The movement of forces loyal to rival governments across western Libya throws Tripoli back under the spotlight as the potential focus of the country's next civil conflict
Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar (L) and Fayez al-Serraj, leader of the Government of National Accord (AFP)
After taking large areas of southern Libya and two key oil facilities earlier this year, Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, operating under Libya's eastern-based government, has pulled his Libyan National Army (LNA) forces back from the south towards western Libya, in a move widely seen as paving the way for an assault on Tripoli.
An Anti-Brexit sign is seen next to a statue of King Richard I outside the Houses of Parliament, in Westminster, London, Britain March 4, 2019. REUTERS/Hannah McKay
LONDON (Reuters) - With Britain’s parliament deadlocked over the way forward on Brexit, speculation was growing on Sunday that Prime Minister Theresa May could call a snap election to try and break the impasse.
Last week, after her Brexit deal was rejected by parliament for a third time, May’s comment that she feared “we are reaching the limits of this process in this House”, was seen by many as a hint she could be moving towards an election.
The Sunday Times reported her media chief, Robbie Gibb, and her political aide Stephen Parkinson were pushing for an election.
But the deputy chair of her Conservatives, James Cleverly said on Sunday the party was not planning for an election, while justice minister David Gauke warned it would not solve the issue over the way forward on Brexit.
In 2017, May lost her party’s majority in parliament in an election she did not need to call. It has since been reliant on the support of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party, which has voted against her Brexit deal all three times.
HOW CAN AN ELECTION BE CALLED?
Britain’s next national election is not due to be held until 2022, but there are two ways an earlier vote can be called:
1) Two-thirds of parliament’s 650 lawmakers would have to vote in favour of holding an election.
2) If a motion of no confidence in the government is passed by a simple majority of lawmakers and no party can succeed in winning the confidence of the House of Commons over the next 14-days, an election is triggered.
Many of May’s Conservatives oppose the idea of an election. If she cannot persuade enough of her party to support an election, May could be forced to back a no-confidence vote in her own government in order to try to trigger one.
WHO WOULD LEAD THE CONSERVATIVES INTO AN ELECTION?
Last week, in a bid to win Conservative lawmakers over to her deal, May promised to step down before the next phase of Brexit negotiations if her deal was approved by parliament. She has previously said she would not contest the 2022 election.
May’s deal was rejected for a third time on Friday. Even if she were to agree to go sooner, a Conservative leadership contest is likely to take weeks at a minimum.
On Sunday, Conservative deputy chairman James Cleverly told Sky News it was “the inevitable possibility” that May could have to lead the party in a snap election if one were held.
WHAT WOULD THE CONSERVATIVES’ POSITION BE ON BREXIT?
One of the biggest difficulties about an election would be the question of what the Conservative Party’s election manifesto would say on Brexit.
Slideshow (4 Images)
The party is deeply divided on the issue. Half of May’s lawmakers voted in favour of a ‘no deal’ Brexit when parliament voted on alternative Brexit options last week, while 34 supported seeking a customs union with the EU and eight backed a confirmatory public vote on any deal.
Many lawmakers are likely to be unhappy standing on a manifesto which pledged to implement May’s deal. More than 100 Conservative lawmakers opposed the deal when it was first voted on in January, 75 voted against it at the second try and 34 at the third attempt on Friday.
WHAT DO THE OPINION POLLS SAY?
A poll by Opinium published on Sunday put May’s Conservatives and the opposition Labour Party level on 35 percentage points each.
A separate poll by Deltapoll in the Mail on Sunday gave Labour 41 percent, a lead of five percentage points over the Conservatives, who were on 36 percent.
HOW QUICKLY COULD AN ELECTION BE HELD?
Britain is due to leave the EU on April 12 unless it sets out an alternative way forward on Brexit. The government would need to seek a longer delay to the Article 50 negotiating period in order to hold a national election.
It is likely the EU would agree to this, although it is not guaranteed. May has said any longer delay would mean Britain taking place in European Parliament elections.
According to a possible timetable set out by the Institute for Government, an election could be held as soon as mid-late May. If is triggered by a no confidence vote, it would be slightly later due to the 14-day period.
Reporting by Kylie MacLellan; editing by Guy Faulconbridge
Krishnan Guru-Murthy spoke to Afzal Khan, who was previously a member of the European Parliament and a Greater Manchester Police officer.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy spoke to Afzal Khan, who was previously a member of the European Parliament and a Greater Manchester Police officer. We asked him why he was worried about the EU resettlement policy.
Political prisoners in Saudi Arabia are said to be suffering from malnutrition, cuts, bruises and burns, according to leaked medical reports that are understood to have been prepared for the country’s ruler, King Salman.
The reports seem to provide the first documented evidence from within the heart of the royal court that political prisoners are facing severe physical abuse, despite the government’s denials that men and women in custody are being tortured.
