas and its “illegitimate authority” for standing in the way of successful reconciliation.

“In my capacity as the president of the Palestinian people I have tolerated much in order to regain unity and unite the homeland and I was met with rejection by Hamas,” Abbas stated.

Burning bridges

In response, Hamas, which won legislative elections in 2006 when they were last held, also all but sounded the death knell for the Egyptian-sponsored unity effort.

The Islamist movement has denied that it was behind the attack though has assumed some responsibility for not preventing it.

The movement responded angrily to Abbas’ words, releasing a statement warning that his position deepened divisions between the two main Palestinian political factions.

“We are shocked by the tense stance that Abbas has taken. This position burns bridges and strengthens division and strikes the unity of our people,” Hamas stated.

Hamas also called for new elections, long overdue, and with Abbas’ approval ratings at consistent lows.

According to a March opinion poll, more than two-thirds of respondents want Abbas to step down, against just 27 percent who want him to stay in office, figures that have remained largely constant over the past year.

In a straight presidential run-off between Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas, and Abbas, Haniyeh would win with 52 percent of the vote as against Abbas’ 41 percent. Fatah would win legislative elections by five percentage points, according to the poll, though with 25 percent of respondents saying they were still undecided.

And while the poll also found that national reconciliation was ranked as only the fourth most serious problem facing Palestinians – after occupation, poverty and corruption – 45 percent blamed the West Bank PA and Abbas for the poor showing of the reconciliation government so far. Only 15 percent blamed Hamas.

Plan B

Hamas, in other words, may feel it is asking for elections from a position of strength. Or it may simply assume that no elections will be forthcoming in any case, so why not appear the bigger party.

What both Abbas and his Fatah cadres and Hamas will understand is that unity efforts are at an impasse that now seems insurmountable. Hamas is wary of being disarmed by a PA security service that takes pride in its cooperation with the Israeli occupying military.

Fatah reportedly believes reconciliation is a trojan horse to allow Muhammad Dahlan, the erstwhile Fatah strongman, back in to replace Abbas.

There is simply neither enough trust on either side nor enough incentive for any party to take any steps that would cement reconciliation.

Elections would be one way to settle the issue, though there is no reason to believe a losing party would respect the result. Moreover, Israel will prevent any vote in Jerusalem and going ahead without the city’s Palestinians would be difficult.

What then? Both the West Bank and Gaza are stuck. Abbas has seen Jerusalem, the centerpiece of his tireless and unwavering support for a peace process that has long been a dead horse, disappear with a stroke of US President Donald Trump’s pen.

Hamas remains confined in Gaza, impoverished and teetering on the brink of a full-blown humanitarian disaster.

The problem there is more pressing, and the only solution to this is opening Gaza to the outside world. The most likely conduit – with Israel apparently happy to sit back and watch Gaza starve as a result of the restrictions it has put in place on the movement of goods and people – is through Egypt.

Cairo complications

Reconciliation was seen as the way to ensure that Egypt could open its crossing at Rafah to Gaza and remain within some kind of international consensus, since the PA would again be in control of crossings.

But the PA has been in control of crossings since November and Egypt has shown no sign that it is ready to open Rafah full-time for people or for goods and building materials, without which there will be no relief in Gaza.

Rather, leak after leak suggests Cairo is busy cozying up to the US or asking Israel to bomb its territory for it.

With two million lives at stake in Gaza, it is getting to a stage where even if Cairo is now angling for the return of Dahlan, this must be worth considering for Hamas.

Hamas and Dahlan had already reached agreement in the past, and Dahlan’s United Arab Emirates backers may have more influence in Washington and Cairo and might be successful where others have failed in easing conditions in Gaza.

The understandings Dahlan and Hamas had reached last year were sidelined when it was deemed necessary for the PA to play a role. But Egypt’s leadership might be more keen now to see movement.
After all, Trump’s new national security adviser John Bolton wants to give Gaza to Egypt.

Unable even to govern the sparsely populated Sinai desert, that would surely be a nightmare scenario in Cairo.

British journalist deported from Egypt: Times

Move reflects 'oppressive environment' for the press in Egypt, paper says

Bel Trew was deported from Egypt in February (social media)

Saturday 24 March 2018

A British journalist for the Times has been deported from Egypt, the London-based newspaper reported on Saturday, in a move it said reflected the "oppressive environment" created there for the press.

Bel Trew was driven to the airport and forced to board a flight in February, but the paper held off commenting publicly as it sought to negotiate her return to cover elections starting on Monday.

This had proved fruitless, and a spokeswoman said: "The Times deplores this attempt to intimidate and suppress our coverage.

"This is sadly in line with the oppressive environment that President [Abdel Fattah] al-Sisi has created for the press."

Trew was arrested by the police inside the Shoubra area of Cairo where she was conducting an interview in a cafe, local sources said.

The arrest on 20 February was made as she attempted to leave the cafe. She was then taken to Al-Sahel police station.

A source inside the UK Embassy in Cairo, who was not authorized to talk to the press, told MEE that a delegation went to the police station to follow up on her arrest and argued against her deportation.

In its Saturday edition, the Times said: "It is a nervous regime that fears an experienced foreign correspondent conducting an innocuous interview in a Cairo cafe. Bel Trew, The Times's reporter in the Egypt of President al-Sisi, has been arrested, interrogated, put on a list of 'undesirables' and forced to leave the country after a chain of misunderstandings, heavy-handed police treatment and official obfuscation."

Hours after the arrest, and threatened with a military trial, Trew was escorted by the police to the Cairo International Airport, where she was deported on the morning of 21 February.

"I was marched on to a plane with nothing but the clothes I was standing up in. The choice before me - stay for a military trial or leave - was no kind of choice. Such an apparent misunderstanding was surely easily cleared up," Trew writes in the Times.

A high-ranking police officer in the ministry of interior told MEE that Trew, who has been in Egypt for seven years, was also investigating the murder of the Italian student Giulio Regeni, who died in 2016.

Read more ►

Giulio Regeni: Italian prosecutor says student murdered for Cairo research

"She was detained for reporting negative news about the country. She also didn't have a permit to practice journalism in the country."

However, Trew wrote in the Times: "My business in the cafe had been unremarkable: an interview with a penniless man whose nephew, a teenage migrant, had probably drowned at sea trying to get to Italy. He had been on board a migrant boat that vanished two years ago."

She adds: "Yet inside the police station, the questions were taking a sinister turn. An informer in the cafe had apparently told police that I was discussing the Egyptian state's involvement in the sinking of a migrant boat off the coast of Rosetta in 2016 - an entirely different boat from the one we were discussing."

A spokesman for the British embassy in Cairo told the paper that Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson "has raised the case directly with the Egyptian foreign minister".

"The Egyptian authorities have not shared any evidence of wrongdoing. We will continue to press them on this," the spokesman said.

AFP sought a response from the Egyptian foreign ministry but it was not immediately available.

The media in Egypt have been under close scrutiny in the lead-up to the elections, in which Sisi is the main choice on the ballot paper.

There has been an increase in the number of cases of journalists being arrested and websites blocked.