Sex & American Politics

By Jagath Asoka –October 16, 2016 

Dr Jagath Asoka

What is the number one issue in American politics? Is it Muslims, Mexicans, ISIS, taxes, building a wall, deleted emails, or sex? Yes, sex always trumps everything else when it comes to politics in this country. But, now, it is not just sex; it is sexual assault, not consensual sex that happens when each partner willingly chooses to participate.

I was stunned and literally had goosebumps when I heard for the first time on CNN what Trump had said about grabbing women’s vaginas with his octopus hands. Of course, Trump did not use the word vagina; I do not have to pussyfoot around because imagine for a moment, when you turn on TV, you keep hearing Trump’s words, “I moved on her like a bitch…, and when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything … Grab them by the pussy.” “Grab them by the pussy,” is not just offensive language, flippant conversation, or locker-room banter: it is sexual assault. Of course, the word “pussy” was not used as a double entendre. Now, every day, a new woman appears on TV and says, “Trump touched my vagina.” I think, I will be hearing this word “pussy” for a long time in American politics. It is the new “Watergate” and “Monica Lewinsky” in American politics.

During my life I have heard a lot of sex talk, guys bragging about their sexual achievements, but I have never heard someone bragging about sexual assault.

Well, I am glad that I have been having a very open and honest dialogue about sex, drugs, religion, and everything else that you can think of with my son—Rocco is a teenager now. Had I not done that I would be in a very awkward situation. I am somewhat blessed; I do not have to explain most of these lewd, lascivious sexual assaults on women and pernicious political rhetoric against immigrants, because my thirteen-year-old son is capable of differentiating what is good and bad, what is right and wrong, and what is moral and immoral. The saddest thing is that some adults have lost this innate ability to see what kids see as univocal.

The amazing thing about this election is that the kids are teaching adults about moral values and question their parents, grandparents, uncles, and aunts who are supporting and defending Trump’s positions on women, immigrants, and physically or mentally handicapped hapless human beings. If you have been raised by a woman, you know one thing about women: They not only have to keep their heads high and move on when they are attacked, denigrated, assaulted, or raped but also often get blamed for their husbands’ sins. I guess this is what we see on TV every day.

When Bill Clinton’s sex scandals were bruited in the media, the Christian fundamentalists in this country crucified him, and he is still trying to resurrect himself; yes, Bill Clinton’s sex scandals follow him like his own shadow; actually, Bill’s sex scandals have become Hillary’s shadow. The same Christian fundamentalists who crucified Bill Clinton, now talk about forgiveness and redemption for Trump for sexually assaulting women. They even say that Trump is a born-again Christian. If this is true, I think Jesus would die again to be resurrected again. Most Christian fundamentalists have chosen to ignore sexual assaults, bullying, and racism that Trump has been displaying openly, and they talk about redemption and forgiveness; to those who say that we must forgive Trump, I would ask: Would you forgive Trump if he had grabbed your daughter’s, mother’s, wife’s, girlfriend’s, or sister’s vagina? I do not know about you, but I feel like saying, “Praise the Lord,” and sing hallelujah, because I truly do not know what else I can do. I am not talking about pious Christians who are compassionate and moral: I am talking about sanctimonious piety which is common in every religion.

Read More

Hamas-Fatah feud stalls Gaza higher education

Al-Aqsa University diplomas may prove worthless if Ramallah makes good on its threat to deny accreditation.Abed Rahim KhatibAPA images

Isra Saleh el-Namey-14 October 2016

Ahmad Abu Hasira has decided against joining his two older siblings at Gaza’s Al-Aqsa University, one of the biggest publicly funded Palestinian higher education facilities.

Abu Hasira, 18, was about to start at the university’s journalism school, but an ongoing crisis that has seen Al-Aqsa’s accreditation threatened by the ministry of education in Ramallah deterred him. He did not, he told The Electronic Intifada, want his education to be interrupted by politics. And he is not alone.

“It is not only me who crossed this option out. Many of my friends now went to register at Al-Azhar or the Islamic University of Gaza.”

Like his older brother and sister, who are still to graduate, Abu Hasira had been keen since high school to register at Al-Aqsa. The university is renowned for maintaining a positive learning environment with relatively low tuition fees. It is a top choice for those who want to pursue a higher education, but do not have the means to study privately.

Al-Aqsa also offers a generous package of scholarships, making it even more attractive to prospective students in the impoverished Gaza Strip.

Political feud

However, the university and its more than 26,000 students have found themselves caught up in the political feud between the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas, which governs Gaza.

The problems newly escalated last year with the resignation of university president Ali Abu Zuhri, who had been in the job just four months after his most recent appointment to the post.

According to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, Abu Zuhri complained that he could not fulfill his duties because of the obstacles posed by the West Bank and Gaza governments, particularly concerning the release of funds.

His resignation sparked a conflict between the Ramallah, West Bank-based education ministry and its Gaza counterpart. Ramallah wanted to appoint Abdul Salam Abu Zayda, who had been previously nominated for the post. Gaza wished to appoint Mohammed Radwan, claiming him the oldest-serving deputy to the university.

Radwan took office and made new university appointments, raising ire in Ramallah, according to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights.

Last fall, several employees found their salaries frozen after the Ramallah ministry imposed financial sanctions on the university. Soon afterward, Ramallah exempted Al-Aqsa students from paying fees, but the Gaza ministry refused to comply and continued collecting tuition.

Two professors affiliated with Hamas had their salaries seized, and employees accused of connection with Fatah were threatened with transfer to other institutions.

The conflict peaked this August, shortly before the start of the new academic year, when the Ramallah government called on students not to register at Al-Aqsa because their degrees might not be accredited.

The situation has students and teachers appalled.

Heavy price

Zuhair Abu Abed, a long-serving professor in Al-Aqsa University’s media department, told The Electronic Intifada that the university has paid a heavy price for Palestinian divisions.

“This flow of decisions is driven by political interests and not to improve the university or to contribute positively to students’ futures,” Abu Abed said.

He said the last round of bickering had devastated enrollment at the university. Only 33 students enrolled ahead of the academic year, he noted, a figure put as “dozens” by local media reports. The average annual intake over the past few years has been 5,000.

Mohammad Radwan, the Gaza government’s appointee for university chair, criticized Ramallah’s move to waive tuition.

“If they want to have a free education in the university, they have to compensate what will be lost to cover operational and administrative expenses,” Radwan told The Electronic Intifada. The university, he said, had not received any operational expenses since September 2015.

“Moreover, such a policy should be implemented generally, and come into effect at all other facilities at the same time, otherwise it is only meant to sabotage one establishment.”

Problems have also arisen in the hiring process for non-academic as well as academic staff.

It is the ministry in Gaza that interviews and selects candidates, but the ministry in Ramallah that pays salaries. This, however, has changed in the past year, when Ramallah refused to recognize and pay new hires.

“We sent a lot of inquiries to the ministry in Ramallah asking them to hold an employment process to meet the university’s needs for employees and professors, but they did not react,” Radwan said.

He said the Gaza-based education ministry then intervened to select and interview suitable candidates.

Yet the Ramallah deputy minister for education, Anwar Zakaria, said that his ministry would not recognize new hires, and called on the university to let them go.

“They took away our responsibility to hire people. They can’t then ask us to pay salaries,” Zakaria noted.

When asked why his ministry had not stepped up when the university asked for new hires, Zakaria said that his ministry was willing to do so, but only once the unauthorized new hires were dismissed.

The Ramallah ministry was not willing to comment further despite repeated attempts.

Poisonous atmosphere

Anwar al-Birawi, an assistant deputy at the Gaza-based Ministry of Education, said Ramallah’s decisions were driven by political interests.

“Our students should never feel intimidated by the latest decision from Ramallah. The education process inside the university is going smoothly and there are no violations justifying withdrawing accreditation,” the official told The Electronic Intifada.

But in such a poisoned atmosphere, students suffer.

Amal Isleem, 21, who is studying education at Al-Aqsa, said she feared it would now take her much longer to finish her last remaining year.

“I want to get my degree and leave. It would be a disaster if I obtained my degree after all this work and it was deemed invalid,” Isleem said.

Like her peers, Isleem wants to finish her education and start work. And she is frustrated.

“We are paying a heavy price for their endless differences. They have to keep us out of their disagreements. Our futures are not to be toyed with by irresponsible politicians.”

Isra Saleh el-Namey is a journalist based in Gaza

US, Britain and UN demand immediate Yemen ceasefire

US Secretary of State John Kerry says he wants an unconditional ceasefire to be implemented in Yemen followed by negotiations

Yemenis attend the funeral of members of the same family on October 8, 2016 a day after they were killed in a reported airstrike by Saudi-led coalition jets (AFP)

Sunday 16 October 2016

The United States, Britain and the UN peace envoy to Yemen on Sunday urged the warring parties in the country's civil war to declare a ceasefire they said could start within days.

 

The United Nations envoy, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, said: "We are here to call for an immediate cessation of hostilities, which will be declared in the next few hours."

 

Cheikh Ahmed said he had been in contact with the rebel Houthi militia's lead negotiator and with Yemeni President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi's government. 

 

But he also warned that he hoped for "clearer plans" for a ceasefire in coming days.

 

US Secretary of State John Kerry would not predict whether Yemen's government or rebel forces had accepted the demand, but said the diplomats were not operating "in a vacuum."

 

"This is the time to implement a ceasefire unconditionally and then move to the negotiating table," Kerry told reporters.

 

Kerry was speaking after meeting Cheikh Ahmed and his opposite numbers from Britain, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates at talks hosted by Britain in London.

 

Washington's top diplomat said he, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and Cheikh Ahmed are calling for the ceasefire to begin "as rapidly as possible, meaning Monday, Tuesday".

 

The senior envoys, he said, had been in touch with Hadi's Saudi-backed government and with the Iranian-sponsored Huthi rebels who drove him from the country to push for peace.

 

"We cannot emphasise enough today the urgency of ending the violence in Yemen," Kerry said.

 

Johnson agreed, saying: "The fatalities that we're seeing there are unacceptable. There should be a ceasefire and the UN should lead the way in calling for that ceasefire."

