Obama hands Israel the largest military aid deal in history

Why is Obama showering Israel with billions more in military aid? Pete SouzaThe White House

Rania Khalek-14 September 2016

The Obama administration has signed a $38 billion military aid pact with Israel in what the State Departmentboasts is the “single largest pledge of bilateral military assistance in US history.”

The record agreement will provide Israel with $3.8 billion annually over 10 years beginning in 2019, up from $3.1 billion under the current deal.

At a time when the US government supposedly can’t afford to provide poor and working Americans with basic services like universal health care – something Israelis enjoy – it is striking that there is always money available to enable Israel’s ongoing destruction of Palestine.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who has expressed opposition to universal health care and free college tuition, cheered the aid deal.

“Senator [Tim] Kaine and I applaud the agreement on a new memorandum of understanding regarding American security assistance to Israel,” said Clinton in a statement released by her campaign.

Clinton also used the deal as an opportunity to saber-rattle against Iran, show off her military hawkishness against ISIS and reiterate her commitment to combating growing activism against Israel’s criminal conduct, which Israel refers to as “delegitimization.”

“The agreement will help solidify and chart a course for the US-Israeli defense relationship in the 21st century as we face a range of common challenges, from Iran’s destabilizing activities to the threats from ISIS and radical jihadism, and efforts to delegitimize Israel on the world stage,” she said, reiterating her January promise to “take our relationship to the next level.”

“Legacy”

President Barack Obama didn’t have to do this. It’s not as though he needs to appease the Israel lobby. He isn’t running for re-election.

And Americans, especially liberal and younger Democrats, are increasingly opposed to Israel’s violations of Palestinian rights.

In fact, with just a few months left in office, Obama was uniquely positioned to use massive US leverage to pressure Israel into halting its crimes against the Palestinians. At the very least, he could have refrained from upping the ante.

So why then is he showering Israel with more weapons?

“Obama’s aides want a new deal before his presidency ends, seeing it as an important part of his legacy. Republican critics accuse him of not being attentive enough to Israel’s security, which the White House strongly denies,” reported Reuters.

And what a legacy it will be.

Obama has doomed Palestinians to an extra decade of suffocating repression, ethnic cleansing and periodic slaughter at the hands of a government increasingly made up of racists, fascists and genocide enthusiasts whose demagoguery rivals that of Donald Trump.

The idea of funneling even more weapons to Israeli defense minister Avigdor Lieberman, who called forbeheading Palestinian citizens of Israel for disloyalty to the state, is alarming.

Lieberman is currently executing a campaign of collective punishment against the families and towns of Palestinians accused of committing crimes against Israelis.

Lieberman works alongside people like Ayelet Shaked, who was appointed justice minister after endorsing a genocidal call to slaughter Palestinian mothers in their beds to prevent them from birthing “little snakes.”

During his administration, Obama has responded to this rising fanaticism among Israeli senior leadership officials with more weapons and diplomatic cover.

With this latest aid deal Obama is guaranteeing the capacity of people like Lieberman and Shaked to carry out their eliminationist goals long after he leaves office.

But surely Palestinians will understand the importance of their sacrifice in advancing Obama’s appeasement of his right-wing critics. After all, Obama’s legacy is at stake.

Contradictions

The signing of the deal comes just days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused those opposed to Jewish-only settlements in the occupied West Bank – built in flagrant violation of international law – of supporting the ethnic cleansing of Jews.

In a rare move, the US State Department rebuked Netanyahu, noting that Israel is the one forcibly displacing Palestinians in the occupied West Bank to make room for settlements.

Such concerns ring hollow in light of the new deal, which is unconditional as far as human rights violations are concerned.

“Concessions”?

Media outlets are describing certain stipulations in the aid deal, which took some 10 months to negotiate, as “major” “concessions” on Israel’s part.

Past deals have allowed Israel to spend 26.3 percent of US military aid on its own weapons industry. The new memorandum of understanding gradually reduces that amount, ultimately requiring Israel to purchase only from US weapons companies. In essence, it’s a gigantic giveaway to the US defense industry.

This particular Israeli “concession” won’t halt the destruction of Palestine, but it does represent a minor setback for Israel’s defense industry, which anticipates hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue as a result.

“We in the defense industry stand to lose $1.2 billion to $1.3 billion a year, including the $500 million Congress has allocated for special projects,” an Israeli defense industry source complained to the Tel Aviv newspaperHaaretz last month in reference to the measure.

