Can Justin Trudeau Use the U.N. to Rebrand Canadian Foreign Policy?

BY REID STANDISH-SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 

Since his election in October 2015, Justin Trudeau, Canada’s panda-cuddling, Vogue magazine centerfold prime minister known for hisgenerous refugee policy and shirtless photographs, has grabbed international headlines and become a household name. But in his maiden speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, Trudeau used the opportunity to remake his government’s foreign policy as a progressive global leader on open borders, free trade, and gender equality.

Speaking before world leaders at the annual diplomatic conference, the Canadian prime minister, like President Barack Obama before him, called for greater global engagement and for governments to speak out against the rising xenophobia and protectionism that is currently playing a prominent role in American and European politics.

“We need to focus on what brings us together, not on what divides us,” Trudeau said. “We believe we should confront anxiety with a clear plan to deal with its root causes.”

Trudeau championed multilateral institutions like the United Nations and defended the economic benefits of globalization while calling for a renewed global focus on climate change, the refugee crisis, and greater support for peacekeeping efforts around the world. Trudeau’s Liberal government has already accepted 25,000 Syrian refugees in Canada and has promised to accept at least 10,000 more. In August, Ottawa also pledged 600 troops and $450 million for U.N. peacekeeping.

A big part of Trudeau’s globalizing mission is to contrast his government’s policies with those of his Conservative predecessor Stephen Harper, who was prime minister from 2006 to 2015.

Under Harper’s leadership, Ottawa was hesitant and at times even criticalabout the U.N. and its overall effectiveness on the world stage, with then-Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird calling it a “debating club for dictators.”

The Conservative government set itself apart from traditional Canadian foreign policy dogma by placing a greater emphasis on military power over diplomacy and membership in multilateral organizations. At times, this new direction made Harper unpopular with other world leaders, even straining relations with U.S. President Barack Obama, Canada’s most important ally.

Trudeau’s new approach is seen most clearly in Ottawa’s bid for a rotating seat on the U.N. Security Council, which it  announced in March it would seek beginning in 2021.

“The Trudeau government actively went out and decided to compete in an election that is contested,” Adam Chapnick, a professor at the Canadian Forces College, told Foreign Policy, adding that Ottawa will vie for the seat against Ireland and Norway, two countries with strong credentials on the U.N. council.
Canada has not held a seat on the Security Council since 2000 and the Harper government suffered a decisive and embarrassing loss in 2010, the last time Ottawa ran for a council seat.

“One of the currencies of international politics at the leadership level is garnering support. Trudeau is very popular at home and that translates into legitimacy elsewhere,” said Chapnick. “If the Trudeau government runs the campaign properly, all of Canadian foreign policy over the next four years can be viewed through the lens of trying to win the Security Council election.”

Evidence of this strategy is already starting to play out, as Ottawa has sought to re-engage the U.N. on peacekeeping, once a hallmark of Canadian foreign policy, which the country has shied away since missions in Rwanda and the Balkans in the 1990s.

On trade policy, Trudeau’s has refrained from denouncing the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, even though both U.S. presidential candidates have beat it up, and is close to finalizing a free trade deal with the European Union. This economic approach, as well as Ottawa’s willingness to run a deficit at home in order to invest in social programs, recently earned high praise from Christine Lagarde, the chief of the International Monetary Fund, who said she wished other countries would follow Trudeau’s lead.

Elsewhere, despite no longer participating in the airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq, Ottawa also recently announced that it will lead a NATO brigade in Latvia meant to counter Russia.

“Canadians don’t vote on foreign policy,” Bessma Momani, a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation and a professor at the University of Waterloo, told FP. “So, Trudeau wouldn’t be doing this kind of investment unless it had a foreign policy value in and of itself.”

According to Momani, Trudeau is counting on his image as a reliable peace broker to preserve Canada’s interests abroad, something she argues will go further on the international stage compared to Harper’s more stringent strategy.

“So far Trudeau has been a [public relations] win for Canada and many Canadians relish in that,” said Momani. “He will elevate the Canadian brand.”

Photo Credit: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images

USAID or USCIA?

by Thomas C. Mountain

(September 22, 2016, Etruria, Sri Lanka Guardian) The US Agency for International Development (USAID) was created by Pax Americana to provide a cover for CIA agents under the pretext of helping the 3rd World. US Imperialism has to do some good or its potential targets would not open their doors to intelligence agents posing as do gooders, so USAID was created.

Today the USAID is headed by Gayle Smith, formerly the “Special Advisor” to President Barack Obama and Senior Director of the National Security Council. To put it simply, Gayle Smith is one of the top “spooks” in the USA, someone who told the CIA what to do.

Today this former “spook” is running a multibillion dollar “aid agency” with thousands of employees or “contractors” operating worldwide. Who knows who is an agent and who is a real aid worker when it comes to USAID?

Earlier this year Ms. Smith sent 25 senior CIA investigators to Ethiopia to see firsthand what was going on with the nationwide uprising under cover of “investigating the drought”. Their report, yet to be made public, must have been pretty dire for not too long later, Freedom House, that excreable voice of the CIA, published a report insinuating that replacements for the present Ethiopian regime could be in the works.

