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

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Key Files In ‘White Van’ Probe Stolen

Key Files In ‘White Van’ Probe Stolen

Aug 01, 2016

Important files related to the investigations on the ‘white van’ abductions have been stolen from the Trincomalee navy camp. The files were connected to Lieutenant Commodore K. C. Welagedara, a key witness on the ‘white van’ abductions said to have been committed when Mahinda Rajapaksa was President.

The files, which were stored at the Trincomalee navy camp, had been stolen on March 29, sources said.
Among the files stolen are documents related to politicians and Navy officers involved in abductions, human smuggling and weapons smuggling. Our sister newspaper Irudina had reported earlier how K. C. Welagedara was facing pressure from the Navy after he gave evidence to the Criminal Investigations Department on human smuggling.
Welagedara also faced a court martial on the charge of going overseas without informing the Navy command and for bringing disrepute to the Navy.
He was demoted but the demotion was suspended by President Maithripala Sirisena.
Last month this newspaper reported that K. C. Welagedara, who is now under Navy detention, is facing death threats, but Navy Commander Vice Admiral Ravindra Wijegunaratne had said he is unaware of those claims.
He had also said that family members of K. C. Welagedara can visit him at the Navy headquarters where he is being detained and that he can file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission if he has any concerns.

China Tells Sri Lanka: We Want Our Money, Not Your Empty Airport


Forbes  
Sri Lanka has a debt problem. After more than a decade of taking out huge loans to build large-scale infrastructure — most of which hasn’t yet produced adequate returns — the country is now struggling to make payments, and is looking for another way out.

A potential exit strategy was to offer China debt for equity swaps, which Sri Lanka’s Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe recently proposed to China’s Ambassador Yi Xianliang. China was offered varying degrees of control over some of Sri Lanka’s biggest infrastructure projects, including Mattala International Airport and portions of the Hambantota deep sea port, and Sri Lanka would receive some debt relief.

China’s response to this offer was publicized earlier today in Colombo’sSunday TimesWe’re not interested. The Chinese ambassador replied that “it was not possible according to China’s laws.”
However, China was clear that it extends its “fullest cooperation” and that such deals should be conducted via investors on proper commercial terms.

This point is key: while China’s government will not swap debt for equity they will help clear the road for Chinese companies to take over key projects in Sri Lanka. IZP, a Chinese informational technology company, has been put forward as a potential purchaser of Mattala International Airport, while COSCO is looking into expanding operations at the Hambantota deep sea port.

IMG_20160218_111424_DCE
Not a passenger in sight. It is still the morning and no more flights are to arrive or depart. Mattala International Airport may just be the world’s emptiest. Image: Wade Shepard.

The problem, both for Sri Lanka and for any would-be investor, is that many of the large projects in question are losing money fast, and may ultimately prove to be economically unsustainable — at least without a massive amount of additional investment, more infrastructure, and a miracle or two. With just two flights per day, Mattala International is more than likely the most underused international airport on the planet and the Hambantota port is also running at severe under-capacity, while the brand new and fully modern highways that run through this region are mostly devoid of vehicles.

However, not all hope is lost for these projects — yet. Although China declined a debt for equity swap, their participation in Sri Lanka’s infrastructure development is more than likely just getting started.Colombo Port City has been green-lighted once again and just last weekChina requested 15,000 acres of land in Hambantota for the building of a massive, million worker special economic zone. The latter seems to run flush with the original Hambantota idea:

“If you’re going to have a bulk port you need to have industry around the bulk port to take advantage of it,” said Deshal de Mel, a senior economist at Hayleys Plc in Colombo. “That is where the whole idea comes from; that we’ll have industry coming in to kind of match up to the port. So the shipping port can still be made to work if they can get the right industries to invest in it.”

Sri Lanka’s debt situation is severe. The country is currently in $58.3 billion deep to foreign financiers, and 95.4% of all government revenueis currently going towards paying back its loans. This means that out of every hundred dollars the government brings in only $4.60 is going towards essentials like education and public services.
Beyond China, Sri Lanka has called for proposals from investors worldwide who may interested in taking on their Hambantota projects, just in case you’re looking for a challenge.

I'm the author of Ghost Cities of China. I'm currently traveling the New Silk Road doing research for a new book. Follow by RSS.