The Guardian has been told the medical reports will be given to King Salmanalong with recommendations that are said to include a potential pardon for all the prisoners, or at least early release for those with serious health problems.
These options are part of a substantial internal review said to have been ordered by the king, who approved the commissioning of examinations of up to 60 prisoners, many of them women, for a report to be circulated around the royal court, a source said.
Some of the assessments were leaked to the Guardian, which asked the Saudi government to comment on the medical reports more than a week ago. A spokesman declined to discuss the issue, despite being given repeated opportunities to do so. Officials did not challenge the authenticity of the reports.
The Guardian has been able independently to verify the accuracy and contents of one of the examinations. The conditions of other individuals, as described in the documents, are consistent with reports that have emerged involving claims of torture, though the Guardian has not been able to corroborate the details.
With the kingdom also reeling from the aftermath of the murder of the dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi, King Salman is said to have ordered a review of the decision to arrest and detain about 200 men and women in a crackdown ordered by his heir, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
According to a source with knowledge of the review, the royal court set aside objections from Prince Mohammed’s aides and sought brief medical examinations on a number of detainees to get a snapshot of their health.
The men believed to have been examined include Adel Ahmad Banaemah, Mohammed Saud Al Bisher, Fahad Abdullaziz Al-Sunaidi, Zuhair Kutbi, Abdullaziz Fawzan al-Fawzan and Yasser Abdullah al-Ayyaf.
The Guardian understands the women include Samar Mohammad Badawi, Hatoon Ajwad al-Fassi and Abeer Adbdullatif Al Namankany.
The Guardian has been told the examinations took place in January and the medical reports, which are marked confidential, have been included in a detailed overview that includes three broad recommendations to the king about what to do next.
According to the medical reports seen by the Guardian, the comments about the detainees suggest many have been severely ill-treated and have a range of health problems.
In almost all cases, the reports demanded the prisoners be urgently transferred from solitary confinement to a medical centre.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, left, with King Salman.
The remarks on detainees include:
“The patient suffers from severe weight loss with continuous bloody vomiting. There are also a number of wounds and bruises scattered in several areas of the body”
“There are also a number of visible injuries in the chest and lower back”
“The patient must be transferred from solitary confinement to the specialised clinic for immediate treatment and further medical examinations”
“The patient has difficulty walking because of a number of bruises visible on the legs area. A number of injuries are also visible on the forearm and lower back area. Malnutrition and obvious dryness on the skin”
“The patient suffers from a number of bruises visible on the body, especially in the areas of back, abdomen and thighs. It also appears to be malnourished due to lack of eating and facial pallor and general weakness in the body”
“The patient cannot move at all due to wounds in both legs as well as severe weakness in the body due to malnutrition and lack of fluids”
“The patient suffers from severe burns throughout the body. Old wounds were not completely healed because of medical negligence”
“The patient suffers from difficulty in movement due to severe malnutrition and general lack of fluids. There are also a number of bruises, wounds and sores throughout the body”
The recommendations from some advisers to the king include a pardon for all political prisoners, the release of individuals jailed from 2017, and the release of prisoners deemed to have health problems.
On Thursday, Saudi Arabia released pending a full trial three women, believed to be Aziza al-Youssef, Eman Al Nafjan, and Dr Rokaya Mohareb.
The Guardian approached Saudi authorities on 21 March for comment. A spokesman said he would respond, but has not provided a comment.
In previous media reports, a spokesman for the Saudi embassy in Washington said the kingdom had signed the convention against torture and prohibits its use. He said Saudi Arabia “takes any and all allegations of ill treatment of defendants awaiting trial or prisoners serving their sentences very seriously”.
The Guardian was warned by several human rights experts during the course of its reporting that trying to contact family members of people in detention would pose serious risks to the family members living in Saudi Arabia. Rights organisations and activists who track detentions confirmed the nine individuals named in the medical reports were in custody in January.
The reasons for their arrests vary, and in some cases, their alleged offences have not been published.
Human Rights Watch called for Saudi Arabia to “immediately release all jailed human rights activists and peaceful dissidents, and invite international monitors to conduct a comprehensive and transparent investigation into their treatment”.
A spokesperson added: “Saudi detainees including women activists have alleged that authorities mistreated them with unspeakable cruelty, including electric shocks, whippings and sexual harassment, and new revelations of medical reports appear to confirm what they have said for months.”
One rights activist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the descriptions contained in the reports, including that individuals were being held in solitary confinement, were consistent with evidence that had been collected by activists.
A protester’s picture of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, killed while visiting the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Photograph: Osman Örsal/Reuters
The person said the only way to verify the reports fully would be to give independent monitors access to the individuals who had been identified, and make their assessments public.
The activist said female prisoners had been electrocuted, tied to chairs and beaten around their thighs, backs and buttocks with an agal, a cord that men use to keep their headdresses in place.
The lashes led to deep and lasting bruising. Female prisoners have also been described as experiencing severe weight loss, with one woman said to have lost half her body weight, according to the activist.
Justin Shilad, a Middle East research associate at the Committee to Protect Journalists, said the case of Fahd al-Sunaidi, a journalist, showed the extent and reach of the crackdown ordered by the crown prince.
“This is not someone who really stirred the pot in terms of the topics he covered … The fact that he is in detention for no discernible reason, the fact that he was not known as a controversial figure, it really demonstrates the totality of Mohammed bin Salman’s crackdown on press freedom, on independent journalism or any commentary that smacks of a critical or independent nature,” he said.
“In terms of researching Saudi Arabia [and political detentions], the cone of silence is not like anything I have ever seen, and I have researched Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq … The level of fear, intimidation and all round silencing of information, it is beyond what we see in the war zones in the region where you have the Islamic State operating.”
A professional, secular and apolitical military is being utilised for electoral gains of the ruling establishment. Questioning it and the Government is kosher
by Ashok K Mehta-March 28 at 12:40 PM
If the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) returns to power two months from now, piggybacking the armed forces, one central fact will be eminently clear: The optics of a powerful military with high morale belies the ground reality. The Government has misled the country on defence modernisation and preparedness through high-decibel claims and self-praise for its devotion to the soldier. Never before has any Government milked the success of military operations for political and electoral gains as the present one and successfully politicised the armed forces. The creation by it of nationalist sentiment and allied jingoism through coopting sections of the print and electronic media and their armies of supporters and cheerleaders has diverted the focus of elections from Achche Din and Sabka Saath, SabkaVikas to national security and taking the mickey out of Pakistan.
Last Sunday, the BJP launched a blitz of victory rallies in Uttar Pradesh, pitching the forthcoming elections as a means of rooting out terrorism and defeating Pakistan. Citing Balakot air strikes as the Government’s “befitting reply for Pulwama”, its leaders said that only a Government led by the charismatic and decisive leader, Narendra Modi, could guarantee the country’s defence and security. Part II of this self-congratulatory boast is the caustic criticism of Opposition parties, mainly the Rahul Gandhi-led Congress, for questioning the Government and the Indian armed forces on their claims of targetting, damage assessment and casualties. Balakot has become the magic wand for winning the Lok Sabha polls.
In 2016, following the Uri terrorist strike, modest ground surgical strikes were magnified to being the silver bullet for ending cross-border terrorism and, therefore, employed liberally to show-case the Government’s determination to teach Pakistan a lesson. They were cited extravagantly to win the Assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka, to name just a few. Banners and posters using serving Army officers’ pictures alongside Government leaders politicised the military. Surgical strikes were liberally replayed to deify the BJP leadership, principally Prime Minister Modi. The Army’s resolute stand at Doklam was also appropriated by the Government as its own dogged action of thwarting China in its attempt to present Bhutan and India with a fait accompli. In all the three military operations — Operation Surgical Strikes, Operation Juniper and Operation Balakot — the Army and IAF came out as winners but it was the Government which super-imposed the “lotus” on them.
This is the great irony as the Modi Government apparently attaches minuscule importance to the Defence portfolio, posting four Ministers in five years. The last of these, Nirmala Sitharaman, is a first-time MP, who has spent her prime-time defending Modi on Rafale in and outside Parliament, whereas traditionally, the Defence Minister is invariably a political heavyweight. Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley was twice a part-time Defence Minister and is not known to be terribly sympathetic towards the military. The most effective and committed was the late Manohar Parrikar whose pledge to appoint the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) was unfortunately killed by the Prime Minister’s Office. This coupled with the musical chairs in the Defence Ministry allowed National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval to become de facto CDS and also interfere in key issues of the Ministry like Rafale. Policeman Doval is the first NSA to become directly involved in planning and conduct of operations, notably Pathankot, which is in the remit of a military professional. His appointment as Chairman of Defence Planning Committee is another first and needless padding to planning. The Doval empire is enviable.
Under Jaitley, defence funding etched an interesting trajectory. After his second budget, his reasoning for limited capital funding for modernisation was that the military is unable to spend even what little is allotted. The following year, Jaitley changed tack, saying that actually, he did not have the money to increase the capital account. The interim budget presented this year by acting Finance Minister Piyush Goyal earmarked the lowest amount in memory for modernisation with the staple byline, “more funds will be provided if required.” At a national security conclave last month, Jaitley said that hike in modernisation funding will depend on paying off committed liabilities and that any increase would be contingent on income from widening the tax net. This year’s allocation may fall short of even accounting for committed liabilities. Still, BJP president Amit Shah raved about the current defence budget as a milestone having crossed the Rs 3 lakh crore mark, more than 70 per cent of which is revenue expenditure.
The true reflection of the state of defence funding and operational readiness was provided by the BJP’s own chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on defence, Maj Gen BC Khanduri, who rated defence allocation of 1.5 per cent of GDP as “disabling war preparedness.” His blunt inference led to his removal and replacement by party veteran Kalraj Mishra. Just as well that Balakot did not escalate into a short and intense conventional war as ammunition, tank, artillery and night-fighting equipment inventories are critically hollow, not to mention the plummeting decline in Air Force squadrons from the authorised 42 to below 30 squadrons, actually around 26 squadrons (Air Chief Marshal AY Tipnis at last month’s security conclave). No Service Chief should have to say “we will fight with what we have” as Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa had to.
The armed forces have been successively short-changed by the once in 10 years Pay Commissions. The last Seventh Pay Commission was no exception even as roll-on anomalies have piled up. Service Chiefs were denied a meeting with Modi on Seventh Pay Commission and on One Rank One Pension earlier. The then Defence Secretary Mohan Kumar did not endorse the military’s request to reconsider their case for Non Functional Upgrade (NFU), which about 60 A group services receive. Now the Central Government has opposed in the Supreme Court an Armed Forces Tribunal order, asking it to include the armed forces in NFU. This has serious implications for status, parity and pay grade and is one issue hurting the morale of the military. So much for Balakot’s surge in nationalism and the
Government putting the soldier on a pedestal. India’s military is overly obedient with high tolerance threshold in civil-military relations. Service chiefs have not taken an issue-based stand individually or collectively.
A professional, secular and apolitical military is being progressively politicised and utilised for advancing electoral prospects of the ruling establishment in the guise of promoting nationalism. Questioning the military and the Government on this is kosher.
(The writer is a retired Major General of the Indian Army and founder member of the Defence Planning Staff, currently the revamped Integrated Defence Staff)
Britain’s Brexit future could be leaving the European Union in two weeks without a deal – or staying in for at least another year whilst politicians try to find a compromise deal.
A large crowd of pro-Brexit demonstrators gathered outside parliament as a combination of opposition MPs, the DUP and 28 hardline Brexiteers from her own party defeated Theresa May’s deal for a third time.
She told MPs she feared the Commons was reaching the limit of what it could achieve, a hint perhaps that a general election could be necessary if the Commons can’t reach a compromise in the coming days.
Nepali police stand guard as Tibetans walk past at the Bouddhanath Stupa in Kathmandu on March 10, 2019, during the 60th anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule. Crowds gathered March 10 at the Dalai Lama's temple in India to commemorate 60 years since the failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule that drove the spiritual leader into exile. Source: Prakash Mathema/AFP
March 27 at 1:26 AM
NEPAL’S federalism is still very young, but politicians – particularly at state and federal government levels – are already locking horns, and the country’s cooperative federalism seems especially prone to intergovernmental conflicts.
Having been introduced in 2015, federalism aimed to address three key problems the country had been suffering for centuries: decentralising political and economic power, balancing development across regions, and increasing public participation opportunities at all levels of government.
In order to mitigate potential intergovernmental contention, a range of functions are specified in the constitution for all three levels of government – federal, state, and local – to be carried out either solely or jointly. Several political institutions such as the Inter-State Council have also been established to encourage intergovernmental harmony.
Despite the well-meaning plans, Nepal’s federalism is especially susceptible to internal conflict for at least three reasons.
To begin, the Federal Government seems to believe in a top-down process.
It acts as though it is the sole authority in determining public policies at all levels of the federation – despite state and local governments having clear autonomy outlined in the constitution. Many believe that this has created a chaotic relationship between state and federal ministries.
Secondly, both state and local governments are equipped with their own legislative, executive, and judicial powers.
This technically gives a state the capacity to act without first consulting its federal counterpart – an entitlement that state governments have already taken advantage of. So far, they’ve legislated state laws and have created public sector organisations without discussing these with federal parliament, ultimately intensifying strained relations.
The third trigger lies in politicians’ tendency to informally express personal views – whether it be in the form of speeches, interviews or microblogs – sometimes even against the will or at the detriment of the rest of their party. In the past, this has negatively impacted relations between the prime minister and state premiers, ultimately leading to unnecessary inefficiencies in government operations.
Activists of the Tarun Dal, the youth wing of Nepali Congress Party, scuffle with police during a demonstration against the government in Kathmandu on July 21, 2018. Source: Prakash Mathema/AFP
Nepal’s federalism faces another issue: the role of institutions and public administration still remain unclear to many, even to those institutions themselves.
In general, public administration should not have a great influence on intergovernmental relations.