The deal also includes an Israeli pledge to stop lobbying Congress for supplemental missile defense funding, which in recent years has accounted for as much as an additional $600 million for Israel in discretionary US funding each year.

But there are loopholes.

The pledge is “expected to be made in a side letter or annex to the agreement” and the “wording is likely to be flexible enough to allow exceptions in case of a war or other major crisis,” according to Reuters.

Whether it is US or Israeli weapons makers who benefit, Palestinians lose.

As Rebecca Vilkomerson, the executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace, put it, “increasing the military aid package is rewarding destructive Israeli behavior that violates longstanding official US policy and international law. As a result, the US is effectively underwriting Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies towards the Palestinians.”

WORLD: Indian authorities prevent Kashmiri human rights defender Khurram Parvez from travelling to Geneva for U.N. Human Rights Council session

Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD)
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
Human Rights Defenders Alert – India (HRDA)
International Coalition Against Enforced Disappearances (ICAED)
Odhikar
The Observatory

Joint Press Release

September 15, 2016

Bangkok-Dhaka-Geneva-Madurai-Paris-Quezon City, September 15, 2016 – Our organisations condemn the arbitrary travel ban imposed on Kashmiri human rights defender Mr. Khurram Parvez, who was prohibited from leaving India as he was about to travel to Geneva, Switzerland to participate in the 33rd session of the United Nations' Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

At 1:30 a.m. on September 14, 2016, Mr. Khurram Parvez was stopped by immigration officials at the Indira Gandhi International airport in Delhi and prevented from leaving the country to attend the current UNHRC session. Mr. Parvez was detained for one and a half hours at the airport, and subsequently told that the Intelligence Bureau of India had ordered that he was not allowed to travel, despite having an invitation letter and a valid visa to travel to Geneva. Mr. Parvez repeatedly asked for an explanation for why he was being denied the right to travel and asked to see written proof of the orders from the Intelligence Bureau, but the authorities refused to provide him with either. Immigration officers simply told Mr. Parvez that they had instructions that he was not to be ‘arrested’ but that he should not be allowed to leave the country.

Mr. Parvez is the Chairperson of the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD) and Program Coordinator of the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS). He was slated to be part of the AFAD & JKCCS delegation visiting Geneva from 14th to 24th September to attend the UNHRC session. While in Geneva, the Kashmiri members of the delegation are scheduled to brief UN bodies including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding the concerning situation in Jammu and Kashmir.

In his work with AFAD and JKCCS, Mr. Parvez has consistently highlighted violations of human rights taking place in India, notably in Jammu and Kashmir. In addition to their planned advocacy work at the current UNHRC session, JKCCS has also recently submitted a report to the UN on the role of the Indian authorities in gross human rights violations taking place in Jammu and Kashmir.

By denying Mr. Parvez the right to travel to Geneva to participate at the UNHRC session, the Indian Government is disregarding its obligation to uphold international human rights principles, notably the right of civil society members to be represented and engage with UN mechanisms, as enshrined in the 1998 UN Declaration of human rights defenders and several resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly.

It is especially concerning that India is engaging in such repression in the wake of a statement made yesterday by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, wherein he expressed regret at India’s lack of cooperation with international human rights mechanisms, particularly with respect to Kashmir. The Government of India continues to out-rightly refuse to give the UN permission to conduct a fact-finding mission in Kashmir, despite widespread accusations of serious human rights violations by security personnel in the region.

The travel ban imposed on Khurram Parvez is the latest attempt by the Indian Government to censor the human rights situation in Kashmir and to isolate the Kashmiri people, notably human rights defenders working on this important issue. Especially given that India is presently a member of the UN Human Rights Council, the international community cannot stay silent in the face of such disregard of its human rights obligations.

Our organisations condemn the travel ban against Mr. Parvez, and call on the Indian authorities to respect his personal liberty, his right to travel freely, notably to participate in meetings at the UN. Additionally, we demand an end to the harassment of human rights defenders and that the Indian government remove all legal and administrative barriers that impede their legitimate work on human rights. We also call on the international community, notably the other members of the UN Human Rights Council, to insist that India comply with its human rights obligations, including by allowing Indian human rights defenders to freely engage in their work, and by fully cooperating with the UN requests for access to Kashmir and elsewhere in the country.

The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (The Observatory) was created in 1997 by FIDH and OMCT. The objective of this programme is to intervene to prevent or remedy situations of repression against human rights defenders. FIDH and OMCT are both members ofProtectDefenders.eu, the European Union Human Rights Defenders Mechanism implemented by international civil society.

The Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD) is a federation of human rights organizations working directly on the issue of involuntary disappearances in Asia. Envisioning a world without desaparecidos, AFAD was founded on June 4, 1998 in Manila, Philippines.

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) works towards the radical rethinking and fundamental redesigning of justice institutions in order to protect and promote human rights in Asia. 

Established in 1984, the Hong Kong based organisation is a Laureate of the Right Livelihood Award 2014.

FORUM-ASIA is a regional human rights group with 58 member organisations in 19 countries across Asia. FORUM-ASIA addresses key areas of human rights violations in the region, including freedoms of expression, assembly and association, human rights defenders, and democratisation. FORUM-ASIA operates through its offices in Bangkok, Jakarta, Geneva and Kathmandu.

Human Rights Defenders Alert – India (HRDA) is a national network of human rights defenders for human rights defenders. HRDA intervenes in the cases of threats/harassment/attack on HRDs and curbing of freedom of expression, assembly and association.

The International Coalition Against Enforced Disappearances (ICAED) is a network of 42 member organisations concerned with the issue of human rights and the struggle against enforced disappearances. The principal objective of ICAED is maximising impact of the activities carried out by its members in favour of an early ratification and effective implementation of the Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearances.

Odhikar, a human rights organisation based in Dhaka, Bangladesh, was founded in 1994 with the aim to create a wider monitoring and awareness raising system on the abuse of civil and political rights.

For more information, please contact:

• AFAD: Mary Aileen D. Bacalso: +63 2 456 6434 
• AHRC: Md. Ashrafuzzaman: +41 766 382 659 / +852 607 32 807
• FIDH: Arthur Manet / Audrey Couprie: + 33143552518
• FORUM-ASIA: Anjuman Ara Begum: +977 982 381 5517
• HRDA: Mathew Jacob: +91 886 011 0520
• ICAED: Mary Aileen D. Bacalso: +63 917 792 4058
• Odhikar: Adilur Rahman Khan: + 880 29 88 85 87
• OMCT: Delphine Reculeau: +41 22 809 49 34

Tunisian remains date human habitation back to 100,000 years ago

Discovery of flint tools could shed light on spread of Homo sapiens out of Africa

Site of excavations near Tozeur, south-west Tunisia, where Tunisian and British archaeologists found Stone Age tools (AFP)

Friday 16 September 2016

Archaelogists said on Thursday that they have unearthed Stone Age tools which show our human ancestors lived in southern Tunisia nearly 100,000 years ago, long before the species is believed to have migrated to Europe.

The discovery, after 18 months of digging near Tozeur, in south-western Tunisia, could help explain the spread of Homo sapiens from eastern Africa which happened around 65,000 years ago, the team of Tunisian and British scientists said.

The team had identified a "promising" site of around 6,000sq metres (65,000sq ft), said researcher Nabil Guesmi. The artefacts so far unearthed are the oldest evidence of human activity ever discovered in Tunisia, and include flint tools similar to those which early humans in other areas used for hunting.

The researchers, from Tunisia's National Heritage Institute (INP) and the University of Oxford, also found tools from the Middle Stone Age that attest to the presence of Homo sapiens, said Guesmi. "We have found bones that indicate the presence of savannah animals - rhinoceros, zebras - and therefore fresh water," he said.

Guesmi said a technique called thermoluminescence had shown that some of the tools were as old as 92,000 years. The oldest remains of what could be called modern human ancestors were uncovered in Temara, in north-west Morocco, and are thought to date back 160,000 years.

The INP says the new site could yield evidence of early human "passageways", or migration routes, through the region. "We can imagine going further, because the site is relatively large," said Guesmi.

US to pay €1m to family of Italian aid worker killed in drone strike

Landmark deal follows US admission that Giovanni Lo Porto and Warren Weinstein were killed in counter-terrorism mission

 Giovanni Lo Porto (left) and Warren Weinstein, who were held hostage by al-Qaida at the time of their deaths. Photograph: AFP

Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Rome-Friday 16 September 2016

The Obama administration has agreed to pay €1m to the family of an Italian aid worker who was killed in a US drone strike in 2015.

Giovanni Lo Porto, 37, was being held hostage by al-Qaida at the time of his death and his family had been led to believe a month before the strike that he was close to being released.

Last year, the US president, Barack Obama, acknowledged that Lo Porto and an American named Warren Weinstein, 73, had accidentally been killed in a secret counter-terrorism mission.

The payment was confirmed by the US embassy in Rome and Lo Porto’s brother, Daniele. Details of the agreement were first reported by the Italian newspaper La Repubblica.

A spokesman for the US embassy in Rome said the government had confirmed at the time the deaths were announced that it would be providing a condolence payment to both families.

“We did that knowing that no dollar figure would ever bring back their loved ones and, out of respect for the families, we are not sharing any details of those payments,” the spokesman said.

The embassy declined to comment on whether a similar payment was made to the Weinstein family.

The agreement between the US government and the Lo Porto family was signed on 8 July, according to documents obtained by La Repubblica that were shared with the Guardian. The payment – €1,185,000 in total – was considered a “donation in the memory of Giovanni Lo Porto”.

The agreement was signed by a diplomat named Garrett Stephen Wayne, in his role as financial management centre director of the US embassy in Rome. The agreement clarified that Lo Porto was killed in Pakistan. The White House acknowledged at the time of the announcement that he was killed in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The payment was made to Lo Porto’s mother, Giusy, who lives in Palermo, and his father, Vito.

The agreement includes this stipulation: “This does not imply the consent by the United States of America to the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Italian courts in disputes, if any, directly or indirectly connected with this instrument. Nothing in this instrument implies a waiver to sovereign or personal immunity.”

In a statement, Lo Porto’s mother expressed her sorrow about his death: “I will not see my son at home with his smile. They took my precious son and they also killed me. Now all that remains for me is to wait until the last day of my life for divine, not earthly, justice.”

The White House acknowledged the US killed Lo Porto and Weinstein last April, four months after the drone strike in January against an al-Qaida compound in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. The admission was made only days after the Italian prime minister, Matteo Renzi, visited the White House.

Barack Obama makes a statement about the death of the two hostages at the White House in April 2015. Photograph: EPA

The US government announced in July that drone and other airstrikes have killed between 64 and 116 civilians during Obama’s administration, a tally that was criticised as too low by some experts.

Between 2009 and 31 December 2015, the administration claimed that it launched 473 strikes, mostly with drones, that killed between 2,372 and 2,581 terrorist “combatants”.

A report in the Washington Post last year said the CIA was investigating a “surveillance lapse” as part of an internal investigation into the killing of Weinstein. Citing US officials, the report said footage examined before the lethal drone strike showed a possible hostage in the area.

In an interview with the Guardian earlier this year, Daniele Lo Porto said his family felt abandoned by Italian and US officials, who never got in touch again after the initial round of public condolences.

It is unclear why the US agreed to make the payment in July and the embassy declined to provide any further details about the transaction.

Birther issue reborn: Trump to make statement on Obama birth

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks to the Economic Club of New York luncheon in Manhattan, New York, U.S., September 15, 2016. REUTERS/Mike Segar

 Fri Sep 16, 2016

Republican Donald Trump said he planned to address President Barack Obama's citizenship on Friday, prompting a call from Democratic rival Hillary Clinton to apologize for reviving the so-called birther movement which questions whether Obama was born in the United States.

"I'm going to have a big announcement on it today," Trump said in an interview with Fox Business Network, a day after he refused in a newspaper interview to say whether he believed Obama was born in the United States.

Trump was due to discuss the issue in a speech at a new hotel his company is opening in Washington.

The New York businessman several years ago led the birther movement aimed at Obama, who was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father.

The issue has not been a major factor in the campaign for the Nov. 8 presidential election and by bringing it up again Trump takes the focus of his campaign away from topics such as immigration, trade and the economy, which he has been using to hit Clinton.

Trump has recovered ground against Clinton in recent national opinion polls after revamping his campaign staff in August and taking steps to give a more polished performance on the campaign trail.

But the birther movement, which casts doubt over whether Obama is legally able to be president, incenses black Americans whose votes Trump has been trying to court.

"Barack Obama was born in America, plain and simple, and Donald Trump owes him and the American people an apology," Clinton said in an address to the Black Women's Association in Washington. She said Trump was trying "to delegitimize our first black president."

A few years into his presidency, Obama, the first African American to win the White House, released a longer version of his birth certificate to answer those who suggested he was not U.S. born.