Monday, August 1, 2016

Bopage Is A Rajapaksa Mole Making Government Unpopular: Ministers Complain To PM

Colombo Telegraph
August 1, 2016
Several senior Cabinet Ministers have complained to Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe that Media Ministry Secretary Nimal Bopage is acting like the ‘Mahinda Abeysundara’ of the new government.
Abeysundara, widely known for his disastrous propaganda strategies, contributed to the downfall of the Rajapaksa administration by making the government unpopular among edicated, urban middle class voters. Abeysundara died a few months before former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s defeat at the presidential election, in January, last year.Nimal Bopage
Nimal Bopage / Photo via his Facebook 
The ministers had said that as a result of Bopage’s “foolish approach”, the government was losing support from civil society and educated, urban middle class.
“Bopage is a man who contested elections on the UPFA ticket and he even worked as a coordinating secretary under Dullas Alahapperuma when the latter was the Transport Minister. There is a serious doubt whether he is a mole as Alahapperuma plays a key role in the Joint Opposition,” a senior cabinet minister told Colombo Telegraph.
It has now been revealed that Bopage has directly instructed the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation and the Broadcasting Corporation (SLBC) to explicitly attack the Joint Opposition’s “pada yatra” in their main news bulletin.

Basil re-remanded


MONDAY, 01 AUGUST 2016
Former Minister of Economic Development Basil Rajapaksa, remanded on charges of buying GI pipes spending Rs. 36300000 from public funds to use them for election campaign during presidential election and later distribute among local government councils, was taken before Kaduwela Magistrates Court today (1st) and was re-remanded till the 8th.
Meanwhile, Colombo High Court Judge M.C.B.S. Morais has ordered that the appeal application forwarded by Mr. Basil Rajapaksa would be heard on the 8th. He has ordered Attorney General to file objections, if there are any, before the 5th.
Mr. Basil Rajapaksa has been admitted to a paying ward in Colombo National Hospital. He became ill as soon as he was remanded.

How Wellampitiya OIC passed Duminda’s test!

How Wellampitiya OIC passed Duminda’s test!

Jul 31, 2016

This was the time when the Rajapaksa terror reigned the country.

Inspector Samaranayake had assumed duties as OIC of Wellampitiya police less than 24 hours ago.

His telephone began ringing. In the other end was the then IGP Mahinda Balasuriya. “Oh, you are the new OIC? How is the new station?”
 
“Yes, Sir. The new station is not bad. But this is a very difficult area,” he replied while getting up from his seat.

“Did you report to the MP? Everything should be done according to what he says. He is the second hand of the defence secretary.”

“Yes, sir. I reported to him soon after taking up the job. He told me several things that that should be done. I will do all those, sir,” he told the IGP while standing to attention.

“Do as the MP says. UNPers or the media cannot lead me off the track. Do not go to dance to the tunes of the UNPers or the media.”

“Yes, sir, UNPers or the media cannot lead me off the track. I will do whatever the MP says. If an FR case is filed against me, get the MP to save me.”1

“OK, I will take care of that,” so saying, the IGP hung up.

Five minutes later, the telephone starting ringing again.

In the other end was Colombo district MP, Kolonnawa organizer R. Duminda Silva.

“Oh. Mr. OIC. How are you? OK. You have passed my test.”

Saying only that, he put down the phone.

The Kolonnawa OIC got to know only several months later as to what exactly had happened.
IGP Balasuriya had telephoned him from the official residence of MP Duminda, in his presence. Duminda calls him ‘uncle.’

The IGP appointed officers to the Police Narcotics Bureau only on recommendation from Duminda. In a show of gratitude, Duminda got Wele Suda to build a house for the IGP at Malambe. Now, the boorish three wheeler drivers, when passing that house, cry out ‘Wele Suda’ which has become quite a headache for the Balasuriya family.

Therefore, he is soon to change his place of residence to Welikada. His neighbour is going to be former senior DIG Anura Senanayake.

Israel’s hydro-apartheid keeps West Bank thirsty

Palestinians collect water from a spring, in the West Bank village of Salfit on 27 June. Villagers had been without water for days as chronic supply shortages induced by Israeli occupation authorities continue to hit many parts of the territory.Nedal EshtayahAPA images

Charlotte Silver-1 August 2016

Water shortages are not new for Palestinians. Whether in the occupied Gaza Strip or the West Bank including East Jerusalem, the supply of water flowing into Palestinian homes is strictly capped or obstructed by Israel.

As temperatures climb during the summer, taps run dry. Clemens Messerschmid, a German hydrologist who has worked with Palestinians on their water supply for two decades, calls the situation “hydro-apartheid.”

This year, Israeli journalist Amira Hass published data proving that the Israeli Water Authority had reduced the amount of water delivered to West Bank villages.

In some places, the supply was slashed by half. Her records contradict official denials that water supplies to Palestinian cities and villages are cut during the summer, even though that too is not new.
Cities and small villages have gone as long as 40 days without running water this summer, forcing those who can afford it to haul in water tanks.

When Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967 it also seized control over the West Bank Mountain Aquifer, the territory’s principal natural water reserve.