 

The diplomatic push came amid signs that a renewed peace process may be at hand.

 

A Saudi-led coalition intervened in March 2015 in support of Hadi's internationally-recognised government after it was forced to flee as Houthi rebels seized the capital.

 

The coalition has carried out hundreds of air strikes and provided ground troops to support Hadi's forces.

 

But it has failed to dislodge the Huthi rebels, who are allied with forces loyal to ex-president Ali Abdullah Saleh, from key areas including the capital Sanaa.

 

The rebels still control large parts of the north, their historic stronghold areas, and other regions of western and central Yemen.

 

Government forces have recaptured the south and east but failed to make any significant advances.

 

The conflict has killed almost 6,900 people, wounded more than 35,000 and displaced at least three million since March last year, according to the United Nations.

 

Civilians have paid the heaviest price in an increasingly dire humanitarian crisis.

 

One of the deadliest coalition attacks came on 8 October when an air raid on a funeral ceremony killed 140 people and wounded 525 others.

 

Washington, which along with Britain provides logistical support to Saudi-led efforts, was angry at its ally's blunder and renewed calls for a truce.

 

This article is available in French on Middle East Eye French edition.

Stop World War Three Already!

Putin’s Russia refrained from overt involvement in the US wars, while simultaneously strengthening ties with Iran and Syria.  After the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 failed in its goal of replacing the Hussein regime with a pliant yet popular regime in Baghdad—and the political situation in Iraq devolved into a multi-sided bloody civil war manipulated by outside forces (esp. Washington and Tehran)—Putin’s government stepped up its involvement in the region.

by Ron Jacobs 

( October 16, 2016,  Vermont, Sri Lanka Guardian) If one is to believe the hysterical US and British press we are only days or weeks away from all-out war with Russia. Encouraged by many of the same media who helped get us into the current conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other places in the world, we the media consumers are supposed to believe that this latest war they are trumpeting is not only worthwhile, but is necessary to preserve civilization.  Of course, this latter idiocy is utter nonsense and absolutely untrue.  Put plainly and simply, any war between those aligned with Washington and those aligned with Moscow would be unnecessary and contrived.

The antiwar revolutionary Karl Liebknecht said the following before the beginning of World War One:

“This war, which none of the peoples involved desired, was not started for the benefit of the German or of any other people. It is an Imperialist war, a war for capitalist domination of the world markets and for the political domination of the important countries in the interest of industrial and financial capitalism. Arising out of the armament race, it is a preventative war provoked by the German and Austrian war parties in the obscurity of semi-absolutism and of secret diplomacy.”

If we replace the terms “German” and “Austrian” with the terms “American,” “British,” and “Russian,” the remainder of Liebknecht’s statement hold true for the current situation.  In other words, any war between Washington and Moscow and their associated allies will not be started for the benefit of any people.  Indeed, the only beneficiaries of such a conflict would be industrial and financial capitalism.  This truth is an essential one that cannot be repeated enough.  Any and all rhetoric calling for war needs to be opposed on every front.

So, how did we get to this point?  This point where the propaganda mills in the West and (from what I can see on my internet feed) in the East are anticipating a battle royal between the two most heavily armed militaries in the world?  Why is it that politicians in the United States and Great Britain are whipping portions of their respective populations against Russia and its people?  Why would these politicians (and some generals) risk the lives of millions in the escalating battle of words?

There is no single answer to the questions above.  However, certain facts are fairly obvious. Let me list what seems most apparent. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Washington and its associated investors took advantage of the moment to steal as much of Russia and its associated nation-states’ financial wealth as it could.  This was done via what has become known as the Shock Doctrine.  After a number of corrupt officials in the Kremlin, who were more than happy to oblige outside investors while stuffing their bank accounts, Putin was elected into power (first as Prime Minister, then as President, then Prime Minister and again as President) to clean up the mess in his own way.  Meanwhile, Washington was consolidating and expanding its military strength and presence around the globe, especially in those European nations formerly in the Soviet sphere. This was done by expanding the NATO alliance, installing missiles in countries neighboring Russia, and waging war in the Middle East and South Asia; first against Iran via Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, then against Iraq in the ongoing war that began in 1991.

Putin’s Russia refrained from overt involvement in the US wars, while simultaneously strengthening ties with Iran and Syria.  After the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 failed in its goal of replacing the Hussein regime with a pliant yet popular regime in Baghdad—and the political situation in Iraq devolved into a multi-sided bloody civil war manipulated by outside forces (esp. Washington and Tehran)—Putin’s government stepped up its involvement in the region.  At the same time, Moscow became more forceful in its opposition to the increasing encroachment of the West on its borders.  Rebellions in the Caucasus were brutally crushed and the Crimea was assimilated back into Russian hands after a series of protests in Ukraine manipulated by Washington and Moscow on opposing sides.  In addition, the Russian arms industry stepped up its production in response to the growing presence of US/NATO forces and weaponry aimed at its heart.

Most importantly, however, in terms of the growing talk in the press of a US-Russia war is the ongoing conflict in Syria. What began as a popular protest as part of what has come to be called the Arab Spring has devolved into a complex multi-sided war between the Syrian military and its allies, jihadists, tribal forces, mercenaries, secular forces of varying political hues, and the intelligence and special forces of several outside governments.  Among those outside forces are Hezbollah, Iranian military, Russian forces allied with the Syrian military under the command of President Assad.  Among those providing and supporting outside forces opposed to the Syrian regime and its allies are US military and intelligence agencies, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel.  In addition, various Kurdish forces aligned with Kurdish radicals in Turkey have been quite successful in their battle for autonomy in northern Syria.  In addition to all of these (and more) forces fighting in Syria, there is the phenomenon of the Islamic State (IS).  Most of those involved directly and indirectly in the Syrian conflict claim to oppose IS.  However, they remain a well-funded and powerful player in the region, so they must be getting support from somewhere in addition to the funds they receive via black market oil sales and so on.

Despite an apparent majority of proxy and jihadist fighters in the ranks battling the Syrian forces, it seems from reports I have read and received from people in country and elsewhere that there are groups remaining among those fighting the Syrian army who are democratic and even somewhere on the Left. These folks need our support. However, most  accounts report that most of the rest are religious extremists and/ or in the employ of outside sponsors desiring a share of the spoils if the war ever ends. The presence of progressive elements in a civil war is not a logical reason to support the entrance of imperialist forces into that battle.  More importantly, it is not any kind of reason to end up in a world war.

At the same time, history tells us that sometimes events get out of hand.  In those moments, terrible things can happen.  One such moment occurred slightly more than a hundred years ago.  When the young assassin killed Archduke Ferdinand and his wife on June 28, 1914 few people could have predicted this act would be used to start a war that would end barely four years later, taking the lives of more than 35 million people and creating a world order that remains a tinderbox almost a hundred years after its end.  The assassination itself was the match that provided imperial powers with a reason to attack their rivals.  Once the process was initiated, the downspin towards war became impossible to halt.  Treaties and alliances were invoked, arms makers and financiers drooled over potential profits and politicians and generals drank to the possibility of victory.  Rulers appealed to their population’s prejudices and patriotic passions, enabling a rapid conscription and mobilization that would take humanity into an unnecessary, violent, bloody and murderous hell worthy of the artist Hieronymus Bosch’s most gruesome dreams.

Those of us who oppose imperial war must not fall into the trap of supporting one side or the other.  I say this because there is a growing tendency for those in what is considered the western Left to either side with the Syrian regime or with the rebels.  In the case of those who support the former, there is a tendency to minimize and even dismiss the murderous tactics of the regime’s military and even applaud the Syrian regime in hyper nationalist terms; in the case of those who support the rebels (usually only the democratic forces in its composition), there is a strong tendency to overemphasize the brutality of the Syrian military and minimize or not even mention the brutal excesses of the rebel forces.  Our future does not lie with the predominant forces and their backers on either side.  While self-determination is a principle we must not forsake, we should also hold to the idea expressed by Liebknecht’s comrade-in-arms Rosa Luxemburg:

“It is true that socialism gives to every people the right of independence and the freedom of independent control of its own destinies. But it is a veritable perversion of socialism to regard present-day capitalist society as the expression of this self-determination of nations. Where is there a nation in which the people have had the right to determine the form and conditions of their national, political and social existence?”  We must not find ourselves (as the soldiers of World War One did) “ Locked in the embrace of death, …tumbl(ing) into a common grave.”

European Diplomats Poised to Directly Blame Russia for Aleppo Siege

A draft statement, obtained by Foreign Policy, for the first time explicitly calls out Moscow for its role in the devastating Syrian bombing campaign.

BY JOHN HUDSON-OCTOBER 14, 2016

Overcoming a wave of reluctance to antagonize Moscow, European Union foreign ministers are planning to formally and explicitly admonish Russia for supporting the Syrian government’s deadly assault on Aleppo, an attack that “may amount to war crimes,” diplomats tell Foreign Policy.

The European ministers, who will meet meet on Monday in Luxembourg, are also expected to support the imposition of sanctions on as many as 20 Syrian government officials who have had a role in the bombardment.

An earlier draft of the EU statement did not include a direct reference to Russia, but has been added at the insistence of the French, British and German governments. The move comes as Secretary of State John Kerry mounts a new diplomatic push to pursue a ceasefire for the besieged city at a meeting in Lausanne, Switzerland on Saturday that includes representatives of Russia, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

“Since the beginning of the offensive by the regime and its allies, notably Russia, the intensity and scale of the aerial bombardment of eastern Aleppo is clearly disproportionate,” reads a draft joint statement obtained by FP. “The escalating violence in Aleppo is causing untold and unacceptable suffering for thousands of its inhabitants.”

Several EU countries with political or business ties to Russia opposed efforts to explicitly call out Moscow, including Greece, Spain, Austria, the Czech Republic, and Cyprus. But proponents of the more pointed language prevailed, just as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad vowed to “clean” the divided city of Aleppo, prompting fears of more bloody atrocities.

Assad’s military, with aerial support by Russian warplanes, have killed more than 150 people in rebel-held eastern Aleppo this week, according to rescue workers.

“Given Russia’s brutal onslaught against Syrian civilians, abetted by Assad and Hezbollah, it is hardly surprising that the EU would, as a first step, respond so strongly,” one European diplomat told FP.

The bloc of Central and Southern European countries did succeed in slowing down an effort to sanction up to 13 Russian officials for the Aleppo siege, a move that Britain, France and Germany were considering, according to a Financial Times report on Wednesday. The governments are not expected to impose punitive economic measures on Russia during the Monday summit.

When asked about potential U.S. sanctions, a senior State Department official told FP: “We’ve long held that sanctions are best utilized when they are coordinated with our partners in Europe and beyond” that enable coordination of harsher or looser sanctions as conditions require. “But no decisions have been made,” the official added.

The current text of the joint statement came out of a meeting Friday in Brussels of the EU’s Political and Security Committee, and remains subject to changes ahead of the Monday meeting of ministers. The plans to sanction up to 20 Syrian officials was first reported by Reuters. The ministers are not expected to reach an agreement on a list of names of Syrian officials, leaving that decision for technocrats to resolve on a later date.

The mention of “war crimes” by EU ministers echoes a remark by Kerry that Assad and Russia should face a war crimes investigation. Former U.S. officials said it was important that Washington and Brussels remain united in their messaging on Syria.

“As the U.S. appears to be reviewing its options, it’s important to send a message that Russia could face costs for its actions,” said Jeff Rathke, a former State Department official who focuses on Europe at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “So the more clear Europe is about a hardening line, the better.”

The move also comes as President Barack Obama weighed a decision to use military force against Damascus at a meeting of the National Security Council on Friday. U.S. officials have repeatedly said that there is no military solution to the war in Syria.

A Western official on Friday said that U.S. and European militaries have little room to maneuver in a way that would help end the conflict in Syria. Russian forces there, and especially Russian-made air defense systems, have made it much riskier for the United States to intervene, even if it wished.

“Now that the Russians are there, our options are quite limited,” the diplomat said.  “What the Middle East is seeing right now is that the regime won’t fall, that the Russians and Iranians are ready to go to any length in order to support the regime.”

FP’s chief national security reporter Dan De Luce contributed  to this report. 

Philippines: Duterte says no bargains with China on territorial dispute

Protesters display placards during a rally outside of the Chinese Consulate in Manila ahead of the ruling in The Hague on the South China Sea dispute. Pic: AP.

16th October 2016

PHILIPPINE President Rodrigo Duterte confirmed Sunday that he will raise the South China Sea dispute with China during his visit next week, and that he will stand by the arbitration court’s ruling favoring his country.

The intrepid leader who has been courting controversy with his pivot to China, told a media briefing in Davao City that there would be no bargaining in the matter, nor any “hard imposition” during talks.

“We will stick to our claim. We do not bargain anything there. We continue to insist that that’s ours and that the international tribunal decision will be taken up.

“But there will be no hard impositions,” he was quoted by GMA News as saying.

“We will talk but maybe paraphrase everything in the [arbitral] judgment and set the limits of our territories, he added.

SEE ALSO: Japan, Philippines tell China to respect ruling on disputed waters

According to the local daily, the politician said there can be no middle ground when it comes to the Philippines’ claim over disputed territories in the South China Sea.

He said that it is “[either] we go to trouble or we talk. We cannot choose the path there in between.”

“I will be very careful not to bargain anything for after all, I cannot give what is not mine and which I am not empowered to do by any such stretch of imagination,” he added.

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte. Pic: AP

SEE ALSO: Philippines: Duterte to visit China amid worsening ties with Washington

Duterte was speaking ahead of his visit to Brunei. After Brunei, the president will head to China from Oct 18 to 21 along with more than 200 business executives for his first state visit to the republic, and the country’s first since 2011.

According to The Philippine Star, the president will be meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, the National People’s Congress Chairman Zhang Dejiang as well as members of the Filipino community living in China.

Earlier this week, however, Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Zhao Jianhua said China will avoid discussing the historic ruling on the South China Sea during the meeting with Duterte.

“You know our position on the arbitration and the award, so I don’t expect, and I don’t hope, that issues that can be divided will be picked up,” Zhao said, according to Rappler on Friday.

SEE ALSO: Duterte says China ‘worried’ about him, offered Philippines airplanes

On July 12, China lost to the Philippines an international court ruling on its territorial claims in the South China Sea. In the ruling by the arbitration court in The Hague, it was stated that China had no historical title over the South China Sea and that it had breached the Philippines’ sovereign rights.

Duterte has stated his intention to foster better ties with China and Russia, and revamping the Philippine foreign policy that has long been pro-Washington. After making headlines for labeling Obama a “son of a bitch” and ordering U.S. troops to leave the Philippines, Duterte claimed of possible deals with China and Russia to boost his country’s military arsenal.

Leading Nepal editor speaks out about independent media facing censorship in South Asia

After 29 years of circulation, Himal Southasian, which claims to be the only analytical and regional news magazine for South Asia, will cease to publish as of November 2016

By Cameron Ochse / 14 October 2016

One of South Asia’s most influential news magazines,Himal Southasian, is to close next month after 29 years of publishing as part of a clampdown on freedom of expression across the region. The magazine has a specific goal: to unify the divided countries in South Asia by informing and educating readers on issues that stretch throughout the region, not just one community. 

Index got a chance to speak with Himal Southasian’s editor, Aunohita Mojumdar, on the vital role of independent media in South Asia, the Nepali government’s complicated way of silencing activists and what the future holds for journalism in the region.

“The means used to silence us are not straightforward but nor are they unique,” Mojumdar said. “Throughout the region one sees increasing use of regulatory means to clamp down on freedom of expression, whether it relates to civil society activists, media houses, journalists or human rights campaigners.”

Himal Southasian, which claims to be the only analytical and regional news magazine for South Asia, faced months of bureaucratic roadblocks before the funding for the magazine’s publisher, the Southasia Trust, was cut off due to non-cooperation by regulatory state agencies in Nepal, said the editor. This is a common tactic among the neighbouring countries as governments are wary of using “direct attacks or outright censorship” for fear of public backlash.

But for Nepal it wasn’t always this way. “Nepal earlier stood as the country where independent media and civil society not accepted by their own countries could function fearlessly,” Mojumdar said.

In a statement announcing its suspension of publication as of November 2016, Himal Southasian explained that without warning, grants were cut off, work permits for editorial staff became difficult to obtain and it started to experience “unreasonable delays” when processing payments for international contributors. “We persevered through the repercussions of the political attack on Himal in Parliament in April 2014, as well as the escalating targeting of Kanak Mani Dixit, Himal’s founding editor and Trust chairman over the past year,” it added.

Index on Censorship: Why is an independent media outlet like Himal Southasian essential in South Asia?

Aunohita Mojumdar: While the region has robust media, much of it is confined in its coverage to the boundaries of the nation-states or takes a nationalistic approach while reporting on cross-border issues. Himal’s coverage is based on the understanding that the enmeshed lives of almost a quarter of the world’s population makes it imperative to deal with both challenges and opportunities in a collaborative manner. 

The drum-beating jingoism currently on exhibit in the mainstream media of India and Pakistan underline how urgent it is for a different form of journalism that is fact-based and underpinned by rigorous research. Himal’s reportage and analysis generate awareness about issues and areas that are underreported. It’s long-form narrative journalism also attempts to ensure that the power of good writing generates interest in these issues. Based on a recognition of the need for social justice for the people rather than temporary pyrrhic victories for the political leaderships, Himal Southasian brings journalism back to its creed of being a public service good.

Index: Did the arrest of Kanak Mani Dixit, the founding editor for Himal Southasian,contribute to the suspension of Himal Southasian or the treatment the magazine received from regulatory agencies?

Mojumdar: In the case of Himal or its publisher the non-profit Southasia Trust, neither entity is even under investigation. We can only surmise that the tenuous link is that the chairman of the trust, Kanak Mani Dixit, is under investigation since we have received no formal information. Informally we have indeed been told that there is political pressure related to the “investigation” which prevents the regulatory bodies from providing their approval.

The lengthy process of this denial – we had applied in January 2016 for the permission to use a secured grant and in December 2015 for the work permit, effectively diminished our ability to function as an organisation until the point of paralysis. While the case against Dixit is itself contentious and currently sub judice, Himal has not been intimated by any authority that it is under any kind of scrutiny. On the contrary, regulatory officials inform us informally that we have fulfilled every requirement of law and procedure, but cite political pressure for their inability to process our requests. Our finances are audited independently and the audit report, financial statements, bank statements and financial reporting are submitted to the Nepal government’s regulatory bodies as well as to the donors.

Index: Why is Nepal utilising bureaucracy to indirectly shut down independent media? Why are they choosing indirect methods rather than direct censorship?

Mojumdar: The means used to silence us are not straightforward but nor are they unique. Throughout the region one sees increasing use of regulatory means to clamp down on freedom of expression, whether it relates to civil society activists, media houses, journalists or human rights campaigners. Direct attacks or outright censorship are becoming rarer as governments have begun to fear the backlash of public protests.

Index: With the use of bureaucratic force to shut down civil society activists and media growing in Nepal, how does the future look for independent media in South Asia?

Mojumdar: This is actually a regional trend. However, while Nepal earlier stood as the country where independent media and civil society not accepted by their own countries could function fearlessly, the closing down of this space in Nepal is a great loss. As a journalist I myself was supported by the existence of the Himal Southasian platform. When the media of my home country, India, were not interested in publishing independent reporting from Afghanistan, Himal reached out to me and published my article for the eight years that I was based in Kabul as a freelancer. We are constantly approached by journalists wishing to write the articles that they cannot publish in their own national media.

The fact that regulatory means to silence media and civil society is meeting with such success here and that an independent platform is getting scarce support within Nepal’s civil society will also be a signal for others in power wishing to use the same means against voices of dissent.

It is a struggle for the media to be independent and survive. In an era where corporate interests increasingly drive the media’s agenda, it is important for all of us to reflect on what we can all do to ensure the survival of small independent organisations, many of which, like us, face severe challenges.