USAID is up to its ears in the effort for “regime change” in South Sudan with dozens of CIA ops operating inside the country. Look at Latin America and the USAID’s dirty war against Cuba for decades now with USAID involved in recent “coups” and “quiet coups” in Central and South America.

When you deal with the USAID you are dealing with the USCIA and never forget it. Better yet, kick them out of your country like our government did here in Eritrea more than a decade ago.

This article was originally published in Telesur.

Thomas C. Mountain is an independent journalist in Eritrea living and reporting from here since 2006. His speeches, interviews and articles can be seen on Facebook atthomascmountain and he can best be reached at thomascmountain at g mail dot com

Britain’s Jeremy Corbyn survives Labour Party leadership challenge

 Jeremy Corbyn was reelected leader of the Labour Party beating challenger Owen Smith.(Reuters)

By Karla Adam September 24 at 10:13 AM

LONDON — Jeremy Corbyn was reelected leader of the bitterly divided Labour Party on Saturday, just a year after his dark-horse ascension rocked Britain’s political world.

Corbyn, who has been described as “Britain’s Bernie Sanders,” proved once again he is overwhelmingly popular with the party’s grass-roots, seeing off his challenger Owen Smith by winning 61.8 percent of the vote.

“Let us work together for real change in Britain,” the 67-year-old socialist said after the results were announced Saturday at the start of the Labour Party’s annual conference in Liverpool.

Corbyn also pleaded for unity in his party, which is engaged in a spectacularly messy internal fight.

[This British party is embroiled in an ugly civil war. And it’s not the one that just lost its leader.]

“Elections are passionate, and often partisan, affairs, and things are sometimes said in the heat of the debate, on all sides, which we sometimes later come to regret,” he said. “Let’s wipe that slate clean from today.”

The result was widely expected despite a bruising contest that has cast a spotlight on the deep divisions within a party that has been shut out of power since 2010.

Corbyn may be wildly popular with the party’s grass-roots, but he lacks the support of many of his party’s representatives in Parliament.

A leadership contest was triggered after Britain’s shock decision to leave the European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit. Shortly afterward, 172 of Labour’s 230 lawmakers supported a vote of no confidence in their leader.

Some cited Corbyn’s leadership style as the reason he should quit, while others were critical of his performance in the E.U. referendum. Corbyn campaigned for Britain to stay in the bloc, but some say they felt his heart wasn’t really in it and that he didn’t do enough to shore up pro-E.U. support.

But the rebellion backfired, with Smith failing to generate the kind of enthusiasm that burns bright among Corbyn’s followers.

That contingent, known as “Corbynistas,” are energetic, enthusiastic and a force on social media. Since Corbyn became leader, large numbers of people have flocked to join the Labour Party. Corbyn told the conference that it has more than 500,000 members and is the largest political party in Western Europe.

But some Labour supporters worry that his appeal doesn’t extend beyond a niche segment of the British electorate.

A recent YouGov poll showed Labour trailing the Conservative Party by nine points.

John Curtice, a politics professor at the University of Strathclyde, said the Labour Party’s “fundamental problem” is that it has no one who has shown an ability to grab the attention of the wider public.

“There isn’t anyone in the parliamentary party who has demonstrated they are up for the job,” he said. “At least the Corbynistas have a candidate. . . . The non-Corbynistas don’t.”

When Corbyn, a veteran politician from the party’s left wing, won the leadership contest last year, it was widely seen as a rebuke to the Labour Party establishment and to Tony Blair, the former British prime minister who blurred the traditional distinctions between left and right during his decade in power.

Supporters of Corbyn, many of whom are staunchly anti-Blair, say that he is a straight-talking, authentic politician who has galvanized a new generation of activists with his emphasis on creating a more equal society.

Others are skeptical that the mass movement inspired by Corbyn can translate into wider success in a general election, and say they worry that long, tedious years in opposition lie ahead.

David Miliband, who served as Britain’s foreign secretary under the Labour government of Gordon Brown, says the party has “not been further from power since the 1930s.”

In an article in the New Statesman, Miliband wrote: “Nationalisation cannot be the answer to everything; anti-austerity speeches cannot explain everything; cor­porate taxation cannot pay for everything. It doesn’t add up. It wouldn’t work. People are not stupid.”

Smith repeatedly said the party risked splintering if Corbyn was reelected, but most commentators think that’s unlikely for now, not least because of the lack of a charismatic politician lined up to lead the charge.

Labour lawmakers have defected before. In the early 1980s, some 28 members of Parliament defected to create the Social Democratic Party, which would later merge with the Liberal Party to become the Liberal Democrats.

“The fracturing of the left at the time, what did it do? It gave the Tories 18 years of power,” said Labour lawmaker Chuka Umunna, one of the party moderates who has urged his disillusioned colleagues not to break away. Speaking to Sky News, he said: “The Labour Party can only win when it is a broad church.”

“The Labour Party is just stuck, really,” said Tony Travers, a political expert at the London School of Economics. He added that it was a “living nightmare for the parliamentary party” and predicted it would not split but “struggle on.”

Andy Burnham, a Labour lawmaker who lost to Corbyn in the 2015 leadership race, issued a plea for unity, saying that the party needs to shift its focus to the “enormity of issues” facing Britain in the wake of the Brexit decision.

There are “massive stakes here,” he told the BBC on Saturday, adding that Labour should be “challenging what we seem to be getting, which is a hard-line Brexit, a right-wing Brexit — that’s where our focus should be.”

But it seems unlikely that Corbyn’s reelection will halt the internal squabbles in his party.

“As long as the party has a got a parliamentary party at odds with its leaders and a parliamentary party at odds with its membership, it’s got a problem,” said Curtice, the professor. “We may discover we are back doing the same leadership challenge rerun in 12 months time.”

No DRC leader gives up power peacefully, so why would Joseph Kabila?

Signs that the president wants to remain in office are unsurprising in a country where coups are more common than elections

 Joseph Kabila has been the Democratic Republic of the Congo president since 2001, spanning two terms in office. Photograph: Bertil Ericson/AP

Democratic Republic of the Congo-Friday 23 September 2016

Just over a decade ago, the Democratic Republic of the Congo witnessed a profound moment in the country’s history, when millions of people went to the polls to vote for a new constitution.

It was significant, not least because the wording of the constitution had been agreed by the government and dozens of rebel leaders, who had finally come together after seven years of war.

A key part of the constitution dictated that a presidential election must be held every five years, with a non–renewable presidential limit of two terms. This detail was crucial for a simple reason: no president of the DRC since independence in 1960 had met a peaceful political end.

The DRC’s first president, Joseph Kasavubu, was overthrown in 1965 by Joseph Mobutu, plunging the country in chaos and a kleptocracy that lasted 32 years, ruining the economy and the little infrastructure that the Belgians, the DRC’s colonisers, had left behind. Kasavubu died four years later under house arrest in Boma, which had been the colonial capital of the former Congo Free State.

In May 1997, Laurent-Désiré Kabila, backed by the armies of Rwanda and Uganda, overthrew Mobutu, sending him into exile in Morocco.

A man rides past a burned-out car in Kinshasa following clashes between security forces and protesters. Photograph: John bompengo/AP

Less than four years later, Kabila was murdered during an attempted coup, allegedly by one of his bodyguards, 40 years after the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the DRC’s independence leader and first prime minister.

Joseph Kabila, the current president, assumed power after his father’s death. He had joined Laurent-Désiré Kabila’s rebel group, the AFDL, as a 23-year-old and had been made a deputy commander of the DRC army after a three-month military training programme in China.

At first, it seemed as if Kabila was broadly supportive of democracy in his country. A year after he oversaw the signing of the constitution, 15 million Congolesevoted for a government for the first time in more than 40 years.

Though it was far from a perfect or peaceful election, it was a landmark moment. Kabila was duly announced the winner with 58.05% of the vote, formally ending the so-called 1+4 transition period that brought the government and dozens of rebel leaders together in a loose coalition.

Five years later, in 2011, Kabila organised another election, which he won again,but this time amid allegations of fraud.

Fast-forward to the present and Kabila, who is constitutionally barred from running again, appears to have changed his mind about democracy.

He is refusing to hold an election and cede power, attacking anyone who calls for him to stand down. Despite months of warnings from the US, Britain and the EU that he should organise a free and fair election, and proudly allow for Congo’s first peaceful and democratic transfer of power, he continues to stand firm.

One reason he will not go is that power is profitable. When Mobutu was overthrown, he had amassed an estimated fortune of $5bn (£3.8bn), the rough equivalent of Congo’s total foreign debt at the time. Kabila is also alleged to have embezzled billions.

What comes next is anyone’s guess, but if the killing on Monday of at least 44 pro–democracy protesters by the Garde Républicaine, Kabila’s private army, is any indication, he is sowing the ground for more wars and more misery.

Ecuador hopes hearing marks 'beginning of the end' of Assange saga

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange makes a speech from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy, in central London, Britain February 5, 2016.REUTERS/Peter Nicholls/File Photo

By Hugh Bronstein-Sat Sep 24, 2016

Ecuador hopes that the October questioning of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, holed up in the country's London Embassy since 2012, will mark the "beginning of the end" of the legal deadlock over case, Ecuador's foreign minister said.

Wikileaks burst onto the world scene in 2010 when it collaborated with media organizations to release U.S. State Department diplomatic cables. The leak opened a global debate over the proper limits of journalism and state transparency.

A Swedish appeals court last week upheld an arrest warrant for Assange, clearing the way for him to be questioned in Ecuador's London embassy on Oct. 17.

"We hope that the interview in October can put an end to what is a pretty bad situation for Mr. Assange," 

Foreign Minister Guillaume Long told Reuters on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.

"We hope that it is the beginning of the end of Julian Assange's plight. He's welcome to stay with us but we know that is not the solution to the problem."

Assange, 45, is wanted in Sweden for questioning over allegations, which he denies, that he committed rape in 2010.

He avoided possible extradition to Sweden by taking refuge in Ecuador's London embassy. He says he fears further extradition to the United States, where a criminal investigation into the activities of Wikileaks is ongoing.

"The fear about political persecution stems from the fact that we never received guarantees that there was not going to be an extradition to a third country," Long said.

"The threat of political persecution is still there and the grounds for granting Mr. Assange his asylum still exist. We have no intention of taking away that asylum as it stands," he added.

The status quo is hardly satisfactory, from the standpoint of Assange's health, Long said.

"I've been to visit him on several occasions and I see a deterioration," he said.

"He does not have much access to light. He has no access whatsoever to exterior space. There is no internal patio. There is no fresh air," Long said.

The minister would not say how much it was costing Ecuador to keep Assange.

"I don't have the exact figure, but it's certainly costing Ecuador much less that it's costing the British authorities to have the Ecuadorean embassy under a state of siege for four years," Long said.

Assange is unable to leave the embassy without being arrested by British police for breaching his bail conditions.

In July Wikileaks released files of what it said were audio recordings pulled from the emails of the Democratic National Committee that were obtained by hacking its servers. The leak rattled the Democratic National Convention where Hillary Clinton was named the party's presidential nominee, and prompted party chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to step down.

Asked what Assange does with his time, Long said, "You'd have to ask him. But he seems to be very busy."

(Reporting by Hugh Bronstein; Editing by Meredith Mazzilli)

Due Process Is Vital to Freedom

by Andrew P. Napolitano

“No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” — Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 

( September 23, 2016, Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian) The clash in American history between liberty and safety is as old as the republic itself. As far back as 1798, notwithstanding the lofty goals and individualistic values of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the same generation — in some cases the same human beings — that wrote in the First Amendment that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which punished speech critical of the government.

Similarly, the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process has been ignored by those in government charged with enforcing it when they deal with a criminal defendant whom they perceive the public hates or fears. So it should come as no surprise that no sooner had the suspect in the recent New Jersey and New York City bombings been arrested than public calls came to strip him of his rights, send him to Gitmo and extract information from him. This is more Vladimir Putin than James Madison.

I have often argued that it is in times of fear — whether generated by outside forces or by the government itself — when we need to be most vigilant about protecting our liberties. I make this argument because when people are afraid, it is human nature for them to accept curtailment of their liberties — whether it be speech or travel or privacy or due process — if they become convinced that the curtailment will keep them safe. But these liberties are natural rights, integral to all rational people and not subject to the government’s whim.

I can sacrifice my liberties, and you can sacrifice yours, but I cannot sacrifice yours; neither can a majority in Congress sacrifice yours or mine.

The idea that sacrificing liberty actually enhances safety enjoys widespread acceptance but is erroneous. The Fort Hood massacre, the Boston Marathon killings, the slaughters in San Bernardino and Orlando, and now the bombings in New Jersey and New York all demonstrate that the loss of liberty does not bring about more safety.

The loss of liberty gives folks the false impression that the government is doing something — anything — to keep us safe. That impression is a false one because in fact it is making us less safe, since a government intent on monitoring our every move and communication loses sight of the moves and communications of the bad guys. As well, liberty lost is rarely returned. The Patriot Act, which permits federal agents to bypass the courts and issue their own search warrants, has had three sunsets since 2001, only to be re-enacted just prior to the onset of each — and re-enacted in a more oppressive version, giving the government more power to interfere with liberty, and for a longer period of time each time.

We know from the Edward Snowden revelations and the National Security Agency’s own admissions that the NSA has the digital versions — in real time — of all telephone calls, text messages and emails made, sent or received in the U.S. So if the right person is under arrest for the bombings last weekend, why didn’t the feds catch this radicalized U.S. citizen and longtime New Jersey resident before he set off his homemade bombs? Because the government suffers from, among other ailments, information overload. It is spread too thin. It is more concerned with gathering everything it can about everyone — “collect it all,” one NSA email instructed agents — than it is with focusing on potential evildoers as the Fourth Amendment requires.

Why do we have constitutional guarantees of liberty?

The Constitution both establishes the federal government and confines it. It presents intentional obstacles in the path of the government. Without those obstacles, we might be safe from domestic harm, but who would keep us safe from the government? Who would want to live here if we had no meaningful, enforceable guarantees of personal liberties? When our liberties are subject to the needs of the police, we will end up in a police state. What does a police state look like? It looks like the Holocaust and communism.

Everyone who works in government has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. Hence, it is distressing to hear lawmakers calling for the abolition of due process for certain hateful and hurtful defendants. Due process — fairness from the government, the right to silence, the right to counsel and the right to a jury trial with the full panoply of constitutional requirements and protections — is vital to our personal liberties and to our free society as we have known it.

If anyone who appears to have been motivated to attack Americans or American values based on some alleged or even proven foreign motivation could be denied the rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution by a government determination before trial, then no one’s rights are safe.

The whole purpose of the guarantee of due process is to insulate our liberties from subjective government interference by requiring it in all instances when the government wants life, liberty or property — hence the clear language of the Fifth Amendment. The star chamber suggested by those who misunderstand the concept of guaranteed rights is reminiscent of what King George III did to the colonists, which was expressly condemned in the Declaration of Independence and which sparked the American Revolution.
Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter once wrote that the history of American freedom is, in no small measure, following fair procedures — which means enforcing the guarantee of due process. Without due process for those we hate and fear — even those whose guilt is obvious — we will all lose our freedoms.

Copyright © 2016 Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

The 7 Sweet Health Benefits Of Bitter Melon

by CureJoy Editorial-Sep 20, 2016 

The distinct flavor of the aptly named bitter melon can be an acquired taste. In fact, if you have always steered clear of this odd-looking vegetable or balked at the thought of eating something so bitter, you have plenty of company. Yet, this melon or gourd is so chock-full of nutritional goodness that it's a good idea to work it into your weekly menu plans.

A bitter melon is probably the last veggie you’d think of cooking for that weeknight dinner. But it is a taste well worth acquiring. This knobbly green vegetable, also called the bitter gourd or balsam pear, can be a great source of nutrients that do everything from building stronger bones to improving immunity, and possibly even protecting against cancer. Here’s a lowdown on all its goodness.

 

It Keeps Your Diabetes in Check

If you have a family history of diabetes or have already been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus, bitter melon can really help. The extract from bitter melon is believed to be structurally similar to animal insulin and can lower blood glucose levels in someone who has type 2 diabetes.¹ In one study, patients who consumed 2000 mg of bitter melon daily saw levels of fructosamine drop significantly, alongside a “modest hypoglycemic effect.” What you must remember, though, is that bitter melon cannot be a substitute for medication you take.²

It Helps With Eye Health

Vitamin A is a nutrient your eyes love. Besides helping prevent the development of cataract or even night blindness, this vitamin promotes good eye health in general. It is needed for normal function of your cornea and conjunctival membranes. A typical serving of bitter melon gives you nearly a third of the vitamin A recommended for your body daily.³

It Builds Bone Strength And Prevents Osteoporosis

Bitter gourd contains high levels of vitamin K, a nutrient essential for building bone.⁴Without it, all that calcium you consume (of which bitter melon is again a good source) will not be worth all that much, because it works in tandem with this vitamin to improve your bone density. You could easily ward off osteoporosis and osteoarthritis if you have enough of this vitamin, and even lower chances of having a fracture. So if you’d like to be a little less “breakable,” help yourself to a generous portion of bitter melon.⁵

It Loves Your Liver

Bitter melon is taken as “liver tonic” because of its ability to help digestion, purify blood, and detox your body. According to traditional Chinese medicine, bitter substances like bitter gourd can help remove any excess heat in your body, act as a natural detox, and restore balance.⁶ The vitamin K in bitter melon also cuts the risk of bleeding related to liver disease.⁷

What is attracting more followers to the vegetable is its role in lowering triglyceride levels in your liver. Animal studies on multiple varieties of bitter melon have found they all impact hepatic triglyceride levels to varying degrees.⁸

It Is An Ally In The Fight Against Cancer

Bitter melon also offers hope to those with cancer. The various parts of bitter melon, from seed extracts to the pericarp and placenta, have been used in research against leukemia. These studies have found that the vegetable extracts have the potential to cause apoptosis or cell death of HL60 leukemia cells in humans.⁹

Studies exploring the impact of bitter melon extract treatment on breast cancer cells have found that the remedy reduces cell proliferation significantly. The extract also cause apoptotic cell death of these cancerous cells, making it a good alternative therapy to consider alongside medical treatment.¹⁰ Its effectiveness in stimulating apoptosis of pancreatic cancer cells is especially heartening, given the poor prognosis associated with this form of cancer.¹¹

It Aids Weight Loss And Cuts Fat

Studies have found that bitter melon can cut the accumulation of tissue fat in your body.¹²This is a result of bitter melon’s ability to stimulate the breakdown of lipids or fats, while also inhibiting fatty acid or triglyceride synthesis, making it a good choice for someone on a weight-loss plan. ¹³

If you are counting calories and trying to stay fit, there’s more. Because the bitter melon isn’t very calorific, you will be able to get in vitamins A, C, K, and minerals like calcium, magnesium, and potassium without consuming too many calories.¹⁴

It Builds Immunity

Bitter gourd also acts as an anti-inflammatory agent. The phenolic compounds gallic acid, catechin, and caffeic acid in bitter melon are powerful antioxidants, making a serving of the vegetable immensely beneficial for your immunity.¹⁵ For those with diabetes, animal studies indicate that it might even help normalize antioxidant status that is otherwise impaired.¹⁶ As one study found, the intake of this gourd can help induce systemic and intestinal anti-inflammatory responses.¹⁷

SRI LANKA: Supreme Court Judgments on torture and the State’s failure to protect those in custody

By Basil Fernando-September 23, 2016

One more judgement from the Supreme Court, on torture by the Sri Lankan police, was added to a long list of such judgements, when the Supreme Court decided in favour of a petition filed by W.N.L.K. Fernando of Naththandiya Police against officers attached to the Wennapuwa Police Station [S.C.F.R. Application No. 612/09].

The Supreme Court decided that three of the police officers have, in fact, violated the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 11 of the Constitution by assaulting petitioner Fernando. The Court ordered the three police officers to pay the Petitioner Rupees 35,000 each, i.e. Rupees 105,000 in total, out of their own pockets. The Court rejected the version of the Respondent police officers that the injuries on the petitioner might have been caused in the course of the petitioner’s attempt to resist arrest. The Court instead accepted the version of the petitioner – supported by medical evidence – that the injuries were consistent with the petitioner’s version of the events.

The Supreme Court has pronounced similar judgements, finding police officers having committed torture, on many occasions. However, there is no indication of any significant improvement of police behaviour despite these judgments.

The recent incidents of reports of deaths of persons while in police custody also highlights that there are very serious problems relating to the execution of duties by the police, who are obligated to protect the suspects they arrest.

When a person is arrested, the officers act on behalf of the Sri Lankan State. At the point of securing arrest, the officers are expected to act as the guardians of persons who have been arrested. Many stories of torture and ill-treatment heard from around the country indicate that the Sri Lankan police officers have not acquired a basic understanding of their role when they act on behalf of the State in taking a citizen in custody.

What is seen instead is a generalised practice of treating a person taken into police custody as a lesser human being or a non human being. It is this perception that needs to be scrutinised carefully by the government, by the officers of the police hierarchy, as well as those in charge of all other institutions created for the purpose of ensuring the proper carrying out of the duties of the state, which are, in this regard, ensure the protection of citizens, and non-citizens, taken into police custody for the limited purpose of facilitating inquiries into crimes. The National Police Commission and the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka are among such institutions which have special obligations to ensure such protection.

A close examination of the way arrests are made quite often, and the way those taken into custody are being treated in the course of many such investigations, creates the impression that the officers often have no appreciation of their own roles as protectors. The impression one gets is a relationship between a predator and a prey, rather than a protector and a person who is under such person’s protection. Of course, this is not the case in all cases of arrest and detention. Well publicised inquiries that are conducted by some agencies, like Financial Crimes Investigations Department, where the suspects are powerful persons, such as politicians and businessmen, there is a clear indication of a different type of behaviour. None of those persons involved in high profile cases, have yet complained of torture, ill-treatment, or even impolite behaviour towards them.

Thus, the kind of relationship which looks like that of a predator and prey is mostly in cases handled at the police stations, and also quite often regarding persons who are generally referred to as the ordinary folk. The way many police officers seem to understand the ‘ordinary folk’, is in seeing them as ‘nobodies’. There is a kind of perception that these nobodies should be treated roughly and with no show of kindness. A civilised treatment of suspects seems almost regarded as being counterproductive.

It is this mentality, exercised mainly towards the common folk, that should receive careful examination, sociologically, psychologically, and also from the perspective of what the proper behaviour of public institutions towards all citizens should be. It is in that regard, that the role of the police hierarchy in moulding the behaviour of officers who work for their institutions need to be clearly examined. When there is a general practice of such improper behaviour towards persons who should in fact be treated with special consideration, due to the obligation of protection, it is justified to conclude that there are serious failures on the part of those in charge of such institutions.

The failure of those exercising leadership becomes even more glaring when one considers that the issues involved relate to violations of constitutional rights of the people. To expect protection is a constitutional right. When there is widespread practice of violations of constitutional rights, within a public institution, those in charge of such an institution, cannot plead ignorance or innocence.

In some instances, such as custodial deaths, murder is involved. It is easy to carry out a tug-of-war, whether a particular custodial death is a murder or not; in this tug-of-war, the ordinary citizen does not have the same power-to-pull, as the authorities and the institution have. On occasions of custodial deaths, powerful attempts are made to create the impression that there is no foul play involved. It is not within the power of the average citizen to fight with such powerful forces to ensure that proper and fair inquiries are being conducted on such occasions. Often, the inquirers themselves are the high-ranking officers of the same institution, for example, ASPs or SSPs. In fact, if these officers carry out their obligations in the right manner, to ensure that the subordinates under their charge carry out the duties of protection, as required by the Constitution, such unfortunate incidents are unlikely to happen.

Therefore, there is not only an obligation on the part of the high-ranking officers for having allowed the existence of failures in the exercise of protection functions, they also play the same role, in prevention of proper and fair inquiries. Having a fair inquiry is the citizen’s last resort after everything has stood against his advantage. Under the present circumstances, it is not possible honestly to state that even this last resort, exists for individuals who suffer such unfortunate deaths in police custody.