The Oslo accords of the early 1990s gave Israel 80 percent of the aquifer’s reserves. Palestinians were supposed to get the remaining 20 percent, but in recent years they have been able to access only 14 percent as a result of Israeli restrictions on their drilling.

To fulfill the population’s minimum needs, the Palestinian Authority is forced to buy the rest of the water from Israel. But even then, it’s not enough.

Israel is only willing to sell a limited amount of water to Palestinians. As a consequence, Palestinians use far less water than Israelis, and a full third less than the World Health Organization’s recommendation of 100 liters per person per day for domestic use, hospitals, schools and other institutions.

The Electronic Intifada spoke with Clemens Messerschmid, who has been working in the water sector throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip since 1997, about the engineered water scarcity for Palestinians in the West Bank.

Charlotte Silver: Is scarcity of water in the area driving the water crisis in the West Bank? Or is the scarcity engineered?

Clemens Messerschmid: Of course there is no water scarcity in the West Bank. What we suffer from is induced scarcity – it’s called the occupation. This is the regime imposed on Palestinians immediately after the war in June 1967.

Israel rules through military orders, which have the direct and intended result of keeping Palestinians short on water. It is not an ongoing gradual dispossession as with land and settlements, but was done in one sweep by Military Order No. 92, in August 1967.

The West Bank possesses ample groundwater. There is high rainfall in Salfit, in the northern West Bank, now known for especially hard water cuts.

The West Bank is blessed with a treasure of groundwater. But this is also its curse, because Israel targeted this immediately after taking control.

What we need is simple: groundwater wells to access this treasure. But Israel’s Military Order No. 158 strictly forbids drilling or any other water works, including springs, pipes, networks, pumping stations, irrigation pools, water reservoirs, simple rainwater harvesting cisterns, which collect the rain falling on one’s roof.

Everything is forbidden or rather not “permitted” by the Civil Administration, Israel’s occupation regime. Even repair and maintenance of wells requires military permits. And we simply don’t get them.
It is a simple case of hydro-apartheid – far beyond any regime in history that I am aware of.

CS: Israel has increased the amount of water it sells Palestinians, but it is still not enough to prevent villages from running dry. Putting aside the fact that Israel’s control over the aquifer’s resources is very problematic, why won’t Israel sell the Palestinians enough water?

CM: Israel first of all has drastically reduced the amount of water available to Palestinians. It has prevented all access to the Jordan River, which is now literally pumped dry at Lake Tiberias.

Then, Israel imposes a quota on the number of wells and routinely denies permits for much-needed repair of old wells from the Jordanian days – Jordan administered the West Bank from 1948 until the Israeli occupation – especially agricultural wells. That means the number of wells is constantly shrinking. We have fewer than in 1967.

Now, the only thing that has increased is the dependency on buying water from the expropriators, Israel andMekorot, Israel’s national water company.

This is reported over and over in the western press, because it is the point Israel stresses: ‘See how benevolent we are?’

So, yes, since Oslo, purchases from Mekorot have grown steadily. Ramallah now receives 100 percent of its water from Mekorot. Not a drop comes from a single well field we have.

The supply of villages by Israel was not done as a favor. It was initiated in 1980 by Ariel Sharon, then agriculture minister, when rapid settlement growth was starting. The water supply was “integrated,” in order to make the occupation irreversible.

What is important here is the structural apartheid, cemented and cast in iron in these pipes. A small settlement is supplied via large transmission pipes from which smaller pipes split off to go towards Palestinian areas.

Israel is very happy with Oslo, because now Palestinians are “responsible” for supply. Responsible but without a shred of sovereignty over resources.

The current so-called water crisis is not a crisis at all. A crisis is a sudden change, a new turn or a turning point in development. The undersupply of Palestinians is desired, planned and carefully executed. The “summer water crisis” is the most reliable feature of the Palestinian water calendar. And the amount of annual rain, or drought, has no bearing whatsoever on the occurrence and scale of that “crisis.”

I should stress that however routinely this occurs, in each and every single case, it is a conscious decision by some bureaucrat or office in Israel or the Civil Administration. Someone has to go to the field and turn down the valve at the split off to the Palestinian village. This, like every summer, was done in early June. Hence – water crisis in the West Bank.

CS: What factors may be contributing to the worsening water cuts this year?

CM: It seems settler demand rose drastically since last year. The Israeli Water Authority found 20 to 40 percent higher demand, which is quite remarkable.

Alexander Kushnir, the Water Authority’s director general, attributes this to expansion of settler irrigation in the mountains of the northern West Bank settlements, around Salfit and Nablus.