Floods kill 21 people in Vietnam, next storm due soon

A man paddles a boat near his submerged house during a flood in Vietnam's central Ha Tinh province, October 15, 2016. Mandatory credit VNA/Tuan Anh/via REUTERS

Sun Oct 16, 2016 

At least 21 people have been killed by floods in Vietnam's four central provinces in the past week and eight are still missing, the government said on Sunday amid preparations for another tropical storm to hit the country.

Fifteen of the victims were in Quang Binh province, the region expected to be hit by typhoon Sarika by Wednesday, it said.

"We need to focus on searching for the missing," Deputy Prime Minister Trinh Dinh Dung told a meeting on preparations for the typhoon, according to a Vietnam Television (VTV) broadcast.

Dung urged authorities in 22 coastal provinces to reinforce key infrastructure projects and prepare evacuation plans, and assured them the government would provide food relief in flooded areas.

State-run VTV warned viewers that many reservoirs were nearly full now and could burst at any time. It showed footage of people stranded on the roofs of their homes.

Around 500,000 people have been displaced and more than 100,000 houses submerged and damaged by floods, according to a government report.

(Reporting by Ho Binh Minh; Editing by Tom Heneghan)

I dream of a utopian Lagos – but here's what African cities really need to prosper

The UN’s global convention on urbanisation must remember that not all cities are created equal. It is unfair to suggest that Addis Ababa, Nairobi and my city, Lagos, should not develop the way Amsterdam, London and New York once grew

The state of roads is infuriating for the population of Lagos, whose state motto is ‘centre of excellence’. Photograph: Pius Utomi Ekpei/AFP/Getty Images--The traffic in Lagos is notorious – it can take commuters up to four hours to get to work. Photograph: Pius Utomi Ekpei/AFP/Getty Images

es

The city is expected to double in size in the next 15 years. Photograph: Wayne Parsons/Getty Images/Gallo Images-- Iweala believes that the New Urban Agenda can be achieved if the informal systems that underpin the growth of emerging African cities are formalised. Photograph: Alamy

Uzodinma Iweala-Thursday 13 October 2016

There is a place in Lagos I go to when I need to clear my head. It’s an old jetty in the city’s Ikoyi neighbourhood that sticks out into the still waters of Five Cowrie Creek, which separates Lagos Island from the Lekki Peninsula at its westernmost tip.

At night you can sit and look out at the tall buildings of Victoria Island and the Lagos skyline that, majestic in the dark, belie the fractured sprawl they dominate during the day. Often I lie here with my back on concrete that emanates heat from a day in the sun, staring up at the city lights and dreaming of the paradise that this ever-growing megalopolis will one day become … if only.

This lasts until the private security guards from the mansion behind a large white wall across the street chase me away for “trespassing” on what is clearly public property. I have stopped trying to argue that I have a right to this public space, because it means nothing. In this city, it’s about what you can appropriate, not what you have a right to. If we don’t act, it will increasingly be this way in Lagos and many other cities.

Around the world, our cities are not the idealised open, accessible and cosmopolitan spaces of our dreams. More often than not, they are sectioned and controlled purviews of the radically wealthy, surrounded by clusters of have-nots.

Lagos is no different. Though often described as such by outsiders, it is neither the frenetic emerging market dream, nor a throbbing third-world nightmare. For most people who live here, poor or wealthy, this city is simply a collection of daily rituals of survival, like any other large metropolis.

This, of course, leads to striking juxtapositions of wealth and poverty occupying the same urban space. Such a statement now sounds so cliched as to mean almost nothing – but it’s still one of the prime drivers for the massive United Nationsconference, dedicated to reinvigorating “the global commitment to sustainable urbanisation”, which is about to happen in Quito, Ecuador.

UN-orchestrated gatherings are typically the death of all spontaneity and innovation. After reading the 23-page, 175-point New Urban Agenda to be ratified at the UN’s third Habitat conference (which comes along every 20 years), I can confirm that this latest gathering adheres to tradition.

A document addressing the fact that more than 50% of the world’s population now live in urban centres must certainly be comprehensive, but what practical takeaways are there from a paper with platitudes such as paragraph 27: “We reaffirm our pledge that no one will be left behind, and commit to promote equally shared opportunities and benefits that urbanisation can offer, and enable all inhabitants, whether living in formal or informal settlements, to lead decent, dignified, and rewarding lives and to achieve their full human potential.”

I agree. Who wouldn’t? However, such a proclamation does not lay out a blueprint for housing the homeless child, or for building safe public transport for the 20-something journalist who works at my magazine.

Lagos is a fascinatingly infuriating place that its residents love, and love to hate. Licence plates on cars here proudly display the state motto “Centre of Excellence”, in what often seems a sarcastic swipe at the place we live in. If excellence is an ageing network of broken roads chock-full of luxury cars and overladen lorries constantly harassed by motorbikes and the unruly drivers of Danfo buses, then I suggest we aspire to something else. If the pinnacle of urban living is refuse-clogged open drainage which, when sun warmed, emits the most noxious miasmas that mingle with generator exhaust, then get me to the countryside.

