Scientists are frantically copying U.S. climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump

A satellite image of Hurricane Otto approaching the coast of Central America on Nov. 24. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

By Brady Dennis December 13 at 11:07 AM

Alarmed that decades of crucial climate measurements could vanish under a hostile Trump administration, scientists have begun a feverish attempt to copy reams of government data onto independent servers in hopes of safeguarding it from any political interference.

The efforts include a “guerrilla archiving” event in Toronto, where experts will copy irreplaceable public data, meetings at the University of Pennsylvania focused on how to download as much federal data as possible in the coming weeks, and a collaboration of scientists and database experts who are compiling an online site to harbor scientific information.

“Something that seemed a little paranoid to me before all of a sudden seems potentially realistic, or at least something you’d want to hedge against,” said Nick Santos, an environmental researcher at the University of California at Davis, who over the weekend began copying government climate data onto a nongovernment server, where it will remain available to the public. “Doing this can only be a good thing. Hopefully they leave everything in place. But if not, we’re planning for that.”

[Trump taps former Texas Gov. Rick Perry to head Energy Department he once vowed to abolish]

In recent weeks, President-elect Donald Trump has nominated a growing list of Cabinet members who have questioned the overwhelming scientific consensus around global warming. His transition team at the Department of Energy has asked agency officials for names of employees and contractors who have participated in international climate talks and worked on the scientific basis for Obama administration-era regulations of carbon emissions. One Trump adviser suggested that NASA no longer should conduct climate research and instead should focus on space exploration.

Trump transition team for Energy Department seeks names of employees involved in climate meetings

Play Video1:54

The Trump transition team has issued a list of 74 questions for the Energy Department, asking officials there to identify which department employees and contractors have worked on forging an international climate pact as well as domestic efforts to cut the nation's carbon output. (Whitney Shefte/The Washington Post)

Those moves have stoked fears among the scientific community that Trump, who has called the notion of man-made climate change “a hoax” and vowed to reverse environmental policies put in place by President Obama, could try to alter or dismantle parts of the federal government’s repository of data on everything from rising sea levels to the number of wildfires in the country.

Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists, argued that Trump has appointed a “band of climate conspiracy theorists” to run transition efforts at various agencies, along with nominees to lead them who share similar views.

[Energy Dept. rejects Trump’s request to name climate change workers, who remain worried]

“They have been salivating at the possibility of dismantling federal climate research programs for years. It’s not unreasonable to think they would want to take down the very data that they dispute,” Halpern said in an email. “There is a fine line between being paranoid and being prepared, and scientists are doing their best to be prepared. . . . Scientists are right to preserve data and archive websites before those who want to dismantle federal climate change research programs storm the castle.”

To be clear, neither Trump nor his transition team have said the new administration plans to manipulate or curtail publicly available data. The transition team did not respond to a request for comment. But some scientists aren’t taking any chances.

“What are the most important .gov climate assets?” Eric Holthaus, a meteorologist and self-proclaimed “climate hawk,” tweeted from his Arizona home Saturday evening. “Scientists: Do you have a US .gov climate database that you don’t want to see disappear?”

[Trump says ‘nobody really knows’ if climate change is real]

Within hours, responses flooded in from around the country. Scientists added links to dozens of government databases to a Google spreadsheet. Investors offered to help fund efforts to copy and safeguard key climate data. Lawyers offered pro bono legal help. Database experts offered server space and help organizing mountains of data. In California, Santos began building an online repository to “make sure these data sets remain freely and broadly accessible.”

Climate data from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have been politically vulnerable. When Tom Karl, director of the National Centers for Environmental Information, and his colleagues published a study in 2015 seeking to challenge the idea that there had been a global warming “slowdown” or “pause” during the 2000s, they relied, in significant part, on updates to NOAA’s ocean temperature data set, saying the data “do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus.’”

In response, the U.S. House Science, Space and Technology Committee chair, Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R-Tex.), tried to subpoena the scientists and their records.

That effort launched by Holthaus is one of several underway to preserve key federal scientific data.

[Trump has picked the most conservative EPA leader since 1981. This one will face much less resistance.]

In Philadelphia, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, along with members of groups such as Open Data Philly and the software company Azavea, have been meeting to figure out ways to harvest and store important data sets.

At the University of Toronto this weekend, researchers are holding what they call a “guerrilla archiving” event to catalogue key federal environmental data ahead of Trump’s inauguration. The event “is focused on preserving information and data from the Environmental Protection Agency, which has programs and data at high risk of being removed from online public access or even deleted,” the organizers said. “This includes climate change, water, air, toxics programs.”

The event is part of a broader effort to help San Francisco-based Internet Archive with its End of Term 2016 project, an effort by university, government and nonprofit officials to find and archive valuable pages on federal websites. The project has existed through several presidential transitions.