Problems relating to denial of protection for citizens are a fundamental failure in the duties of the State. The very fact that the Supreme Court has itself, on so many occasions, pointed to this failure, in judgements relating to violations under Article 11 of the Constitution, is a strong enough argument to expose existing failures. Whether the State takes the message of such judgments seriously is a matter on which an unequivocal answer in the affirmative cannot be given in the present context.

On The Concepts Of Federalism & Secularism

By Surendra Ajit Rupasinghe –September 23, 2016

Surendra Ajit Rupasinghe

It is simply amazing how the very mention of these concepts in an open discourse on constitutional reform would immediately trigger frenzied, robotic responses from learned professors and self-appointed pundits. The response from Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka to Madam Chandrika’s remarks on the subject is instinctual, political and vituperative, and deliberately distorted and misleading.

Federalism

His argument has three main points. First, that federalism inherently contains the element of separatism. This is empirically unsupported, as in classic examples such as the US, India, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland etc. Not perfect examples, but where there is some degree of social cohesion, in spite of severe national and ethnic oppression in some cases. The second aspect of the argument that Sri Lanka is just too small a country to afford federalism is purely prejudiced and anti-democratic. When we deal with a question of an oppressed nation seeking liberation, the guiding criteria is not the size, but the democratic essence of the demand for dignity, equality, security, autonomy and democratic freedom. But, we cannot expect such a profound vision of democracy from a sycophantic, careerist, ideological agent of a rabidly chauvinist camp as that led by Mahinda Rajapaksa. Mahinda Rajapaksa’s credibility as a ‘patriot and defender’ of the Sinhala-Buddhist Nation has been completely and irrevocably demolished by his very own act of ‘betrayal’ when he bribed Prabhakaran to the tune of millions, which massive funds the latter would have used to grease up his war machine to kill Sinhala-Buddhist soldiers and civilians. He also gunned down unarmed Sinhala civilians who were exercising the fundamental right of democratic protest- the very same guns that killed unarmed Tamil civilians. Also, the attempted coup by him to suppress the presidential election results shows to what extent he would go to betray the sovereignty of the people, including the Sinhala Buddhist nation, simply to entrench his dynastic rule and dictatorship through perpetuity. The third major point of argument is that Federalism would certainly play into the hands of an expansionist Tamil Nadu. This is just fear-mongering designed to incite and mobilize his tribal-feudal, chauvinist political base and score points for his Master. There certainly could be such grand designs by some Tamil Nadu politicians. Precisely for the reason that foreign powers could and do play dirty politics with the Tamil nation that it must be decisively determined on a sustainable democratic basis. Indeed and in fact, it is the denial and violent suppression of nationhood and the attendant right of self-determination that has led to the politics of separatism and paved the way for foreign powers, including India, to sink their fangs into the lifelines of the people and the country. None are so blind as those who have eyes but refuse to see.

Towards a Transcending Solution

I have initiated a new framework and approach for resolving the Tamil National Question, sponsored by the Inter-Religious Peace Foundation in the form of a ‘Citizen’s Initiative for Constitutional Reform’. This new paradigm positively transcends the mutually exclusive polarities between a Federal State and a Unitary State. I have suggested a formula that calls for a Second Chamber constitutionally entrenched and empowered to protect the national-democratic rights of all nationalities, which would also elicit a constitutional pledge to a democratically constituted State. This would allay all fears of separation and provide a basis for all nationalities to enjoy parity of status, dignity, security and autonomy, as equal and indivisible partners and architects of a modern, unified democratic State. I have suggested that this would provide a solid and principled basis to forge a united, indivisible and integrated Sri Lankan Nation, to be forged on a voluntary basis. It is also a remedy against the ‘tyranny of the majority’. There are no perfect solutions. But we must strive to move forward and away from the dark era of enforced subordination, communal violence and war, which has violated and defiled us all and robbed us of our collective dignity and humanity.

Read More

Colombo’s Quest for Peace after Long War

A shift in focus from the use of hard power to soft power on global issues, is a feather in the cap of the Sri Lanka Army. The Lankan country is fast moving towards peace and stability, and is without an enemy

by Ashok K Mehta

( September 23, 2016, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) This month, the Sri Lanka Army (SLA) held its annual defence seminar in Colombo, shifting focus from the use of hard power — in which alongwith the Navy and the Air Force, it excelled, though at some cost — to soft power on global issues. Lest we forget, the SLA defeated the two-decade-long Marxist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna insurgency in the south in 1990 and the deadly Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) after a 30-year long campaign in the north in 2009, both with some help from India.

Few militaries have succeeded in subduing an insurgency and terrorism; Sri Lankan security forces have uniquely outclassed others by eliminating root and branch, a rural and urban insurgency, contributing profitable takeaways, especially post-conflict, where the thrust was on five R’s — Reconstruction, Resettlement, Rehabilitation, Reintegration, and the big R, Reconciliation.