CS: How is it that people in present-day Israel are reportedly enjoying a surplus of water since the country has started using desalination, while the people under occupation in the West Bank are left with so little? Even Israeli settlers have reportedly experienced water cuts.

CM: It’s true that Israel declared for the first time a few years ago that it had a surplus water economy and iskeen to sell more water to its neighbors, from whom it expropriated water in the first place.

Palestinians are already buying water Israel stole, but as noted, not reliably or at sufficient rates.
Frankly, I don’t know. Why this special, elevated and aggravated desire of Israel not even to sell enough water to the West Bank?

In some areas, water is actively used as a weapon for ethnic cleansing, like in the Jordan Valley. Agriculture was always targeted from day one of the occupation.

But this logic does not apply to the densely populated Palestinian towns and cities in so-called Area A of the West Bank, that are still struggling. After 20 years, this still leaves me puzzled.

Another element is important to understand: Israel needs to constantly teach Palestinians a lesson. Any water procurement, any drop delivered should be understood as a generous favor, as an act of mercy, not as a right.

Israel has augmented water sales to the West Bank from 25 million cubic meters per year in 1995 to around 60 mcm/year now. Why does it not sell much more? It certainly could afford it waterwise – it has a gigantic surplus.

One of the material issues I can detect is the issue of price, and therefore meaning of water.

Israel wants to eventually get the highest price for desalinated water it sells to Palestinians. While we are only speaking about a few hundred million shekels a year [a few tens of millions of dollars] – which is not a lot for Israel – Israel wants to end the debate once and for all over Palestinian water rights.

Israel demands nothing short of a full surrender: Palestinians should agree that the water under their feet does not belong to them, but forever to the occupier.

By demanding full prices for desalinated water, Palestinians would admit and agree to a new formula.
A word on the Gaza Strip – unlike the West Bank, Gaza has no physical possibility of access to water. The confined and densely populated Strip can never supply itself. Yet, Gaza does not get such water deliveries from Israel. Only recently did Israel start selling to Gaza the five million cubic meters per year agreed in Oslo. A tiny cosmetic increase has been enacted.

In a way you could interpret this differential treatment between Gaza and the West Bank as an Israeli admission of a certain degree of hydrological dependence.

Israel receives the bulk of its water from the territories conquered in 1967, including Syria’s Golan Heights, but not a drop from Gaza.

Waterwise, Gaza has no resource to offer Israel. This is the same as with the main resource: land. Hence a very different approach to Gaza right from the start in 1967. Israel does not depend on Gaza in any material form. Ever since Oslo, Israel has demanded Gaza supply itself by its own means, such as through seawater desalination.

CS: How have donor countries acted in all this? Have they defended global minimal water standards or have they affirmed and bolstered Israel’s control over the water resources in the occupied West Bank?

CM: Unfortunately the latter. When Oslo started, we all were under the illusion that a phase of development would start. Wells that were forbidden to be drilled for 28 years would finally be put in place.

Soon, we learned that Israel in fact was never willing to give “permits … for expanding agriculture or industry, which may compete with the State of Israel,” as then-defense minister Yitzhak Rabin said in 1986.

What was needed then and now – and everybody knew it – was political pressure to extract the minimum well-drilling permits guaranteed under Palestinian-Israeli accords. This pressure never came. Never did the EU or my German government issue even a public statement in which it “deplores” or “regrets” the obstructions in the water sector. This is a true scandal.

But even worse, what was our Western answer to this? All donor-funded projects actually abandoned the vital branch of well drilling. The last German funded well was drilled in 1999.

As for the current so-called water crisis, we as donors are now busy generously funding anachronistic water tankering in the cut-off Palestinian towns and cities – adapting to and stabilizing the status quo of occupation and water apartheid.

Syria's civil war: Russian chopper shot down in Idlib

Crew members and officers on board killed after being shot down in rebel-held Idlib province.


1 August 2016

Five crew members have been killed as a Russian military chopper was shot down in Syria, the Kremlin said.

The helicopter shot down on Sunday in the rebel-held Idlib province had three crew members and two officers on board.

Inside Story - Can the US and Russia sculpt a ceasefire in Syria?

Russia's defence ministry was cited as saying that the helicopter, an Mi-8 military transport helicopter, had been shot down after delivering humanitarian aid to the city of Aleppo as it made its way back to Russia's main airbase in Syria.

"There were three crew members and two officers from the Russian reconciliation centre in Syria on board," the ministry said in a statement. 

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov expressed condolences over the deaths of the five soldiers. 


 "As far as we know from the information we've had from the defence ministry, those in the helicopter died," he said.

Russia is backing the Syrian government in the civil war with military support.

Photos had circulated on social media of the "smoking wreckage of the helicopter in the deserts of Syria after it was gunned down", said Al Jazeera's Rory Challands.

"There are [on the images] lots of people standing around this wreckage and the body of a man being dragged away with various bits of documentation and ID being displayed," he said.

"The signs were there that this would be something very sorry the Russian government would want to admit to."


It was not immediately clear who was responsible.

Mamoun Abu Nuwar, an Amman-based Jordanian military analyst, said Russia is being "very careful" about releasing information on the incident.

"I think it's been shot down by small fire arms or anti-aircraft guns," he told Al Jazeera, explaining that the Army of Conquest, an alliance of armed groups, is most likely to have shot down the aircraft in that region. 

"Possibly we'll see some punishment by the Russians on these people in that area - conducting or escalating an air power campaign in the area."

The incident was the deadliest single attack on Russian forces in Syria since Moscow began its intervention in support of President Bashar al-Assad's government last September.

Tuesday's deaths brought the total number of Russian forces killed in Syria to 18.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based monitor, said the helicopter had come down along the administrative border between Idlib province in the northwest and neighbouring Aleppo.

Idlib is held almost entirely by a powerful coalition of hardline rebel groups, including the former al-Nusra Front, now known as the Fateh al-Sham group after renouncing its status as al-Qaeda's Syrian affiliate.

John McCain, VFW condemn Trump over attacks on Khan family


John McCain (R-Ariz.) at a news conference at the Capitol in February. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

 

Donald Trump drew direct criticism from Sen. John McCain and the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Monday for upbraiding the Muslim American parents of an Army officer killed in Iraq in 2004. But the GOP presidential nominee refused to back down from his attacks, and a former aide argued that the soldier would still be alive had Trump been president at the time.

The condemnations by McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a Vietnam veteran who was held captive; and the VFW, a well-known national group with a membership of 1.7 million, served as the most forceful rebuke yet by the military community to Trump’s comments.

The escalating tensions, coming at the start of the general election campaign, were the latest turns in a bitter exchange that is dominating the presidential race and has frayed Trump’s already delicate alliance with GOP leaders.

McCain (R-Ariz.), a respected figure on national security issues in the Republican Party, issued a written statement sternly reprimanding Trump.

“In recent days, Donald Trump disparaged a fallen soldier’s parents,” said McCain, who was taken prisoner during the Vietnam War. “He has suggested that the likes of their son should not be allowed in the United States — to say nothing of entering its service. I cannot emphasize enough how deeply I disagree with Mr. Trump’s statement. I hope Americans understand that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers, or candidates.”

Both Republicans and Democrats are publicly responding to the row between GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump and Khizr Khan. Khan's son was killed while serving in Iraq. Here's what politicians from both parties said. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)

McCain, who has tangled with Trump before, most notably after Trump said last year that McCain was not a war hero because he had been “captured,” added: “While our party has bestowed upon him the nomination, it is not accompanied by unfettered license to defame those who are the best among us.”

Brian Duffy, the recently elected commander-in-chief of the VFW, released a statement saying the organization “will not tolerate anyone berating a Gold Star family member for exercising his or her right of speech or expression.”

Duffy added that “there are certain sacrosanct subjects that no amount of wordsmithing can repair once crossed.”

The admonishments went beyond the words of House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Over the weekend, they expressed support for the Khan family and reiterated their opposition to Trump’s proposed ban on most Muslims. But neither mentioned Trump by name and neither abandoned support for the nominee.

Khizr and Ghazala Khan participated in a round of television interviews Monday morning in which they slammed Trump. Khizr Khan spoke at the Democratic National Conventionlast week, with his wife at his side. The couple’s son, Army Capt. Humayun Khan, waskilled by a car bomber in 2004. He was 27.

“This candidate amazes me — his ignorance,” Khizr Khan said on NBC’s “Today.” “He can get up and malign the entire nation — the religions, the communities, the minorities, the judges. And yet, a private citizen in this political process, in his candidacy for the stewardship for this country — I cannot say what I feel? That proves the point: He has not read the Constitution of this country.”

These Republicans refuse to vote for Donald Trump




Ghazala Khan, who teared up in one interview, rejected Trump’s suggestion in an interview with ABC News that she may not have been “allowed” to speak during her Democratic National Convention appearance.

“It doesn’t have to do anything with my religion,” she said on “Today.” She wrote in aWashington Post op-ed that she is still experiencing raw emotions about her son’s death and could not bring herself to speak at the convention.

Trump took to Twitter on Monday morning to lash out against Khizr Khan and the media. He argued that “radical Islamic terrorism,” not Khan, should be the focus of his exchange — just minutes after slamming Khan.

“Mr. Khan, who does not know me, viciously attacked me from the stage of the DNC and is now all over TV doing the same — Nice!” Trump said in his initial tweet.

On Saturday, Trump issued a statement saying, “While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr. Khan who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things.”

Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s former campaign manager, defended his ex-boss Monday and argued that the Khans’ son would still be alive if Trump had been president.

“Their son is a hero. And every person who has ever died fighting for our country and their families are heroes,” Lewandowski said on CNN, which employs him as a paid contributor. “The difference is, we’ve got 7,000 soldiers who died, $6 trillion wasted in wars overseas and, if Donald Trump was the president, we would never have had, and Captain Khan would be alive today.”

Trump regularly casts himself as an early critic of the Iraq War. The Post’s Fact Checkerfound that there is “no sign that Trump opposed the invasion or was vocal about it prior to the invasion.”
Lewandowski was fired by Trump in June.

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has vigorously defended the Khans. She tweeted a link to Ghazala Khan’s op-ed on Sunday night with the words: “Your courage is inspiring, Mrs. Khan — and you’re right.”

Family members of 17 service members killed in the line of duty wrote a letter to Trump calling his comments about the Khan family “repugnant” and demanding an apology. The letter was coordinated by Karen Meredith of the group VoteVets, which is aligned with Democratic candidates.

Late Sunday, Trump supporters, including longtime adviser Roger Stone, circulated unsubstantiated accusations from an anti-Islam website about Khizr Khan. Stone tweeted a link to a post that, among other things, accuses Khan of being a “Muslim Brotherhood agent who wants to advance sharia law.”

Both Khans forcefully denounced terrorism Sunday, and Ghazala Khan said Trump is ignorant when it comes to understanding Muslims. “If he studied the real Islam and Koran, all the ideas he gets from terrorists would change, because terrorism is a different religion,” she wrote.

Katie Zezima contributed to this report.

The Content of Donald Trump’s Character


Consortiumnews

July 28, 2016

Exclusive: Though some anti-war Americans see hope that Donald Trump would pull back from foreign wars, they also must face his undeniable record of racial and sexist bigotry, writes Marjorie Cohn.
By Marjorie Cohn

In his acceptance speech for the Republican presidential nomination, Donald Trump declared, “My Dad, Fred Trump, was the smartest and hardest working man I ever knew. . . . It’s because of him that I learned, from my youngest age, to respect the dignity of work and the dignity of working people.”

Donald apparently forgot what his father taught him. The GOP nominee refuses to pay the people who work for him. “Among them: a dishwasher in Florida. A glass company in New Jersey. A carpet company. A plumber. Painters. Forty-eight waiters. Dozens of bartenders and other hourly workers at his resorts and clubs, coast to coast. Real estate brokers who sold his properties. And, ironically, several law firms that once represented him in these suits and others,” wrote Steve Reilly in USA Today.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.Moreover, Fred Trump, “the smartest” man his son ever knew, did not respect the dignity of black people. The legendary folk singer Woody Guthrie rented an apartment in the elder Trump’s Brooklyn complex in 1950. It turned out blacks were not welcome there.

University of Central Lancashire professor Will Kaufman, a student of Guthrie’s life and songs, noted that Guthrie thought “Fred Trump was one who stirs up racial hate, and implicitly profits from it,” lamenting “the bigotry that pervaded his new, lily-white neighborhood.”

Guthrie responded to Fred Trump’s bigotry with this song:

I suppose
Old Man Trump knows
Just how much
Racial Hate
He stirred up
In the bloodpot of human hearts
When he drawed
That color line
Here at his Eighteen hundred family project
The acorn did not fall far from the tree of racial prejudice. In 1973, the Nixon Justice Department sued Fred and Donald Trump for systematic discrimination against African-Americans in housing rentals.

The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof cited the Trumps’ former building superintendent who said he was told to code rental applications with a “C” for colored, which would flag the office to reject the application.

The Trumps only rented to “Jews and executives,” not blacks, according to a rental agent.
Kip Brown, a former Trump casino owner, told the New Yorker, “When Donald and [former wife] Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor.  . . . They put us all in the back.”

In his 1991 book, John O’Donnell, former president of the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Donald Trump as saying “laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”

The ‘Mexican’ Judge

Trump’s racial animus is not confined to African-Americans. He has vowed to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, calling Mexican immigrants “in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists”; build a wall on the southern U.S. border to keep people out; and temporarily forbid Muslims from entering the United States.

President Barack Obama bending over so a boy visiting the Oval Office could feel that the President’s hair was like his. (White House photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama bending over so a boy visiting the Oval Office could feel that the President's hair was like his. (White House photo by Pete Souza)At one of his rallies, Trump condescendingly pointed to a black man in the crowd, saying, “Oh, look at my African-American over here – look at him.”

And Trump denounced Gonzalo Curiel, a well-respected federal judge of Mexican heritage who is presiding over a lawsuit in San Diego filed by people claiming they were scammed by Trump University. After Curiel unsealed documents, Trump declared that Curiel had “an absolute conflict” that should disqualify him from the case. Trump’s reason: “He is a Mexican,” adding, “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest.”

Trump’s overriding theme, “Make America Great Again,” is a euphemism for “Make America White Again.” Indeed, Trump was a founder of the birther movement, whose aim was to discredit Barack Obama by claiming he was born in Kenya, thus stoking racist attacks throughout his presidency. That movement evolved into the Trump for president campaign, which is steeped in racial hatred.

As Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in her speech at the Democratic National Convention, Trump pits blacks against whites, reminiscent of what occurred during the era of Jim Crow. She quoted Dr. Martin Luther King’s remarks about how poor white workers in the South were told, “No matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man,” noting, “Racial hatred was part of keeping the powerful on top.”

Trump is sexist as well as racist. His comments about women reveal his misogyny. He has referred to women as “dog,” “fat pig,” “slob,” “degenerate” and “disgusting animal.” And Trump disgustingly said of Megan Kelly, “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”
The GOP nominee has no more respect for the disabled than he does for women, workers and people of color, publicly mocking a reporter with a disability.

And although he declared in his acceptance speech that he would “protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology,” Trump said nothing about protecting them from the hateful ideology within the United States.

The next president may fill three or four seats on the Supreme Court. Trump has vowed to nominate justices like Antonin Scalia, who said during oral argument in the affirmative action case, Fisher v. University of Texas, that he was not “impressed by the fact that the University of Texas may have fewer” black students.

Scalia added, “Maybe it ought to have fewer. I don’t think it stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.”

Scalia opposed reproductive rights, universal health care, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, voting rights, immigrants’ rights, labor rights, LGBT rights and environmental protection. Trump, who has said he will pick his judicial nominations from lists drawn up by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, could move the high court radically to the right for decades to come.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. famously said he hoped his children would not be judged by the color of their skin, but rather “by the content of their character.” Donald Trump’s character is racist, sexist, and just downright mean. A Trump presidency would pose an unimaginable danger to the people of this country.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and a former president of the National Lawyers Guild. Her most recent book is “Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.” Visit her website athttp://marjoriecohn.com/ and follow her on Twitter at https://twitter.com/marjoriecohn.
While on the one hand, it would be a mistake for Washington and its NATO allies to assume that Putin has abandoned his long-term goal of dominating Russia’s “near abroad,” particularly the Baltic littoral and Ukraine — he’s already paid a high price at home and abroad to prevent Ukraine from slipping any further into NATO’s orbit. But it would also be wrong to conclude that Putin’s recent personnel changes in the Baltic military command structure are not meant to scale back the escalating tensions in the Baltic region. 

These very tensions have inspired an unprecedented level ofmilitary cooperation among Swedes, Finns, Germans, Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians, not to mention the United States.

Moreover, Russia’s deteriorating economy, its costly defense buildup, and unrelenting war with Turkic Islamists in the Northern Caucasus may now incline Moscow toward a strategic accommodation with the West. If so, Ukraine may be a good place to begin.

In contrast to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, Ukraine is not a NATO member; it’s currently a political no-man’s land wedged uncomfortably between NATO and Russia. Putin justifies his actions in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine by insisting that, “if we do nothing, then at some point, guided by the same principles, NATO will drag Ukraine in.” Putin’s statement makes clear that Russia does not want to lose control of the southeastern half of the oil-rich Donbass along with access to the Caspian Sea and Moscow’s ally, Iran. More important, many of Putin’s comments at news conferences and in public speeches equate NATO’s threat with NATO expansion, implying that he may be receptive to a guarantee from the United States (and NATO’s 28 member states), that the West will not insist on incorporating 35-40 million incurably anti-Russian Ukrainians into NATO.

In considering strategic solutions that would satisfy Western, Ukrainian, and Russian strategic interests, and guarantee both Ukrainian independence and Russian national NATO security interests, few examples of successful agreements on territorial and political governance come to mind. Yet one stands out: the Austrian State Treaty.

Signed in 1955, the Austrian State Treaty was designed to reestablish Austria as a separate, independent state. To attain this goal, representatives of the governments of the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States, and France agreed that in exchange for the restoration of Austrian national sovereignty and political independence, the Austrian Republic would declare its total and unconditional neutrality. 