Trump on Thursday declined to say whether he believed Obama was born in Hawaii during an interview with The Washington Post.

"I’ll answer that question at the right time. I just don’t want to answer it yet," Trump told the newspaper.

His campaign released a statement later in the day saying the candidate is convinced of the legitimacy of Obama's presidency. A U.S. president must be a natural-born citizen.

"In 2011, Mr. Trump was finally able to bring this ugly incident to its conclusion by successfully compelling President Obama to release his birth certificate," Trump spokesman Jason Miller said in the statement.

"Having successfully obtained President Obama’s birth certificate when others could not, Mr. Trump believes that President Obama was born in the United States," he said.

(Reporting by Doina Chiacu and Susan Heavey; Editing by Alistair Bell)

Pakistani Christians with False Hopes of Refugee Status

Religious minorities in Pakistan are persecuted under stringent blasphemy law.

Photo: www.ndtv.com (2013)-#WeAreOne

Sep-12-2016

(ISLAMABAD) - Religious extremism has gone to its peak since Afghan refugees entered Pakistan. Due to terrorism, Pakistan has lost thousands of its precious lives and properties. Religious-banned outfits have attacked schools, worship places, parks and even law enforcement agencies and their places.

In past years, those militant organizations have targeted religious minorities especially Christians. In the latest episode, four suicide bombers wearing suicide vests and carrying latest firearms attacked the Christian Colony at Warsak Dam, Peshawar but due to the prompt action by security forces they were saved.

The Army Chief General Raheel Sharif played an aggressive role in combating terrorism in Pakistan and due to his proactive approach the ratio has been decreased.

According to the recent statement by DG ISPR Lt. Gen Asim Bajwa, “Pakistan Army has eliminated the militants groups in the country.”

But the very next day, the spokesperson for TTP JA, Ehsanullah Ehsan said, “We have carried out the attack.”

He said the attack was a response to the Army’s spokesperson (Lt. Gen Asim Bajwa’s) press Conference who said yesterday that militant groups had been eliminated.

Religious minorities in Pakistan are already persecuted under stringent blasphemy law.

Since military dictator General Zia ul Haq added new clauses in the law, minorities in the country feel insecure. Usually this law is misused and results in many people including Muslims either being killed or suffering in the prisons.

In this critical condition, militant groups turned to attack Christians. Twin blasts in the Peshawar Church killed more than 80 worshipers and left many injured.

Two churches were attacked in Youhanabad, Lahore killing dozens of worshipers and many more were injured. Later on the occasion of Easter festivity, a suicide bomb blast in Iqbal Park, Lahore again killed many innocent people.

As a result of this difficult living environment, four years ago, persecuted Pakistani Christians started reaching Thailand, seeking resettlement in the West.

Thailand was one of the few countries that allow Pakistani easy entry as tourists. Now, nearly 10,000 Pakistani are gathered in Bangkok, and now most of them are living an underground existence.

Alas, the UNHCR offered false hope. The typical refugee waits years just for an interview, the first step to receiving official refugee status. So far, no one among them has moved on to Europe, America or anywhere else.

In the meantime, Pakistan Today reported that the Hong Kong delegation has contacted the Interior Ministry to take up the issue of the increasing number of illegal Pakistani immigrants sneaking into Hong Kong with false hopes of “refugee status”.

According to sources, the Thai government did the same about the Pakistani immigrants. Religious minorities in Pakistan face persecution. Christians are disproportionately targeted by blasphemy laws, often as retaliation for commercial and personal disputes.

Sectarian murderers are publicly supported and applauded. Public response after the hanging of Mumtaz Qadri is a good example. The Government has failed to protect victims and a “deep-rooted climate of impunity.”

Discriminatory attitude, sectarian threats and attacks have driven many Christians from their homes. Asylum seekers are struck in Thailand and other neighboring countries and endure a tenuous existence.

On arrival, the UNHCR typically gives them an appointment set a year or two in the future; the date often is delayed as the appointment approaches.

Once their visa expires, the asylum hopefuls are unable to work legally and subject to arrest whenever they leave home.

The Thai authorities stake out neighborhoods and raid apartments where refugees are believed to live. Hundreds of unlucky asylum seekers have been ended up in detention and some even died during the mean time.

Some welfare organizations do their best to help refugees, providing food, sundries and legal aid. But those can only assist a limited number of families.

Much of the inward flow of families ebbed after word returned to Pakistan that there is no easy exit from Thailand, those already arrived are essentially trapped. They have sold their possessions. But they see no path forward either.