[Al Gore just had ‘an extremely interesting conversation’ with Trump on climate change]

At the American Geophysical Union’s fall meeting in San Francisco, where more than 20,000 earth and climate scientists have swarmed the city’s biggest conference center this week, an air of gallows humor marked many conversations. Some young scientists said their biggest personal concern is funding for their research, much of which relies on support from NASA and other agencies.

“You just don’t know what’s coming,” said Adam Campbell, who studies the imperiled Ross Ice Shelf of Antarctica.

But others also arrived at the meeting with a strengthened sense of resolve. Campbell was planning to join hundreds of other people at a rally Tuesday, organized in part by the activist group ClimateTruth.org, encouraging researchers to “stand up for science.” “People have felt a call to arms,” Campbell said. “We need to be outspoken.”

Donald Trump will enter the White House with an environmental policy agenda opposed to that of the Obama administration and many other nations that have pledged support to the Paris climate agreement. The Washington Post's Chris Mooney breaks down what a Donald Trump presidency will mean when it comes to climate change. (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)

Lawyers with the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund — which provides legal assistance to researchers facing lawsuits over their work on climate change — will be holding one-on-one consultations with researchers who think they might need help from a lawyer. And the organization’s table in the AGU exhibition hall is piled high with booklets titled “Handling Political Harassment and Legal Intimidation: A Pocket Guide for Scientists.”

[Shrinking mountain glaciers are ‘categorical evidence’ of climate change, scientists say]

“We literally thought about it the day after the election,” said Lauren Kurtz, the legal defense fund’s executive director. “I have gotten a lot of calls from scientists who are really concerned. . . . So it’s intended in some ways to be reassuring, to say, ‘There is a game plan; we’re here to help you.’”

The 16-page guide contains advice for government researchers who believe their work is being suppressed, as well as how scientists should react if they receive hate mail or death threats.

Holthaus, who encouraged scientists to flag key databases, said the effort to safeguard them is mostly precautionary.

“I don’t actually think that it will happen,” he said of efforts by an incoming administration to obscure or alter scientific data. “But I think it could happen. . . . All of these data sets are priceless, in the sense that if there is a gap, it greatly diminishes their usefulness.”

That’s the main concern for Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University. He said he doubts that even the most hostile administration would try to do away with existing climate data, given the potential backlash.

“I think it’s much more likely they’d try to end the collection of data, which would minimize its value. Having continuous data is crucial for understanding long-term trends,” Dessler said. “Trends are what climate change is about — understanding these long-term changes. Think about how much better off the people who don’t want to do anything about climate change would be if all the long-term temperature trends didn’t exist.”

He added, “If you can just get rid of the data, you’re in a stronger position to argue we should do nothing about climate change.”

Chris Mooney in Washington and Sarah Kaplan in San Francisco contributed to this report.

In Yemen, one child dies every 10 minutes because of malnutrition

At least one child dies every 10 minutes in Yemen because of malnutrition and preventable diseases, according to UNICEF

Children sit outside the rubble of a house on the outskirts of the Yemeni capital Sanaa (AFP)

Tuesday 13 December 2016 

Nearly 2.2 million Yemeni children are acutely malnourished, victims of the near-collapse of the healthcare system during two years of escalating conflict, UN children's agency UNICEF said on Tuesday.

At least 462,000 are suffering from severe acute malnutrition, as food supplies have been disrupted by the devastating war between the Saudi-backed government and Shia Houthi rebels, the agency said.

Saada province, a rebel bastion in the far north, has the world's highest stunting rate among children with eight out of 10 children affected in some areas, it added.

"Malnutrition in Yemen is at an all-time high and increasing," said UNICEF's acting country representative, Meritxell Relano.

"The state of health of children in the Middle East's poorest country has never been as catastrophic as it is today."

At least one child dies every 10 minutes in Yemen because of malnutrition and preventable diseases such as diarrhoea and respiratory infections.

"Diseases such as cholera and measles have spread and, with few health facilities functional, such outbreaks are taking a heavy toll on children," Relano said.

In 2016, UNICEF supported the treatment of 215,000 children suffering from severe acute malnutrition and provided more than four million children under the age of five with vitamin supplements.

But relief operations remain hindered by funding shortfalls and limited access to battleground areas.

"We call on parties to the conflict to give us unhindered access to children in need across the country so we are able to deliver nutrition supplies, treat malnourished children and support Yemen's health services," Relano said.

Petroleum Jelly Might Be The Answer To A $3.8 Billion Health Problem

Research suggests moisturizing newborns daily with Vaseline might help protect them from developing atopic dermatitis, a skin problem that can be chronic and lead to asthma, allergies and even mood disorders.-BALLYSCANLON VIA GETTY IMAGES

Sarah DiGiulio- 12/13/2016

On the surface, eczema may seem like an ailment that is more annoying than debilitating. But for the more than 20 percent of kids who struggle with it, the effects can be more severe ― and costly (really costly) for their parents.

Atopic dermatitis is the most common form of eczema, and tends to develop in infants. It can be either lifelong and chronic or go away on its own over time, and is linked to hay fever, asthma, allergies, sleep problems and weight problems. