Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Monday, April 18, 2016

India, China Wary About Lankan Debt-Equity Swap Proposal To Save Projects


The New Indian Express
By P.K.Balachandran-Tuesday, April 19, 2016

COLOMBO: Both India and China are wary about Sri Lanka’s proposal to  get China to agree to a “debt-equity swap” in respect of the loss making Chinese-funded mega projects.
While both India and China grant that Lanka has no other option, given its inability to repay China the humongous total debt of US$ 8 billion, they have their worries about the proposal.
India is keen that Lanka’s strategic assets like airports and harbors remain effectively under the host country’s control and not handed over to China as a result of the swap.
India feels that Humbantota harbor, Mattala airport, Colombo Port City, and the proposed Third Terminal at Colombo port, should be under Lanka’s control primarily, though they may be Sino-Lankan joint ventures. Earlier, Lanka’s decision to out rightly sell land in Colombo Port City to China, had raised hackles in India.  
Beijing has told Lanka diplomatically that it will “explore” the swap proposal, but Chinese economist Bai Ming told China’s Global Times: “If there are no predictable profits and stable investment returns, the swap will be hard to materialize.”
In other words, the Chinese will want Lankans to change their work ethic and help run the proposed joint ventures as rational, apolitical, and commercial enterprises. After the stalling of the US$ 1.4 billion Colombo Port City in 2015 on various charges, China will want investment safeguards. Lanka will also be asked to negotiate with Chinese companies individually.

by Latheef Farook  :  April 17, 2016

Is this the beginning of the end of mediaeval tribal Saudi tyranny in the land of Islam?
by Latheef Farook  :  

logoOil rich Gulf sheikhdoms led by Saudi Arabia, almost all of whom maintained secret ties with Israel, now openly establish closer ties with Israel.
Israel was established in 1948 by a United Nations resolution in violation of the very same UN charter in the robbed Palestinian lands by means of massacres, genocides, war crimes, manipulations, deceit and injustice.

This was possible because of the British, French, American and Russian conspiracy to plant an alien entity, Israel, in the heart of the  Middle East to destroy the region as it was done during the past  three quarter century.
The tribal  regime in Saudi Arabia known for hoodwinking the world with one face for Muslims worldwide and another face for the Judeo Christian world, have already established its embassy under the guise of a legation in the Israeli occupied Jerusalem.
Salman,the owner of Saudi Arabia , who calls himself  the Custodian of two Holy Shrines in Makkah and Madinah, also despatched last week  Al Waleed bin Talal who is more pro Zionist than Zionist Jews and more pro-American than the Americans, to Israel as Saudi’s first ambassador. In Israel Waleed, darling of corporate conglomerates in the west which plunder and destroy developing countries, declared that he was proud to be the first Saudi honorary ambassador to Israel and hope to work jointly to deter Iranian agendas. This in fact is Israeli agenda.

However Waleed bin Talal did not say what he was proud of in embracing the Zionists who  committed more than 60 massacres of Palestinians and still occupying and desecrating Masjid Al Aqsa .Perhaps Waleed may not be aware that Al Aqsa is also the third holiest place in Islam.

Al Waleed who  invests billions in  the Jewish owned American  media which day in and day pout out carry out  vicious campaigns demonising Islam to invade and destroy Muslim countries and massacre Muslims, stooped to  lowest of low in human dignity and self-respect when he said ;

"I am indeed proud to be the first Saudi ambassador to this beautiful country. Israel is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world and I can express my appreciation of lofty ethics which Israel's founding fathers built this country upon," 

This statement clearly demonstrated Waleed bin Tala’s ignorance of Israel’s crime ridden background .He never uttered a word about Israel’s atrocities towards Palestinians.

According to Friday 15 April 2016 report in the Saudi daily Al Okaz Waleed bin Talal was welcomed warmly by Israeli officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to become the first Saudi honorary ambassador to Israel.

The Saudi Arabia has bought a posh three-story building in David Flusser St 14, in the vicinity of U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem. Waleed bin Talal began his work there last week following an official banquet, inviting President Rivlin and Prime Minister Netanyahu and eminent members in Israeli Knesset (parliament).

That is not all, Waleed bin Talal even went on to say that in the case of a direct war between poverty stricken and ill armed Palestine and  well equipped Israel backed by the military might of US, Europe and Russia, Saudi Arabia is going to stand beside Israel and not Palestinians.

However shameless Waleed who is a disgrace to Islam, Muslims and humanity completely failed to understand   the very fabric of human rights. This is not something new as Saudi Arabia has been partner in crime with Israel against Palestinians and Muslim countries.

For example Saudi and  Israel intelligence officials  together with treacherous Palestine Authority held secret meetings in Jordan during which  they agreed that Israel  attack Gaza in 2014 .The repeated barbarity unleashed by Israeli in Gaza speak volume for the fascist nature of Zionist Jews and the treachery of Saudi dictators who were willing to sleep even with devils to save their unIslamic and anti-Islamic outdated tribal regime, their positions , power and the  wealth robbed and invested in  pro Zionist Jewish banks and other Jewish establishments in the west.

According to latest report Saudi investment in US alone stands at $ 750 billion.

Waleed calls himself a Muslim. However he has failed to even understand the ongoing Zionist desecration of Masjid Al Aqsa-Islam’s third holiest shrine.

It was in this background that the Gulf sheikhdoms started calling for recognising Israel despite the unabated continuation of Israeli atrocities on Palestinians with daily indiscriminate killings as it had been doing on since early 1930s, demolishing Palestinians homes, grabbing Palestinian lands and the continuous   building of illegal Jewish only settlements for migrant Jews who have not even seen Palestinian lands.

This crime list continue in violation of all accepted laws and cherished human norms, values and principles, with the support of Israel’s guardians -United States, Britain, Europe and Russia.

Qatar already recognised Israel and even welcomed Israeli President Shimon Peres whose hands were soaked in Palestinian blood. It is business as usual for Omani dictator Sultan Qaboos. Shameless state of affairs in the Gulf is such that today Israel remains the invisible power in the United Arab Emirates.
In the midst comes the latest call for recognising Israel from Kuwait. 

It is common knowledge that almost all sheikhdoms, ruled by mediaeval tribal chiefs who remain some of the most oppressive dictators in this planet.  They were under pressure from United States and Britain-the two countries virtually ruled by pro-Israeli Jewish lobbies, to recognise Israel.

Sheikhs had to yield because it is in these countries that they have hidden their looted wealth and depend on them for their very survival against their own oppressed and brutalised people.

These sheikhs are something because of the oil wealth which was nothing but blessings from Allah, perhaps, to compensate for all their centuries old sufferings.

 However they have forgotten Allah, their days of abject poverty, hardships ,sufferings , abandoned Islam and joined hands with US led European war mongers against Islam and Muslims. They even finance Judeo-Christian wars on Muslim countries causing death, devastation and untold misery to millions of innocent Muslims.
saudi israel embassy
Saudi diplomatic mission in occupied Jerusalem

New found wealth made them degenerate to such low that today they consider Islam and Islamic forces as their enemies. They have joined hands with war mongers in the west to destroy Islamic regimes as they had done when they spent eleven billion dollars-Saudi five billion and Kuwait and UAE three billion each- to topple the democratically elected Mohamed Morsi’s Islamic oriented government in Egypt and their support to Israel to destroy Hamas.

It was under this circumstance , Kuwaiti media personality Yousuf ‘Abd Al-Karim Al-Zinkawi called on all Arab and Muslim states to recognize Israel, openly and without delay, and stop calling it “the Zionist Entity” or “the Israeli occupation,” terms which undermine Israel’s legitimacy.

This so called media person, perhaps  a government stooge, is not aware of  Israel ‘s background  and their US, British and European masters’ war on Islam and Muslims .

People all over the Gulf oppose this move  tooth and nail .However they have no option. Speak out and end up in jail or turn blind eye. Under the circumstance they prefer the latter. The question is how long and whether this is the beginning of the end of Saudi and other tribal tyrannies.

Jerusalem bus bomb wounds 16, Netanyahu hints at Palestinian link

Flames rise at the scene where an explosion tore through a bus in Jerusalem on Monday setting a second bus on fire, in what an Israeli official said was a bombing, April 18, 2016.REUTERS/NOAM REVKIN FENTON
Israeli police forensic experts work at the scene after an explosion tore through a bus in Jerusalem.REUTERS/AMMAR AWAD

Tue Apr 19, 2016
A bomb blew up a bus and set fire to another in Jerusalem on Monday, wounding 16 people in an attack that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu linked to a six-month-old wave of Palestinian street violence.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility from any Palestinian factions for the blast. Israeli officials declined to assign direct blame.

They said two of the casualties had not yet been identified and may have been bombers.

Suicide bombings on Israeli buses were a hallmark of the Palestinian revolt of 2000-2005 but have been rare since. With Palestinians carrying out less organized stabbing, car-ramming and gun attacks since October, Israel has been braced for an escalation.

"We will settle accounts with these terrorists," Netanyahu said in a speech, referring to whoever executed the bus attack.

"We are in a protracted struggle against terror - knife terror, shooting terror, bomb terror and also tunnel terror," he added, speaking hours after Israel announced its discovery of an underground passage dug by Hamas militants from Gaza.

Police initially said they were looking at the possibility that a technical malfunction caused the fire that consumed two buses on Derech Hebron road, in an area of southwest Jerusalem close to the boundary with the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

But based on the wounds and other findings, authorities concluded that a small and possibly rudimentary explosive device was set off at the back of one of the buses.
Those details recalled the bombing of a Tel Aviv bus by an Israeli Arab during the 2012 Gaza war which caused injuries but no deaths.

In the last half year, Palestinian attacks have killed 28 Israelis and two visiting U.S. citizens. Israeli forces have killed at least 191 Palestinians, 130 of whom Israel says were assailants. Many others were shot dead in clashes and protests.

Drivers behind the bloodshed include Palestinian bitterness over stalled statehood negotiations and the growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, stepped up Jewish access to a disputed Jerusalem shrine, and Islamist-led calls for Israel's destruction.

Bombings have not been carried out during this period - though Israeli prosecutors said a Palestinian woman who tried to blow up a gas balloon in her car after being pulled over by police in October was a would-be suicide bomber.