Lagos is sometimes emblematic of disorder. In traffic, drivers make their own rules. There is a constant war between our street hawkers and our various forms of law enforcement deployed to eradicate the “indiscipline” of poverty. The soundtrack of my morning commute is often angry horns and hoarse voices, trading insults across lanes demarcated for two, but occupied by four or more cars. 

With such a positive description, you might think people would stay as far away from this city as possible. Yet while some Nigerians do fear, or loathe, Africa’s largest city, Lagos’s population of 21 million people (give or take a couple of million) continues to grow at the rate of 1,200 people per day. On its own, it is the seventh largest economy in Africa, and a locus of ingenuity and creativity with outsized influence on the image of its host country and continent. Its ever-expanding population in tight proximity means opportunity for multinationals and small businesses alike. This means jobs that pay more than merciless subsistence farming in village fields. More jobs mean more growth. More growth means more opportunity, and so the vortex of capitalism pulls people in. Now we all find ourselves desperately searching for a way to make this complicated city more liveable.

If Habitat III serves a purpose, it is first and foremost to remind us that the inexorable process of urbanisation need not be a nightmare. The cynical me sees this gathering as little more than that.

In making broad statements that urban areas are responsible for over 60% of global energy consumption, 70% of greenhouse gas emissions and 70% of global waste, the conference documents largely ignore the fact that not all cities are created equal. They ignore the reality that the bicycle path utopias of western admiration derive from years of extraction, exploitation and environmental abuse both in their geographies and further afield in the former colonial spaces that provided the capital for their reconstruction.

Yes, for those frustrated with the mere mention of colonialism, it matters that the shifting of resources has created unequal pressures and outcomes for our urban environments. It matters that many overstressed cities, such as our beloved Lagos, were originally constructed to support a very small number of non-local people living very, very well.

A catch-all document like the New Urban Agenda feels good in its unifying, cosmopolitan aspirations, but it elides the needs of urban areas in contexts so dissimilar as to almost render its proscriptions purposeless. Among other things, Lagos and many growing African cities face housing, infrastructure and power deficits that people in London, New York and Tokyo cannot imagine.

For example, I remember when New York City experienced total chaos from a three-day blackout due to an electrical grid malfunction in 2003; my uncle and I watched from Lagos wondering what special kind of madness would ensue if we actually had electricity for three days straight. The contexts are not the same.

We must acknowledge there is a fundamental unfairness in suggesting that Addis Ababa, Lagos and Nairobi should not be able to develop the way Amsterdam, London and New York grew, lest we all fall off the climate change cliff. 

When I dream about a sustainable future Lagos, I want to see the large landholdings currently occupied by unnecessary military bases turned into massive public parks. I want our lagoon to become a major part of a public transport system that reduces traffic on the road, pressure on the environment, and stress for the millions of people who live here.

I want communities powered by alternative energy, solar panels and tidal turbines so that the city vibrates with the energy of people advancing, not the rumble of large standby generators in the compounds of the wealthy. I want a city in which waste water is treated and used for urban agriculture; where the security walls that currently separate crumble into dust; and where newcomers feel they have moved to new possibility, not just struggle. These are all things that the New Urban Agenda commits to – just without really saying how.

Practically speaking, I know this comes only with greater executive and legislative accountability right here in our “Centre of Excellence” – an unlikely probability during Nigeria’s current season of anomie. Then again, the sheer amount of political will necessary for radical urban transformation doesn’t really exist anywhere in the world. It’s why the fundamental inequalities and problems in cities transform so slowly, and why global conventions are generally ill-suited for the local change-making needed to improve lives.

Instead, a utopian future Lagos must start with a few small steps that are largely applicable to cities like ours around the world.

First and foremost, it’s about fostering the political will to develop means for granting and honouring property rights in places where informality is both a coping mechanism and an Achilles heel for the poor. It’s hard to invest in the upkeep of a place if your claim to the land you live on is tenuous at best. Without the security of property ownership, other areas of life become that much more difficult, and the city suffers.

Second, it’s about innovating in safe, affordable housing made from low-cost but durable building materials. I’m in love with the idea of recycling the massive amounts of plastic waste we produce in Lagos to create lasting building materials and new techniques. It sounds fantastical, but people are already doing it on a small scale.

Finally, it’s about pushing existing financial institutions to develop innovative ways of helping urban dwellers towards property ownership. The mortgages of Lagos need not look like the mortgages of London, but we won’t know what it means unless there is some support for the level of risk involved.

In many ways I’ve bought into the logic of Hernando de Soto Polar; I believe that an almost singular focus on formalising the informal systems that currently underpin the rapid growth of emerging African cities will make it easier to realise the intentions of the New Urban Agenda. If Habitat III can push the world towards that goal, then count me in.

Until then, I’ll keep dreaming in the quiet of Lagos’s private public spaces.

Uzodinma Iweala is the author of Beasts of No Nation and Our Kind of People.

Guardian Cities is a member of the Habitat III Journalism Project. Read more about the project here and follow Guardian Cities on Twitter and Facebook to join the discussion