As many politicians repeatedly claim, however, public administrators in Nepal have been outwardly challenging the regime – often with the hope that their comments lead to the replacement of current leaders for those more likely to meet whatever demands they make. Demonstrations are being increasingly used as a way to blackmail the country’s leaders.
There is no doubt that civil servants have historically demonstrated their expertise, dedication, and loyalty to manage intergovernmental relations throughout history. Nevertheless, there are varying views on whether public administration should be reformed or left as is under Nepal’s current political management.
Two things must be considered when discussing public administration reform in Nepal.
First is the hardware – infrastructure that may have once suited a traditional unitary structure must be upgraded to serve a purpose in the context of federal governance.
To do this, the government has taken actions to dissolve several ministries and departments at the federal level. States, in turn, have started establishing new organisations to carry out their responsibilities as envisioned in the constitution. Local governments have also followed suit.
Then there’s the software – the roles, responsibilities, and accountability of bureaucrats must be reformed.
Of the 110,000 permanent employees, about 80,000 personnel were recruited by the Public Service Commission based on merit. Because these officials were employed to work for the then-central government, technically they still fall under the responsibility of the current Federal Government.
Nepali police use tear gas to disperse crowds of the Tarun Dal, the youth wing of Nepali Congress Party, during a demonstration against the government in Kathmandu on July 21, 2018. Source: Prakash Mathema/AFP
There is, however, a more limited availability of federal government jobs under this new structure. Approximately 45,000 officials will remain at the federal level, while the rest must be redistributed across state and local governments.
Although the government has already announced plans to redistribute permanent employees amongst the various levels of government, there are mounting uncertainties regarding the actual effectiveness of these policies. Great problems also arise with the unwillingness of the majority of bureaucrats to shift to what some perceive as lower echelons in the administrative structure.
Though there is still a long way to go, ongoing employee reintegration efforts can be seen as a step forward in the right direction. At the end of the day, only a clear legislative framework can solve this problem.
While the intentions behind Nepal’s federalism may have been good, its institutionalisation has encountered a range of challenges. Creating a new administrative infrastructure while dismantling centralised apparatuses is no easy task, especially with how long many of the government organisations have been in operation for.
Clarification is needed around what is to be expected from the individual governments as to strengthen vertical and horizontal coordination amongst political units. Though the intergovernmental conflict is yet to be irreversibly detrimental to its federalism, for Nepal to reach its full potential, cooperation amongst all levels of government is needed now more than ever.
This piece was first published at Policy Forum, Asia and the Pacific’s platform for public policy analysis and opinion.
A chaotic campaign, feuding oligarchs, and Russian disinformation efforts have combined to shake public faith in the electoral process.
A boy points at cardboard cutouts depicting Russian President Vladimir Putin and presidential candidates Yulia Tymoshenko and Oleksandr Shevchenko during a protest in Kiev on March 29. (Sergei Supinsky/AFP/Getty Images)
KIEV, Ukraine—Eight days before Ukraine’s unpredictable presidential elections, a mob of men wearing black coats huddled outside of the Zhitnii Market in Kiev. Most in the crowd, a few hundred strong, wore black hats and scarves to shield their identities. They silently hovered to a corner of the Zhitnii Market—a hulking, Soviet-gray structure—where a protest was taking place against Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko, who is running for re-election. On one banner, a pig that represented Poroshenko, one of the richest men in the country, was being suckled by ministers and affluent Ukrainians. The smell of pig shit wafted through the cold air.
“In Ukraine there are no rules, everything is bad,” Victoria Bashlykova, one of the protest leaders, told me.
From the back of a truck, squealing pigs covered in feces were unleashed and weaved through the crowd. The pigs escaped. The cloaked men looked on with bleary-eyed indifference, as if they had taken sleeping pills before the march. It was the most unenthusiastic political protest I’d ever seen, but it made sense after talking with the men with covered faces, who insinuated that they were being paid to attend. A man in a small, black car pulled up to the protest and rolled down his window—seconding the point.
“Everything is fake,” the man shouted. “This is a fake protest. I don’t trust it.”
So goes election season in Ukraine, which will hold its first round of voting in the upcoming presidential election on March 31, with an expected runoff in late April. Only two of the three major candidates—Poroshenko, the actor Volodymyr Zelensky, and former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko—will advance to the second round. It is anyone’s guess who will move on. Ukraine is a case study of post-Soviet transitions in a world of Putinism—a Kremlin that rejects globalization.
Since Ukrainians took to the streets to overthrow the Russian-backed leader Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, the country has become the front line of the West’s new cold war with the Kremlin. Ukraine is considered Russia’s biggest foreign policy priority, and Moscow-backed separatists have sliced off two separate parts of this former Soviet appendage: the Crimean Peninsula and a chunk of Eastern Ukraine. Three days before election day there were reports of mass armed searches and arrests targeting Crimean Tatars by Russian authorities. But Western countries, led by the United States, have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Ukraine and sent advisors to mentor the armed forces to stop the Russian advance. Ukraine is flirting with NATO and European Union membership, which would irrevocably alter both institutions. All of this means that Ukraine’s elections are an inflection point for a country that is literally split between East and West. But the presidential vote in Ukraine is shrouded with mystery, much like the porcine protest at Zhitnii Market.
The biggest risk to Ukraine’s vote is perception. Russia may attempt to hack the preliminary, projected results that appear on election day in an attempt to make Ukrainians doubt the final, verified vote that comes out days later, experts and election officials say. The idea is to torpedo trust in the winner in a cunning blitz of psychological warfare. The polling places outside major cities are particularly at risk of cyberattack, an election official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told Foreign Policy. “You don’t even need to change the result—just by messing with the data, people will doubt the vote,” said Kenneth Geers, a fellow at the Atlantic Council. “If having the Ukrainian vote lose legitimacy is your goal, that would be a powerful way to do it,” he added.
At times, it feels like Russia will not have to do much to portray Ukraine’s election as chaotic.
Allegations of vote buying, wiretapping, and oligarchs funding candidates have already fueled doubts. More than 80 percent of Ukrainians believe that the elections will be rigged, one expert told a Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty subsidiary. Even the United States has not been immune to the mudslinging.
Less than two weeks before election day, the country’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, alleged in an interview with the Hill that the U.S. ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, gave him a do-not-prosecute list in their first meeting. Lutsenko added that he was investigating whether anyone in Ukraine’s government leaked financial records about former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in order to support Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential run. (The State Department did not respond to questions, but the embassy has previously denied the story.)
Although the story has zipped through the U.S. right–wing media, with the help of a tweet from President Donald Trump, experts view it with skepticism. Lutsenko offered no evidence to support his claim. Rather, it looks like an attempt from Poroshenko, the president, to convince senior Trump administration officials that he is an ally in case the elections are disputed. The logic is bizarre but relies on senior Trump administration officials backing Poroshenko because of his interest in investigating the Manafort leaks. If anything, the gambit has backfired already—a U.S. official told FP the embassy was “very angry.” A spokesperson for Lutsenko said he was not available for interviews until after election day.
Yet this chaotic sentiment should not be cause for alarm, explained Liubov Tsybulska, the head of the Hybrid Warfare Analytical Group, which analyzes Russian disinformation campaigns. “I like that it’s real democracy,” she wrote in a text message. “Russians call it mess, but that’s how free society does election.” In fact, Ukraine’s elections could not be any more different than Russia’s, because current polls show the outcome is almost completely unpredictable.
Of the three major candidates, Zelensky has consistently received the biggest vote in pre-election opinion surveys, but he has no political experience. He is the star of a popular TV show called Servant of the People, which is about a schoolteacher who accidentally becomes president of Ukraine. His politics are a mystery. Instead of traveling across Ukraine to give policy speeches, he has chosen to tour the country with stars from his production company. What is most suspect about Zelensky is that he models his candidacy on his television personality. Actors know that to make their character real they must draw on personal experiences. Zelensky has reversed this phenomenon.
“To some degree, maybe people really do have the feeling that the guy on screen and the guy in real life are one and the same person,” Zelensky told reporters, according to the Washington Post. “This might even be true, to some extent.” But no one knows how Zelensky will react when he encounters problems that lie outside the boundaries of a TV sitcom, like if Russia launches a cyberattack against the country’s banks. Perhaps a scriptwriter will advise him. The other two major candidates—Poroshenko and Tymoshenko—do not share such an apolitical past.
Even Poroshenko’s supporters admit that he has not done enough as president to fight corruption.His campaign is plagued by an investigative report that found Poroshenko’s allies were smuggling spare military parts from Russia and selling them at inflated prices to the Ukrainian military. For a country at war with Russia, the allegations have sparked ire. But Peter Dickinson, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, said that the claims may not be significant. “He has almost zero credibility as an anti-corruption crusader and therefore this issue is not an important part of his re-election bid,” Dickinson wrote. “Poroshenko’s electoral appeal is rooted in the notion of ‘better the devil you know’ and his presidential campaign rests on his ability to convince voters that he is the lesser of all available evils.”
U.S. officials are skeptical of Tymoshenko, the country’s former prime minister, and fear that she has a pro-Russian outlook. They point to a 2009 deal that Tymoshenko signed with then-Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to supply Ukraine with Russian gas. Steven Pifer, who served as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine during the Clinton administration, said Tymoshenko could also simply be a pragmatic politician who saw a personal political advantage in working with Putin. “She is pro-Tymoshenko,” Pifer said. “She is also smart enough as a politician to know that anyone who gets elected and moves in a dramatically pro-Russian way is going to lose the country’s support very quickly. Her views are flexible.” Pifer argued that what is most worrying about Tymoshenko is her populist campaign to cut gas prices and raise pensions that would bankrupt the country and lead to the loss of crucial IMF funding.