(Additional provisions in the treaty prohibited unification with Germany or the restoration of the Habsburg monarchy ensuring both Austria’s sovereignty and democratic future.) Specific language safeguarding minority rights for Austria’s Croatian and Slovenian citizens was also included. Though Austria’s neutrality was not explicitly promised in the text of the treaty, the Austrian government agreed to declare neutrality in October 1955 after all four Allied countries withdrew their troops from Austrian territory, which had been partitioned into occupation zones since the end of World War II. Austria’s parliament enacted neutrality, as well as a ban on all foreign military bases, on Oct. 26, 1955.

Austria’s model of neutrality restored Austrian independence and provided the Soviets and the western Allies with security arrangements that both sides considered to be essential. The Soviets incorporated its conquered territories into the Warsaw Pact alliance while the West German state became part of NATO. War was avoided and today, the Warsaw Pact’s former members are in the European Union and Austria has 18 representatives in the European Parliament. Under the circumstances it seems reasonable to ask whether a similar, contemporary “Ukrainian State Treaty” modeled on the Austrian precedent could perform a similar service for Europe.

Ukrainian neutrality would certainly provide Putin with the conditions he insists Russia actually wants — a permanent barrier to NATO’s eastward advancement. A Ukrainian state treaty that includes provisions banning all foreign bases and all foreign forces on Ukrainian territory should allay Moscow’s fear that Ukraine could become a platform for the projection of Western military power into Eastern Europe. New territorial arrangements that allow Ukraine to shed territory it no longer controls — territory populated with ethnic Russians — in return for Moscow’s commitment to end hostilities and recognize the inviolability of Ukraine’s borders would allow Ukraine to focus its efforts on building a free and prosperous society.A free, independent Ukraine at peace with Russia would likely attract massive investment from the West.

For its part, Moscow would have to agree to demilitarize its border with Ukraine and promise not to interfere with the conduct of Ukraine’s internal affairs. Moscow would also have to commit itself to the regulated, but free and uninterrupted movement of commerce and people across the Russo-Ukrainian Border. Russians or Ukrainians who opt to move to new locations as a result of the territorial arrangements could be assisted and compensated by the parties to the agreement. Specific language guaranteeing minority rights to Ukraine’s native Russians and to its many other minorities could be modeled on the language in the Austrian State Treaty.

Once a Ukrainian state treaty is signed and hostilities are ended, the West’s economic sanctions could be lifted. Moreover, Moscow could withdraw its forces from its western borders and concentrate instead on defeating Islamist terrorism inside and along Russia’s periphery. The treaty would also enable Moscow to influence the deteriorating situation around Christian Armenia and keep pressure on Islamist Turkey.

Strategically, it’s an offer Putin might well accept. Putin gets to keep what he already controls and neutralizes an alleged threat to Russia. He can present the outcome as a “win” for Russia. For the West, a Ukrainian state treaty provides a more profound strategic bargain; it creates the foundation for enduring regional stability when viewed in the context of Moscow’s currentminimal requirements — that Ukraine pass a constitutional amendment on the special status of the Russian-controlled territory, an amnesty of the crimes of Russia’s armed proxies, and a special law on elections in that territory.

These points notwithstanding, if Moscow rejects Washington’s and NATO’s willingness to forgo the notion that “all nations have the right to freely associate with EU or NATO” in favor of Austrian-style neutrality for Ukraine, then, Moscow is effectively demonstrating its malevolent intentions towards Ukraine, Moldova and, for that matter, toward any state along Russia’s borders that seeks to maintain its political independence. Perhaps even more important, Moscow’s rejection of Ukrainian neutrality would constitute a severe slap-in-the-face for the German left as well as NATO’s southern European allies. These actors insist that Washington, not Moscow, is the source of trouble in Kiev and that Moscow’s interests are being treated unfairly.

Kiev’s reaction is more difficult to gauge. No doubt some Ukrainians will regard the treaty proposal as a concession to Moscow that puts Ukrainian independence at risk. Unfortunately, there is no certainty that NATO’s leaders will be any more willing to risk a direct military confrontation with Russia in the future than they are today. In fact, the opposite may well be the case.

There is, of course, no certainty that a future president can stand up to the forces of Washington’s neo-Wilsonian internationalists who want the United States and its allies to press for Ukrainian membership in NATO. These liberal internationalists will dismiss the “Austrian” alternative to eventual Ukrainian membership in NATO as a de facto acceptance of “spheres of influence,” a concept that Moscow and Beijing advocate.

Timing may turn out to be right for an accommodation between disputing parties — in this case, Moscow, Washington, NATO, and Kiev — that avoids war and allows life to go on. However, unless the next president is willing to explore the possibility, the West will not know just what Putin is prepared to accept — at least not until Russian ground forces move west across the Dnieper River.
Photo credit: Dmitry Azarov/Kommersant Photo via Getty Images