The European and the U.S. have accommodated millions of Afghan, Syrians and Egyptian Muslims in their countries; resultant facing terrorist attacks in their countries. Why can’t they bear the people with the same faith and values?

The only feasible solution is that the UNHCR High Commissioner is supposed to make a designation with 90 days and should take up this issue on priority basis.

The U.S. and other European Countries should admit people who are not only in desperate need, but “who share the same faith and values” as the people persecuted for their faith, as among the best candidates to receive asylum.

_________________________________________

Shamim Masih is a Christian rights activist and freelancer Pakistani journalist specializing in writing about Christians rights for different papers around the world. "My aim is to create a peaceful environment in the society and to help eliminate Christian persecution through my writing as I bring the plight of these brave people under the spotlight of the whole world."
Shamim Masih was born in Sheikhopura's village and raised in Gujranwala, a city in Pakistan's Punjab province. He earned his Bachelors Degree from the University of the Punjab, Lahore majoring in English, Economics and Statistics; he also received a Masters Degree in Business Administration.
As a freelance writer and author, Shamim has written for different papers in the world; his expertise is in writing articles highlighting different social issues. He has served as freelance chief reporter and column writer in “Minority Times” in Islamabad, and a number of Shamim's articles have been published in local papers as well.

You can write to Shamim at: shamimpakistan@gmail.com
Journalist, Blogger and Social Reformer
http://oiwerk.blogspot.com/

New study questions Type 2 diabetes treatment

No evidence glucose-lowering drugs help ward off long-term complications, researchers say

Most medical experts advise Type 2 diabetes patients to tightly control their blood sugar level to reduce the risk of death, stroke, kidney failure, blindness and other dire outcomes associated with the illness, but researchers found no evidence to support this. (File Photo)

By Kelly Crowe- Sep 15, 2016

It's a curious case of missing evidence. When a diabetes specialist searched the medical literature looking for proof to support the use of glucose-lowering drugs for Type 2 diabetes, he couldn't find it.

That absence of evidence raises questions about one of the most firmly entrenched beliefs in modern medicine — that tightly controlling elevated blood sugar will reduce the risk of death, stroke, kidney failure, blindness and other dire outcomes associated with Type 2 diabetes.

"Does controlling your sugars reduce the risk of complications?" Dr. Victor Montori, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., asked in a paper released this month in the journal Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. "Most experts say yes. The evidence appears to say 'not so fast.'"

Conventional wisdom challenged

Right now, millions of people are taking glucose-lowering drugs, routinely pricking their finger to check their blood sugar level, and fretting over test results that aren't as low as their doctor wants them to be in hopes of avoiding the dire outcomes associated with the disease.

But with the drugs comes the risk of side-effects including weight gain and, if blood sugar falls too low, dizziness, coma or even death.

'Our thinking about it may have been flawed.'- Dr. Victor Montori, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

Add to that the distress of being branded with a "disease" based on a routine blood test, even though most of the people diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes have no symptoms.

"We have taken for granted or assumed that the evidence was very clear that if you control you blood sugars tightly, you will prevent diabetes complications," Montori said. "The answer is less clear than expected and, as a result, it would suggest that our thinking about it may have been flawed."

His conclusions challenge the conventional wisdom of many medical specialists, and contradict most clinical practice guidelines.

"Over 90 per cent of experts were saying that controlling blood sugars tightly was associated with a reduction in your risk of going blind or of needing dialysis or having to undergo an amputation," Montori said. "But when we looked at the evidence for that, we could not see any signal that would suggest that is true despite the question being asked at least since the 1970s."

Dr. Victor Montori, of the Mayo Clinic, is calling for a review of the standard approach to treating Type 2 diabetes. (Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn.)

The finding reveals a divergence in professional opinion based on the same set of facts, and it exposes a dilemma in the science of Type 2 diabetes — that doctors don't completely understand the relationship between blood sugar and the disease.

"There is lots of debate and discussion as to what exactly is the causal relationship," said Dr. Hertzel Gerstein, diabetes researcher at McMaster University in Hamilton.

It's possible that some other mechanism, or a combination of factors besides high blood sugar is responsible for potential long-term complications.

'We have to make recommendations based on incomplete evidence.'- Dr. Hertzel Gerstein, McMaster University 

"We know, for instance, that the higher the blood sugar the higher the risk of heart attacks, the higher the risk of cancer, the higher the risk of strokes," Gerstein said. "But whether other things related to the diabetes are causing those things is not known."