But Ukraine’s next president may be at the mercy of larger forces. Parliamentary elections that take place this fall could thwart the president’s agenda. The next president will be tasked with immediately renegotiating a gas deal with Russia and trying to end the war in the east. The success of both initiatives will depend on Moscow’s willingness to negotiate. And Ukraine’s powerful oligarchs could shackle the future president. The oligarchs support different candidates in this election. Perhaps the two most influential—Poroshenko himself and the billionaire Ihor Kolomoisky—have feuded during this campaign. If the oligarchs don’t come to a consensus and compromise on a presidential candidate, then there will be political gridlock, according to Victor Andrusiv, the head of the Ukrainian Institute for the Future think tank. Currently, there is little indication the country’s richest men will come together.
“This is the first election where the oligarchs do not have a common candidate,” Andrusiv said. “If there is no consensus, nobody can get power.”
Justin Lynch is a journalist covering Eastern Europe, Africa, and cybersecurity. Twitter: @just1nlynch
What Muller found after he turned over the big rock was a bevy of slithering, slimy creatures, shyster lawyers, and sleazes that are normally part of New York’s land development industry. No surprise at all that they surrounded developer Trump.
by Eric S. Margolis-31 Mar 2019
Not since the witchcraft hysteria of the Middle Ages have we seen such a display of human idiocy, credulity and absurdist behavior. I refer, of course, to the two-year witch hunt directed against President Donald Trump which hopefully just concluded last week – provided that the Hillaryites, Democratic dopes and secret staters who fueled this mania don’t manage to keep the pot boiling.
This column has said from Day 1 that claims Trump was somehow a Russian agent were absurd in the extreme. So too charges that Moscow had somehow rigged US elections. Nonsense. We know it’s the US that helps rig elections around the globe, not those bumbling Russians who can’t afford the big bribes such nefarious activity requires.
What Muller found after he turned over the big rock was a bevy of slithering, slimy creatures, shyster lawyers, and sleazes that are normally part of New York’s land development industry. No surprise at all that they surrounded developer Trump. Son-in-law Jared Kushner hails from this same milieu. The Kushners are pajama-party buddies with Israel’s leader, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Now that the Muller investigation found no collusion between the Trump camp and the Kremlin, we Americans owe a great big apology to Vladimir Putin for all the slander he has suffered. Too bad he can’t sue the legions of liars and propagandists who heaped abuse on him and, incidentally, pushed the US and Russia to the edge of war.
People who swallowed these absurdist claims really should question their own grasp of reality. Those who believed that the evil Kremlin was manipulating votes in Alabama or Missouri would make good candidates for Scientology or the John Birch Society.
They were the simple fools. Worse, were the propagandists who promoted the disgusting Steele dossier, a farrago of lies concocted by British intelligence and apparently promoted by the late John McCain and Trump-hating TV networks. One senses Hillary Clinton’s hand in all this. Hell indeed hath no fury like a woman scorned.
It’s so laughably ironic that while the witch hunt sought a non-existent Kremlin master manipulator, the real foreign string-puller was sitting in the White House Oval office chortling away: Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and, behind him, the moneybags patron of Trump and Netanyahu, American billionaire gambling mogul, Sheldon Adelson, the godfather of Greater Israel.
The three amigos had just pulled off one of the most outrageous violations of international law by blessing Israel’s annexation of the highly strategic Golan Heights that Israel had seized in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. This usurpation was so egregious that all 14 members of the UN Security Council condemned it. Even usually wimpy Canada blasted the US.
Giving Golan to Israel means it has permanently secured new water sources from the Mount Hermon range, artillery and electronic intelligence positions overlooking Damascus, and the launching pad for new Israeli land expansion into Lebanon and Syria. Israel is said to be preparing for a new war against Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.
In contrast to this cynical business over Golan, the Trump administration is still hitting Russia with heavy sanctions over Moscow’s re-occupation of Crimea, a strategic peninsula that was Russian for over 300 years. So Israel can grab Golan but Russia must vacate Crimea. The logic of sleazy politics.
We also learned last week that according to State Secretary Mike Pompeo, Trump might have been sent by us by God, like ancient Israel’s Queen Esther, to defend Israel from the wicked Persians. Up to a quarter of Americans, and particularly Bible Belt voters, believe such crazy nonsense. For them, Trump is a heroic Crusading Christian warrior.