(Writing by Dan Williams, Editing by Angus MacSwan)

Jordan said it would set up 55 security cameras around Al Aqsa to monitor any Israeli 'violations' (AA) - 

Monday 18 April 2016

Jordan has decided not to install security cameras at Islam's third holiest site, the al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem, because of some Palestinian doubts, Prime Minister Abdullah Nsur said on Monday.

"We have been surprised by the reactions of some who have made comments expressing their doubts about the aims of the project," the official Petra news agency quoted Nsur as saying.

"Because we respect the point of view of the Palestinians... we believe the project is no longer consensual, but a potential source of conflict, and have decided to end it," he said.

On 20 March, Jordan said it would set up 55 security cameras around the flashpoint compound to monitor any Israeli "violations".

The site - revered by Jews as their holiest site, the Temple Mount - is administered by a Jordanian trust or "Waqf".

In October, after meeting Jordan's King Abdullah II and Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas, US Secretary of State John Kerry endorsed a plan for cameras at the site in a bid to calm repeated disturbances. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed.

Kerry hailed the agreement as an important breakthrough at the time, and on Monday his spokesman expressed disappointment that the plan has apparently failed.

"We still see the value in the use of cameras," US spokesman John Kirby said.

"So the Jordanians can speak to this decision that they've made to halt the project. We think it's unfortunate, as we continue to believe in the value of that tool for that purpose and we continue to urge all sides to restore calm and reduce the violence."

Nsur said Amman's main objective had been to install surveillance cameras "at the compound, not inside the mosques, to document repeated Israeli aggressions at the holy places".

Sheikh Raed Salah, leader of the Islamic Movement, had called on Jordan to reconsider the project, fearing that it would become "the eyes of Israel".

Kamal Khatib, deputy head of the Islamic Movement, called the cameras a means to enforce Israeli sovereignty over the compound.

“We reject this completely, not just because of the security implications," he told Middle East Eye. "Muslims are not doing anything wrong by praying at the mosque. We are not making military preparations on Al-Aqsa.

"Israel has now achieved what it wants. It can observe everything that moves and can arrest anyone. It is using the cameras to enforce its own sovereignty."

The compound in east Jerusalem, which was occupied by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War and later annexed in a move not recognised internationally, houses the famed golden Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque.

Clashes between Palestinian youths and Israeli security forces erupted at the compound last September amid fears among Muslims that Israel was planning to change rules governing the site, even though Netanyahu has repeatedly said there are no such plans.

The clashes at Al-Aqsa preceded a wave of violence that has killed 198 Palestinians, 28 Israelis, two Americans, an Eritrean and a Sudanese since 1 October, according to an AFP count.

Mumbai court issues warrant against Mallya

The ED registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to trace the alleged diversion of the Rs. 950 crore loan granted to Kingfisher airline by a bank.

The Enforcement Directorate said it summoned Vijay Mallya thrice to record his statement, but he repeatedly failed to appear.

The Enforcement Directorate said it summoned Vijay Mallya thrice to record his statement, but he repeatedly failed to appear.

In yet another step to secure the presence of liquor baron Vijay Mallya, the Enforcement Directorate on Monday obtained a non-bailable warrant against him from a Special Court here. The Ministry of External Affairs had earlier suspended Mr. Mallya’s passport on the ED’s advice.
Special Judge P.R. Bhavake, hearing a plea by the ED, ordered that the warrant would be issued in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Return to frontpageThe businessman, who left the country in the midst of efforts by a consortium of banks to recover dues from Kingfisher Airlines, did not appear before the agency in response to summons on three occasions.
A highly placed source in the ED told The Hindu: “The order copy by the court will be ready and signed on April 19, but because that day is a court holiday, the non-bailable warrant against Mr. Mallya will be issued on April 20.”
Advocate Hiten Venegavkar, representing the ED, said Mr. Mallya was summoned thrice for his statement to be recorded, but he repeatedly failed to appear before the ED. Hence, it was seeking a warrant against him.
ED officials said they would seek a Look Out Circular at all airports and ports in India in Mr. Mallya’s name on the basis of the NBW. Further, the ED would also approach Interpol for issue of a Red Notice against him.
The ED’s case is based on the FIR registered by the CBI against Mr. Mallya and other unknown officials of the Mumbai-based IDBI for causing a loss of Rs. 900 crore to the public sector bank.
The FIR was registered under Sections pertaining to criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust by a public servant or a banker, merchant or agent, and criminal misconduct by a public servant.
The ED has registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and is probing why the bank gave the loan to the airline, ignoring its own internal report that had allegedly warned against such a step.
Senior counsel Amit Desai, appearing for Kingfisher Airlines (KFA) Limited, moved an application on Monday, debunking the agency’s claims that loan money was used to buy immovable property outside India.
He said these were speculative allegations and could not be a ground for coercive action.
He said the financial audit of the company, carried out in 2009 and 2010, mentioned the quantum and purpose of the loan and added that all allegations made by the ED were false.
KFA’s application said: “No funds disbursed to Kingfisher Airlines Limited by IDBI have been wrongly utilised or utilised for purposes other than legitimate business purposes/expenses of Kingfisher Airlines Limited or have been diverted in any manner by Dr Vijay Mallya for his personal benefit or gain.”
It also said: “On March 29 2016, Kingfisher Airlines Limited furnished to the ED 5 box files giving the details of foreign remittances made by Kingfisher Airlines Limited together with copies of the swift messages…”

FactCheck Q&A: can we trust the Treasury on Brexit?

By Patrick Worrall-April 18, 2016 

Both sides in the Brexit debate like to say economics is on their side, claiming Britain will either gain or lose enormous amounts of money if the country votes to leave the EU on June 23.
For years we have been pointing out that there is no definitive cost/benefit analysis.
Now the Treasury has come out with an official report predicting what will happen to the UK economy in the long-term if there is a Leave vote.
Since the government is campaigning for Britain to Stay, today’s intervention is hardly independent, but is it credible?

Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne speaks alongside Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Elizabeth Truss at an event at the National Composites Centre at the Bristol and Bath Science Park, in Bristol, Britain, April 18, 2016. REUTERS/Matt Cardy/Pool - RTX2AGI9Show me the moneyA migrant holds a placard which reads "I want to come to the U.K." on his bicycle at the makeshift camp called "The New Jungle" in Calais, France, September 19, 2015. Around 3,500 migrants and refugees are camped in Calais, fleeing war and poverty in the Middle East, Africa and Asia and now living in the jungle. Most of them are hoping to make the crossing to England. Picture taken September 19, 2015. REUTERS/ Regis Duvignau - RTX1S1I8A migrant holds a placard which reads "I want to come to the U.K." on his bicycle at the makeshift camp called "The New Jungle" in Calais, France, September 19, 2015. Around 3,500 migrants and refugees are camped in Calais, fleeing war and poverty in the Middle East, Africa and Asia and now living in the jungle. Most of them are hoping to make the crossing to England. Picture taken September 19, 2015. REUTERS/ Regis Duvignau - RTX1S1I8

What’s the Treasury saying?

The argument is that EU membership makes it easier to trade with other member states and nations around the world.

All the realistic alternatives to full EU membership would make it more expensive to trade with EU states and others, so there would be a long-term cost to the UK economy.

The Treasury looks at three alternatives to the status quo and comes up with a cost for each, based on its in-house forecasting model.

If the UK leaves the EU but stays in the European Economic Area – like Norway – the supposed negative effect is 3.8 per cent of GDP a year after 15 years.

If we negotiated a bilateral trade agreement with the bloc – like Switzerland or Canada – GDP might be 6.2 per cent a year lower than expected.

If Britain traded as a WTO member but did not strike a specific trade deal with Brussels it could supposedly expect to lose 7.5 per cent of GDP annually in 2030.

These numbers don’t imply negative growth overall: no one is saying that the UK economy would be smaller than it is now after Brexit. The suggestion is that GDP will not grow as quickly as it would if we stayed in the EU.

The numbers apparently take into account Britain’s multibillion-pound annual contribution to the EU budget. We don’t subtract the membership fee from the supposed loss – it has already been taken into consideration.

Will it really cost every family £4,300?

This is an over-simplification of the government’s argument. It’s numerically correct to say that minus 6.2 per cent of annual GDP (the central estimate of the “Switzerland” scenario) can be divided into £4,300 per household.

But that is using the number of households in the UK now, not 15 years in the future, which is when these numbers are supposed to apply.

And GDP per household isn’t the same as household income. National wealth divided between the population has historically been much higher than average income.

It’s not quite right to say that Brexit “will cost each family £4,300”, since the actual impact on household incomes from a fall in GDP would almost certainly be lower.

How does this compare to other forecasts?

It’s at the pessimistic end of the spectrum, but in the ballpark of what some independent economists have come up with.

A number of think tanks and economists have had a stab at this exercise now, with a broad spectrum of results, but not all are created equal.

Other studies that have used sophisticated forecasting models include this one from theCentre for Economic Performance at the LSE, who predict a loss of GDP of between 2.2 and 9.5 per cent in its most pessimistic scenario.

Losses at the upper end of that scale would be comparable to the effects of the global financial crisis and the authors noted cheerily that “in any case, we should have in mind that these numbers are likely to be larger in reality”.

Oxford Economics looked at nine different post-Brexit scenarios and predicted a long-term cost to the British economy in every case. But the most pessimistic forecast of an annual loss of 3.9 per cent of GDP by 2030 is obviously less than the central Treasury figure.

A spokesman for Oxford Economics was quoted today as saying that some of the assumptions the Treasury had fed into its model (on trade and productivity growth) felt “a little strong” but were not unreasonable.

More optimistic forecasts are available. Open Europe thought there could be either a small loss or gain from Brexit, depending on how Britain met the challenge of trading outside the EU.

Capital Economics also thought there could either be modestly positive or negative impacts, depending on various factors, but were upbeat about the UK’s prospects in or out of the bloc.

At the extreme end of the spectrum, Ukip’s Tim Congdon estimated that EU membership costs this country the equivalent of 10 per cent of GDP, based on an unusually high assessment of the cost of regulation from Brussels.

What are the main criticisms?

Immigration: the Treasury’s analysis is based on the assumption that net migration to the UK will remain high, contrary to the Conservatives’ current aspiration to reduce it to the “tens of thousands”, and even after a vote for Brexit.

Jonathan Portes from the think-tank NIESR said: “Given the centrality of immigration and free movement in the political debate on Brexit, this is difficult to understand.”

Red tape: Other critics say the Treasury has skated over the issue of the cost to Britain of EU regulations.

The report doesn’t actually attempt to put a figure on the cost of red tape. But it concludes that “any gains from increased flexibility in specific areas would be significantly outweighed by the losses from increased regulatory barriers to trade from losing access to the single market”.

Uncertainty: economic modelling like this looks at the past to figure out the benefits of membership of the EU, and attempts to say what would have happened to trade if Britain had not joined.

That’s not quite the same as looking at the true cost of a country actually pulling out of the bloc – something which has never happened before and is even more difficult to predict.
The verdict

The Treasury paper offers a pessimistic view of what might happen to Britain if we left the EU, but one that is broadly in line with what some independent models have come up with.

It’s important to bear in mind that these models are largely based on the assumption that Britain will be less open to trade after Brexit. And of course, many people don’t buy this, believing that the UK will have more freedom to strike trade deals with emerging economies.

If you don’t accept the central premise that Brexit will hurt trade, you won’t believe any of the numbers the government has put out today. Or you might think that a drop in potential GDP growth is a price worth paying for more control over immigration.

Economically, much depends on what kind of trade deals Britain would be able to negotiate with EU countries and others after a Leave vote.

Since there is no precedent for Brexit, it’s very hard for anyone to make a confident prediction about what will happen.

Brazil's Workers party vows to hang on to power despite impeachment vote

  • Lower house of congress voted to impeach President Dilma Rousseff
  • Ruling party calls on Brazilians to occupy streets as process passes to senate
 Brazilian newspapers report the news of the impeachment vote against President Dilma Rousseff on Monday. Photograph: Miguel Schincariol/AFP/Getty Images

 in Brasília-Monday 18 April 2016

Brazil’s ruling Workers party says it will fight to maintain power despite adevastating impeachment defeat for President Dilma Rousseff in the lower house.

While the opposition camp celebrated Sunday’s vote and prepared for a new administration under Vice-President Michel Temer, the government side said supporters should to prepare for the next stage of the impeachment process in the senate.

“The Workers party calls on all men and women committed to democracy to remain mobilised and occupy the streets against this fraudulent impeachment,” said Rui Falcão, the party’s national president.

Despite the fiery rhetoric, the momentum is overwhelmingly with the opposition, who are poised to give Brazil its first centre-right government in more than 13 years.

The house speaker, Eduardo Cunha – a conservative evangelical who has proved Rousseff’s nemesis – oversaw the passage of the impeachment motion comfortably with 367 votes, 25 more than the necessary two-thirds majority, prompting opposition politicians, many of them draped in the national flag, to burst into the football chant “Eu Sou Brasileiro” (I am Brazilian).

The process now goes to the senate, where only a simple majority is needed to begin deliberations that would force the president to step aside for 180 days until a final verdict is reached.

Polls suggest more than 60% of the public favour the removal of Rousseff, who was once one of the world’s most popular leaders but now suffers approval ratings of just 10% as a result of a dire economic recession, political tumult and the Lava Jato corruption investigation into kickbacks from the state-oil company, Petrobras. Politicians from almost all of the major parties have been implicated, including several senior members of the Workers party.

The president and vice-president have yet to react publicly to the vote – a sign that they are still processing the seismic political shift now under way.

But Temer’s supporters in his Brazilian Democratic Movement party (PMDB) are already anticipating the change ahead.

Moreira Franco, a senior party member, noted on Twitter that Brazil now had a good opportunity for political and economic reform, but he urged the opposition not to become complacent. “We need to maintain a national mobilisation so that the senate hears the noise on the streets,” he tweeted.

Many challenges lie ahead. The vice-president has promised a sound fiscal policy, but this would mean sharp austerity cuts in the midst of an already dire recession. Many of his supporters – especially those up for re-election later this year – will be urging him to maintain public spending.

The bank system, which is staggering under a mountain of non-performing loans, is another major risk that he must handle carefully. Many of these questions relate to how far to the right Temer is willing to move. One indication will be whether he appoints Jair Bolsonaro – a supporter of the former military dictatorship – to his cabinet.

There is also the constant threat posed to politicians of almost all stripes by the Lava Jato investigation. Until now, the opposition has used revelations of corruption to tarnish the government. But many of them are also threatened by accusations of bribery and money laundering. Many would clearly like Temer to weaken the independence of the prosecutors and federal police, which he could do by appointing a sympathetic justice minister, but this would be extremely unpopular with the public, who have come to put more faith in the judiciary than their elected representatives. 

A key question in this regard will be the fate of Cunha – who is at the centre of both the Lava Jato probe and the impeachment drive. His supporters are demanding that Temer kill an ethics committee investigation of the house speaker as a reward for pushing through the impeachment vote.

Given the many problems that Brazil faces, Workers party politicians feel they can regain the initiative with a little time out of office. 

Lindberg Farias, a Workers party senator from Rio de Janeiro, said it will be difficult to block the first vote in the senate, but there is a chance with the second vote, which needs a two-thirds majority and will take place up to six months after the first. 

He expects the senate leader, Renan Calheiros, to drag the process on for as long as possible because he is a rival of Temer’s within the PMDB. The longer it goes on, the more chance he believes the left has of a recovery.

“The public don’t like Temer and Cunha. I think within two months of their administration, opinion will shift against them and people will move to protect Rousseff,” Farias said. 

After last night’s crushing defeat, this sounds like wishful thinking. But moods can change quickly. As Rousseff has learned to her cost, public opinion and political loyalties in Brazil are as solid as quicksand.

Nelson Mandela’s Party Is Turning on Jacob Zuma

Nelson Mandela’s Party Is Turning on Jacob Zuma
The African National Congress is realizing the only way to save itself is to ditch South Africa’s president.
BY ERIN CONWAY-SMITH-APRIL 18, 2016

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa — Among the motley crew gathered on the steps of South Africa’s highest court on April 6 stood elders of the African National Congress (ANC), angry and ashamed.
The court had found President Jacob Zuma in breach of the constitution for his failure to pay back millions in taxpayer money spent on Nkandla, his expansive private residence that boasts an amphitheater and helipad, among other amenities. It was a humiliating blow for the embattled Zuma, who was already under fire for unnerving investors by sacking a respected finance minister and for his cozy relationship with a wealthy Indian family accused of meddling in cabinet appointments.

But in the weeks since the court’s ruling, Zuma has stubbornly refused to resign. Addressing the nation on April 1, he apologized only for causing “confusion and frustration” — not for misappropriating state resources or for defying an ombudsperson who previously ordered him to return some of the funds.
For many South Africans, Zuma has finally gone too far. The big question now is whether the ANC agrees.

While it is still revered as the party that led the struggle against apartheid, the shine has long worn off the ANC in the eyes of many South Africans. Many vote for the party of Nelson Mandela out of habit or loyalty, despite their unhappiness with the country’s condition 20 years after the transition to democracy. The gap between white and black incomes is higher today than it was under apartheid, and ANC cadres have often seemed more interested in enriching themselves than in improving the lives of ordinary people.But Zuma’s brand of sleaze has sunk the ANC’s public image to new depths.

For now, ANC parliamentarians have publicly rallied behind the unapologetic president, voting down an April 5 impeachment motion introduced by the main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance. But a growing number of party stalwarts seem to be coming to the conclusion that Zuma will have to be sacrificed in order to save the ANC.

Cheryl Carolus, the ANC’s former deputy secretary-general, described the last few weeks as a “frog-in-the-pot” moment, implying that the party must part ways with the president or else risk being consumed by the mess he has made. “All of us need to wake up and fix this on our watch, or history has every right to judge us,” she said in a press conference on the steps of the Constitutional Court.

Other ANC heavyweights, including Mandela’s close friend and former lawyer, George Bizos, former Finance Minister Trevor Manuel, and an influential group of children of party leaders who were born and raised in exile, have publically called on Zuma to resign. In private, the ANC’s top leadership, known as the “top six,” have reportedly asked him to step aside. And on April 27, a group of party veterans, clergymen, and civil society leaders calling themselves the People’s Consultative Assembly will hold a “day of action” to “reclaim a freedom that has been stolen by Zuma and his cronies,” according to Duma Gqubule, the group’s spokesman.

The sudden evaporation of support puts Zuma in uncharted waters. William Gumede, chairman of the Democracy Works Foundation, a Johannesburg-based think tank, said that no other South African president has faced such a broad-based revolt. When former President Thabo Mbeki was asked to step down by the ANC in 2008, a request to which he acquiesced, it was due to his unpopularity within the party. “What we are seeing with Zuma now is inside and outside the party,” Gumede said. “The opposition is so widespread.”

Zuma, a former head of ANC intelligence during the anti-apartheid struggle, rose to power within the party at its 2007 elective conference. A Zulu traditionalist with a populist touch, he stood out as an antidote to Mbeki, who many considered to be aloof and overly cerebral. But Zuma’s political career has always been marred by scandals, including accusations that he raped a family friend (he was acquitted in 2006) and corruption charges related to a 1999 arms deal.

Outrage over Zuma’s use of public funds to upgrade his private residence in Nkandla had simmered for years before the court recently ruled it unconstitutional. But the day the president lost the confidence of many South Africans for good was Dec. 9, 2015, when he sacked respected Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene and replaced him with a little-known backbencher who was thought to be more pliable. The move shook investors’ confidence and sent the already weak South African rand into a tailspin, forcing the president to reverse course.

“This was Zuma totally over-judging,” said Susan Booysen, author ofDominance and Decline: The ANC in the Time of Zuma. “That was such an irrational decision.It was the arrogance of Zuma that really tipped the scales and provided the trigger.”

Opposition to Zuma has gathered steam since then, fueled in part by revelations that members of the Gupta family, close friends of the president that run a multibillion-rand business empire in South Africa, had exercised undue influence in the president’s cabinet appointments. One such revelation came from Mcebisi Jonas, the deputy finance minister, who said the Guptas had offered him the ministry’s top job.
“We have definitely seen a turn away from Zuma dominance in the ANC,” Booysen said. “But the ANC is a big ship. It doesn’t turn easily.”

But as bad as things look for the South African president, few expect him to exit the stage ahead of local government elections, scheduled for Aug. 3. This is partly because he retains significant support among rural voters and key constituencies within the party and partly because the ANC itself is too fragmented to allow for a unified push to oust him.

“It would take an extraordinary event for him to be relieved of his responsibility,” said Ralph Mathekga, a political analyst and founder of Clear Content, a Johannesburg-based think tank. “It would take a new type of campaign within the ANC, and I don’t know if that space exists.”

Zuma may be loathed by the urban elite, but he is still wildly popular in rural South Africa, particularly in his home province of KwaZulu-Natal, where he retains support from key structures within the party, including the ANC Women’s League and Youth League. He also enjoys the support of a powerful group of provincial premiers, known collectively as the “Premier League.”

This base of support allows Zuma to exploit the hierarchical structure of the ANC, which is organized into some 3,000 local branches, represented by regional and provincial committees, as well as by a national executive elected at five yearly conferences. For the president to be forced out, the national executive would have to ask him to step aside, as it did with Mbeki — something it is unlikely to do unless it comes under sustained pressure from the branches.

But despite growing opposition to Zuma among party elites, the vast majority of ANC branches throughout the country have so far stood behind the president, perhaps because they do not wish to be seen as capitulating to the opposition. The only exceptions are ANC branches in Gauteng, the affluent province that includes Johannesburg and Pretoria. The Gauteng ANC, dominated by urban intellectuals, has long been anti-Zuma, campaigning against him as far back as 2012, when it opposed his re-election as president of the ANC.

“The only way in which you can have an internal recourse on this, against Zuma, is if there is a mutiny at the branch level of the party. But that mutiny is highly unlikely,” said Mathekga.

But if most analysts agree that Zuma will likely remain in office until after the Aug. 3 elections, there is also broad consensus that a poor showing at the polls by the ANC, particularly in the key metropolises of Johannesburg, Tshwane (which includes Pretoria), and Nelson Mandela Bay, could finally tip the scales against him. Also potentially decisive is a pending court decision on whether to reopen an investigation into 783 charges of corruption, fraud, and money-laundering against Zuma, all of which were dropped just before he became president in 2009.

In either case, the ANC will likely try to convince Zuma to step down voluntarily. A public showdown would only force more of the party’s dirty laundry out into the open and could potentially cause the group to splinter.

“Within the ANC, they seem to be scared that if Zuma is forced out, he may take quite a few supporters with him,” said Gumede.

Still, the growing anti-Zuma chorus is something “totally different” for the party, he said. “Everybody is mobilizing.… The ANC has lost control.”

Photo credit: JUSTIN SULLIVAN/Getty Images

Burma’s de facto leader Suu Kyi pushing to amend junta-era constitution

Burma's de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Pic: AP.


18th April 2016
IN pursuit of a “genuine” democracy, Burma’s de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi pledged to push for amendments to the country’s constitution which was enacted by the military.

The current constitution of Burma (Myanmar) bars her from the presidency and allows the military to retain significant influence over the workings of government. So Suu Kyi’s proposal is a bold move, potentially setting her party and herself on a collision course with the country’s powerful military.

The 70-year-old Nobel laureate called for a constitution “that will give birth to a genuine democratic union.” She added, “We need constitutional amendments.”

She made the comments in a nationally televised address to mark the start of the Buddhist new year.
Promising “a federal democratic union”, Suu Kyi indicated that a priority would be greater autonomy for the country’s ethnic minorities. Burma has been torn by multiple ethnic conflicts for decades, and her comments seem geared to demonstrate that her party intends to govern for all.

“Peace and a federal democratic union are closely intertwined and that’s why we need to change the constitution. The most important thing is national reconciliation,” she said, according to Agence France-Presse.

Suu Kyi’s power to change the constitution remains hamstrung by the military, which still retains considerable power in government and parliament. The present constitution has long been seen and criticized as a vehicle for military control of the country. It allocates control of the key security-related ministries – Home, Defense, Border Affairs – to the military. Additionally, it reserves 25 percent of parliamentary seats for military officers.

Suu Kyi’s party won a landslide victory in November elections, ushering in the country’s first civilian government after 54 years of direct and indirect military rule.

Additional reporting by the Associated Press
Post series on police shootings wins Pulitzer Prize for national reporting
Winners of the prestigious award were announced on Monday.

Reuters shares their Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Photography with the New York Times for their photos of refugees and migrants.

The Washington Post staff was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for national reporting on April 18, for its project on police shootings. Post reporter Joby Warrick also won in the general nonfiction category for his book "Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS.” (The Pulitzer Prizes/Columbia University/The Washington Post)

By Paul Farhi-April 18

After covering several high-profile incidents involving the killings of civilians by police officers in 2014, Washington Post staff writer Wesley Lowery was surprised to discover that there were no official statistics about such fatalities. So Lowery pitched an idea to his editors: The newspaper, he suggested, should collect the information itself and analyze it for patterns in law enforcement.

The Post soon marshaled an extraordinary team of reporters, editors, researchers, photographers and graphic artists to do just that. The result was a database containing the details of 990 fatal police shootings across the nation in 2015 and a series of articles describing trends in the data.

On Monday, The Post’s series was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in the national reporting category. The prizes, in their 100th year, are newspaper journalism’s highest honor.

The Pulitzer board also recognized “Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS,” a book by Post reporter Joby Warrick, in the general nonfiction category. The award was Warrick’s second Pulitzer; he previously won in 1996 for a series of articles about the environmental costs of North Carolina’s hog-farming industry, written with two colleagues at the News & Observer newspaper in Raleigh.

Spurred by Lowery’s proposal, the police-shooting project grew into one of the largest in the newsroom’s history, said Cameron Barr, The Post’s managing editor for news. It eventually involved some 70 journalists from the paper’s national, investigative, metro, video, photo and graphics departments.

The police-shootings database — painstakingly assembled by researchersJulie Tate and Jennifer Jenkins from official and unofficial sources — included more than a dozen details about each incident, including the age and race of the person killed, whether and how the person was armed, and the circumstances that led to the encounter with police. It soon yielded new insights into the use of deadly force by the nation’s police officers.

The data showed, for example, that about one-quarter of those fatally shothad a history of mental illness; that most of those killed were white men(although unarmed African Americans were at vastly higher risk of being shot after routine traffic stops than any other group); and that 55 officers involved in fatal shootings in 2015 had previously been involved in a deadly incidentwhile on duty.

Another important finding: The vast majority (74 percent) of people shot and killed by police were armed with guns or were killed after attacking police officers or civilians or making direct threats. This finding countered the impression left by several high-profile fatalities that police routinely use excessive force. Staff writer Kimberly Kindy reported many of the major pieces.

The Post has continued to update its database during 2016 and is reporting on other patterns.

Because police are not required to report shootings of civilians, some “basic facts” were missing from the national conversation about the topic, saidMartin Baron, The Post’s executive editor. He said the newspaper’s journalists sought to fill in the “enormous information gap” with the database and on-the-ground reporting. “The Post delivered on a core journalistic mission — telling the public what it needs to know,” Baron said.

The newspaper’s reporting has helped spur federal efforts to collect similar information from the nation’s 18,000 police departments and has been used by police chiefs in their efforts to overhaul their use-of-force policies.

The series was the ninth Pulitzer-winning project in which Tate, an ace researcher, played a role. It also was the ninth in which investigations editor Jeff Leen was involved.

“Black Flags,” Warrick’s study of the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in 2006, grew out of Warrick’s coverage of the Arab Spring uprisings for The Post in 2011. Although some analysts viewed the uprisings as hopeful, Warrick said it reminded him of the fall of the Berlin Wall and communism in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which he covered as a young reporter for United Press International.

In both cases, “there was a euphoria . . . but you could see the downsides,” especially in the case of the Arab Spring, as terrorist groups rose to fill the deepening power vacuum.

Warrick began researching his book in early 2013 as the Islamic State began to claim territory in Syria and Iraq. He saw Zarqawi’s story as a vehicle to explain the unfolding chaos and the region’s recent history.


The book received glowing praise upon its publication in September, and it is being considered for a film adaptation, Warrick said.

The Post’s Eli Saslow was a finalist in this year’s Pulitzer competition in the feature-writing category for three stories: a profile of a young woman wounded in a mass shooting in Oregon, an article about a teenage single father and a piece about a family living in rural Nebraska a decade after being displaced by Hurricane Katrina.

Saslow, whose story on Oregon shooting victim Cheyeanne Fitzgerald won theDart Award for Excellence in Coverage of Trauma earlier this month, won a Pulitzer for explanatory reporting in 2014 for a series on the federal food-stamp program.

Among other winners:

●The Associated Press won the gold medal for public service for itsinvestigation of abuses of workers who supply seafood to American supermarkets and restaurants, including the use of slaves.
●The Los Angeles Times, in the breaking-news category, won for its coverage of the mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif..
●The Tampa Bay Times won two awards, one for local reporting that exposed a school board’s “culpability in turning some county schools into failure factories” and the other for investigative reporting in a joint project on mental hospitals with the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.
●Alissa J. Rubin of the New York Times was awarded the international reporting prize for “thoroughly reported and movingly written accounts giving voice to Afghan women who were forced to endure unspeakable cruelties.” New York Times photographers also shared a Pulitzer with the staff of Thomson Reuters for photos of migrant refugees.
●The Boston Globe won two awards: Jessica Rinaldi in the feature photography category for a “raw and revealing photographic story of a boy who strives to find his footing after abuse by those he trusted,” and Farah Stockman for commentary.
●Two nonprofit digital news organizations, ProPublica and the Marshall Project, teamed up to win in the explanatory-reporting category with exposes about “law enforcement’s enduring failures to investigate reports of rape properly and to comprehend the traumatic effects on its victims.”
●New Yorker magazine was also a double winner, under new rules that allow magazines to enter. Emily Nussbaum won for criticism and Kathryn Schulz for feature writing.

Paul Farhi is The Washington Post's media reporter.