Gerstein said doctors are forced to "make recommendations based on incomplete evidence and some of the trials have not answered all of the questions."

Call for better evidence

But the uncertainty is serious enough to require a change in the way Type 2 diabetes drugs are approved, according to a research group at the University of British Columbia.

The UBC Therapeutics Initiative has called on Health Canada to demand better evidence that glucose-lowering drugs improve long-term outcomes before the drugs are approved.

"All we truly know is that the drugs reduce blood glucose in the short term. That's the basis of the evidence. So clinicians and patients are taking a bit of a leap in faith that this will translate into reductions in Type 2 diabetes-related complications," said Cait O'Sullivan, a member of the Therapeutics Initiative research team.

There is a risk that all of the attention on blood sugar levels is distracting researchers from pursuing new leads. If doctors check the shelf for other medications that do something beyond glucose control, they will find that medical cupboard is bare, Montori said. 

"We have over nine different drug classes that can control blood sugars," he said. But, he added, there is no such list of therapies that try to treat Type 2 diabetes in a different way. "That suggests to me that we have a blind spot, and I think that may have come from the fact that all of our experts have concluded — I think prematurely — that the answer is in."

• Diabetes cases quadruple to 422 million: WHO

Remembering, celebrating and missing Sunila Abeysekera

Featured image courtesy the New York Times/Patricia Williams

RUKI FERNANDO on 09/09/2016

Ever since Sunila passed away 3 years ago, I have wanted to write about her, but found it difficult to articulate my experiences and feelings. There’s much that has been said by many about her. Among these, what Dayapala Thiranagama wrote about her two years ago has remained in my memory, as it captures much of the Sunila I knew, remember, celebrate and miss.

Below are some excerpts of how Dayapala, describes his first encounter with Sunila which led to their long years of friendship.

“I was waiting in my cell for yet another excruciating round of torture, which I had been subjected to since I had been abducted two weeks ago from my university boarding house. All of a sudden, a young, smartly dressed woman, of middle class appearance was standing in front of my police cell. She called me by name. This was the first visitor I had seen since my capture. CID had not recorded my abduction or my presence in the police station and did not allow anyone to see me. My torturers told me that I would not be going home this time. Sunila and I started our friendship in these extraordinary circumstances. Her courageous presence before my police cell, even for a few minutes, ensured that there was a witness to my abduction and torture.”

He goes on to say “She used to visit detainees at police stations, prisons and other places such as those who were living underground, to offer vital support to them when necessary. Such visits had a profound effect on those she helped. Much of the help she gave others was not widely (known) but was invaluable to those people. One such example was her support and help when my wife Rajani was assassinated by the LTTE. I was still underground and Sunila undertook the most difficult task of organising my safe passage to Jaffna to attend Rajani’s funeral. Sunila also led a group of activists from the South to join a protest march in Jaffna town one month after Rajani’s assassination. In Colombo Sunila organised a commemoration meeting around that time.”

Sunila was probably the most sought after, celebrated and well known Sri Lankan human rights and women’s rights activist nationally and internationally in recent times. She won prestigious awards and held many positions. But that is not what I remember her for.

Her approach to activism – and I mean practice, not preaching or teaching – has had a profound influence on me. I consider Sunila to be one of my two main mentors (other being Fr. Tissa Balasooriya) and I’ve been fortunate to have been with Sunila and watched her “in action”. As she confronted military personnel on frontlines of the war in the East in 2007, trying to reach populations in areas that were cut off. As she negotiated with Police who were trying to disrupt a protest in front of the Fort railway station. 

When she was talking to the then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, Diplomats in Colombo and the then Minister of Human Rights. When she was asking uncomfortable and thought provoking questions during a training on gender and sexuality. And maybe most importantly, when she spent time visiting and talking to families of disappeared persons, displaced and others affected by war and violence.

Much of what I have learnt about fact finding in dangerous and difficult circumstances, doing documentation and sharing personally sensitive and politically explosive stories, providing protection to those whose lives were at risk and engaging in lobbying and advocacy comes from Sunila. It was about ethics, principles and attitude, as much as it was about skills. It was about why we were doing these as much as how.

Looking back now, I also fondly remember the scoldings I got from her, with a strong flavor of love and care – for me and others. For instance, the wrath I had to face when she found out  that a pregnant colleague had gone with me to Jaffna at the height of the war in 2008.