The mastermind of the earlier conferences was the indomitable former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, popularly called Gota, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s enormously powerful younger brother, a retired Colonel from the famous Gajaba Regiment. Not a leaf moved without his nod. With a regime change in 2015, the unthinkable happened on September1, ironically the day the conference opened. Instead of Gota inaugurating the event, as he used to till 2014, his arch enemy from the Sinha Regiment, now Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, whom he got dismissed and imprisoned, lit the lamp. Ignominiously, Gota was in the spotlight on the front pages of national dailies charged by the bribery commission in a Colombo court for corruption. The question doing the rounds in Colombo is: Will Gota go to jail? Gota, alongwith Rajapaksa and Army Chief General Fonseka, are the three architects of the war victory.

Coinciding with the seminar was President Maithripala Sirisena’s statement that the defeats of LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran and war-winning leader Rajapaksa paved the way for a lasting solution of the national question of reconciliation. He also said that the previous Government had caused serious damage to the country’s relations with the UN and the West, which were being repaired by his Government. Though visiting UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said encouraging words on the peace process, he touched a raw nerve by comparing what the Sri Lankan Security Force (SLSF) calls a humanitarian operation in the last phase of the war with Rwanda and Srebrenica. Notwithstanding the extreme comparison, Sri Lanka is moving towards peace, stability and reconciliation and is without an enemy.

After the end of the Cold War, Britain’s Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), Field Marshal Lord Edwin Bramall, told me: “We have no enemy now, we have to find one.” Bar an isolated incident involving two LTTE in the Kilinochchi jungles in 2013 and the threat of violent protests by the Tamil diaspora like the one faced by a Sri Lankan diplomat in Malaysia (it was intended for Rajapaksa), Sri Lanka, despite the 12,800 hardcore LTTE deradicalised and integrated into society, the LTTE’s resurgence is remote. According to Sara De Silva, the counter-terrorism expert at Kotelawala Defence University, the revival of the LTTE is only notional, compelling the SLA to chivvy its soft power for remaining relevant and productive.

The absence of a military challenge has activated thinking on ‘rightsizing’ the nearly 200,000 SLA, but no troop reduction is contemplated for now, though the military is no longer on the privileged pedestal given to it during the Rajapaksa period. The military is engaged in nation-building and in aid to civil authority with its soft power skills that no other institution in the country is endowed with. Flood and landslide relief, which is common, road-building, housing and repair works are some examples of military assistance to the civil society. The military is gainfully running holiday homes, tourist resorts, golf courses and other lucrative missions in the North-East. Three thousand acres of land has been returned and 7,000 acres is still with the military. Cantonments are likely to come up in war-affected zones. The visibility of SLA has reduced and northeners are enjoying much greater freedoms than any time in the past.

New opportunities lie in UN peace-keeping and international de-mining missions. At present, more than 5,000 Army and police personnel are deployed on five missions. A new mission to Mali will entail despatch of 750 officers and troops. Sri Lanka has the potential to provide at least two more counter-insurgency-weathered battalions. Defence cooperation with the US is the centre-piece of improving relations with the West. Between July 24 and August 23, 13 Marine Expeditionary Unit, a Pacific Command delegation and USS Frank Cable, a naval submarine visited Sri Lanka. A week-long exercise Pacific Angel, by Pacific Command and regional military experts, was held in the northern Province as a medical and humanitarian assistance programme.

Historically, India maintains the lead in defence assistance and military training programmes with Colombo, bagging around 1,500 slots in training institutions. Service-to-service, inter-Coast Guard and Ministry of Defence level interactions are held regularly to deepen and strengthen military cooperation, including construction of naval ships for Sri Lanka by Indian dockyards. The Indian Ocean has become the regional centre of geo-strategic gravity and Sri Lanka commands passage across the crucial sea lanes of communication. US Ambassador to Sri Lanka Atul Keshap said the 21st century is in many ways, the Indo-Pacific century and Sri Lanka is well poised to take advantage of its strategic location. While New Delhi is shifting gear from continental mindset to an Indian Ocean maritime strategy, Sri Lanka, having vanquished the LTTE, is rightly poised to augment its naval capability. A Chinese submarine surfacing twice in Colombo in 2014 created ripples in New Delhi-Colombo relations and remains the red rag to a bull.

It is in this context that India Foundation invited Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to Singapore to deliver the keynote address on the Global Power Transition in the Indian Ocean. He advocated an Indian Ocean order with accepted rules and code of conduct to upholding the freedom of navigation (by avoiding the conflict and confusion in East and South China Seas). Like Lakshman Kadirgamar’s famous definition of South Asia highlighted India’s centrality, Wickremesinghe has underlined India’s rise and South Asia’s domination of the Indian Ocean.

Two hundred ships pass every day below Galle and Hambantota ports of Sri Lanka. Its Navy, having sunk 10 LTTE ships between 2005 to 2007, is battle-hardened to monitor crucial sea lanes, but with more reach and teeth. The annual Galle Dialogue in November can determine the Indian Ocean regime with the requisite ingredients of hard and soft power.

---

Ashok K Mehta is a retired Lt General of the Indian Army. He writes extensively on defence matters and anchors Defence Watch on Doordarshan, India’s premier TV channel.