This is as nutty as Trump being a Commie Manchurian candidate. We seem to be living in an era of absurdity and medieval superstition. No wonder so many nations around the globe fear us. We too often look like militant Scientologists with nuclear weapons.
Fortunately, the cool, calm, collected Vladimir Putin remains in charge of the other side in spite of our best efforts to overthrow or provoke him.
President Donald Trump has been exonerated of collusion with Russia. As I wrote a while back I expected this conclusion from the investigation carried out by Robert Mueller.
The big clue lay in Trump’s anti-Russian posture. Trump has continued the expansion of NATO which Russia, more than understandably, sees as a provocative, unfriendly and dangerous move. Then there is the unwillingness to step forward to negotiate an end to the Ukrainian situation. The US, under the presidency of Barack Obama, refused to countenance President Vladimir Putin’s suggestion that UN peace-keeping troops be deployed in southern and eastern Ukraine, and Trump has continued that policy. Then there’s the seeming refusal to extend the treaty (New START ) that dramatically lowers the number of intercontinental nuclear missiles on each side. Trump has also thrown money at the Defence Department while cutting social budgets, vowing to beef up America’s nuclear forces. Recently he unilaterally ended one of the great achievements that came towards the end of the Cold War, the treaty abolishing intermediate-range nuclear forces in Europe. Collusion with Russia? It hardly seemed likely given this record and now it has been proved to be a red herring.
What I have long feared is not collusion but the effect that Trump’s confrontational policies will have on the peace of the world. When the Cold War ended in 1991 we had a big pan-European peace within reach and we blew it away. Analysts of the stature of Zbigniew Brzezinski, George Kennan and Henry Kissinger criticized the way the expansion of Nato was done and how there was a lost opportunity of binding Russia into Western Europe. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush launched that hostile policy but Obama continued it.
Twenty-six games were played. In only two was the result the use of nuclear weapons. But it wasn’t ethical reservations or worries about triggering more proliferation that gave the players pause, it was an “apprehension about domestic, global, allied or peer reputational costs”. They didn’t want to become a pariah by being the first to advocate use since 1945. They were prepared to suffer conventional war defeats rather than use nuclear weapons.
Nuclear war is always a possibility as long as the weapons and the hostility that is now prevalent, exist. Apart from an accidental launch or the action of rogue officers (as have nearly happened in the past according to Pentagon sources) there’s always the chance that mistaken policies will drive the US, Russia and China to military confrontation.
A sane finger (or fingers) on the nuclear button becomes a necessity if the world isn’t to be partly devastated. I can cross my heart and say that Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama would never have initiated a nuclear attack. But I’m not so sure about Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. As for Donald Trump I put him in the second camp. I wouldn’t trust him.
Crises can pop up seemingly out of nowhere and a steady hand in the Oval Office is absolutely necessary. Trump doesn’t like Russia, albeit he has had so far a civilized personal relationship with Putin. But, given his attitude, that could turn sour at any moment.
The worst of it is that a majority- albeit a small one- of Americans might support him. A number of surveys carried out have shown that over the years Americans have become more tolerant of the use of nuclear weapons if they felt the homeland was truly threatened, even by a non-nuclear attack.
At the time of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki President Truman rejected advice to authorize a third, saying he didn’t want to take the lives of “all those kids”.
Yet we know he considered using them if the Soviet advance into Japan from the north continued. And at the time of the Korean War General Douglas MacArthur, the chief commander, recommended they be used in significant numbers to stop the Chinese advance into the north. As recently as 1965 during the Vietnam War the Pacific Theatre Commander asked Washington for permission to use tactical nuclear weapons.
Fortunately, we know today that the so-called “elite” policy makers wouldn’t accept the use of nuclear weapons.
This is the conclusion of an exhaustive study made of a “war game” involving both very senior policy makers (the “elite”), past and present, and their juniors. It’s written up by Reid Pauly in the current issue of Harvard’s International Security. The simulation, organized under the auspices of the Pentagon, pitted the home side against an unnamed foreign power during wartime.
Twenty-six games were played. In only two was the result the use of nuclear weapons. But it wasn’t ethical reservations or worries about triggering more proliferation that gave the players pause, it was an “apprehension about domestic, global, allied or peer reputational costs”. They didn’t want to become a pariah by being the first to advocate use since 1945. They were prepared to suffer conventional war defeats rather than use nuclear weapons.
So what about the “button”? In reality the president’s command to use them has to pass through various Pentagon layers before launch officers get their orders. I doubt, given the deep reservations of the “elites”, that it would be obeyed.
Tom Westcott-31 March 2019
A boy points at cardboard cutouts depicting Russian President Vladimir Putin and presidential candidates Yulia Tymoshenko and Oleksandr Shevchenko during a protest in Kiev on March 29. (Sergei Supinsky/AFP/Getty Images)