I remember how comforting it was to have been able to call and talk to her when I was being held up for hours at an Army checkpoint one evening in 2008, near the frontlines of the war in Mannar. She insisted on staying on the phone most of that time. And she took the opportunity to scold me for having ventured there, for dragging others into danger and returning at a time she considered to be too late. Later in 2009, I came back to Sri Lanka, after a colleague was arrested while I was in India, disregarding a SMS from Sunila suggesting for me to stay on there. She didn’t say anything afterwards. But weeks later, when threats were getting serious and imminent, she called from overseas and instructed me to leave Sri Lanka immediately. I obeyed. While I was in exile, we talked regularly and she helped me assess the security situation and challenged me to return to Sri Lanka after a few months, without ever pressuring me. 

Among the many times I wished she was alive was on the lonely and scary night that I was arrested and detained. Later, after my release, as I was discredited and marginalized by friends, relatives and even some activists, I felt sure she would have been among those who would have warmly embraced and welcomed me.

Memories of Sunila also consist of some good times even during the worst of times. Good food, drinks, stories – in her house in Maharagama, in Batticaloa, Geneva and Bangkok. When I was living in Bangkok, she was the most frequent visitor from Sri Lanka. She regularly brought me ginger beer, arrack and Sinhalese newspapers, and rarely did we miss watching a movie together. The few days I spent with her in her apartment in Kuala Lumpur while I was in exile in 2009 and the week I spent with her in The Hague in 2013, as she was battling cancer, will remain as the most precious days I’ve spent with her.

Today in Sri Lanka, there are changing ground realities, shifting political positions and alliances, debates on compromises and realism, and blurring of lines. As we search for meaningful, principled and relevant ways of activism, meeting up to different expectations of diverse survivors and families of victims, Sunila is greatly missed. Trying to carry forward even a small part of her legacy remains a great challenge.

Compared to many other activists, I’ve only known Sunila for a short period. But it has given me much to remember and much to celebrate about Sunila. Enough to miss her greatly.

Globalisation & The Role Of Elites: Impact On Social Structures

By Siri Gamage –September 9, 2016 

Dr. Siri Gamage

There are differing views on the impact of globalisation and development associated with it on various communities and social segments or classes in developing countries in the relevant academic literature. Globalists emphasise the positive aspects of globalisation such as open borders, ability for the movement of capital, goods and services, access to employment, migration and educational opportunities, increased travel, global culture and cosmopolitanism, increased trade and market opportunities. They further point out how the development policies implemented by governments in developing countries have lifted millions of poor people out of poverty e.g. in China and India. Critics emphasise the negative effects of globalisation and associated neoliberal development by pointing out the ways they benefit the political, business, military, and other elites in developing countries while pushing the middle class, working class, and the poor to the margins of society. They also explain how communities that survived close to forests, beaches and valuable natural resources have been removed from their habitats and the land given to multinational resource and/or tourism companies for their operations. The social and cultural impact on communities and middle to lower classes by the expanding global market forces and processes in various fields have also received their attention. Various conflicts generated by the globalisation and anti globalisation forces in the context of heavy competition for natural resources are cited as examples of negative effects of globalisation. Within this opposing views what is clear is that there are unequal relations between countries and companies with large-scale capital and know how for investment and those without. Irrespective of such unequal relations, the political, bureaucratic, and military elites in developing countries tend to promote market friendly investment policies to attract foreign capital and technology to developing countries saying it is necessary to accelerate development even when such countries are caught in a severe debt trap.

The purpose of this article is to not discuss above stated problem, i.e. whether such investments are desirable or needed? The purpose is to examine the impact of globalisation on social structures in developing countries like Sri Lanka that hitherto provided identity, stability, and a way of life. Sociologists have defined social structure as a network of social relations in the whole society or within social institutions such as the state, family, market, religion, education, media, military, bureaucracy, kinship, caste, and class. Each of these arenas provides a normative framework and a certain way of life to its participants. These social institutions nurture certain values, norms and practices through hierarchical or egalitarian mechanisms depending on the case and context. They thus embody sub cultures. Thus we speak of office culture, university culture, school culture or military culture. Alumni relating to formal institutions maintain close relations while sustaining distinctive identities of respective institutions. For example, we can see many alumni organisations representing businesses, universities, schools within countries and in the diaspora.

Read More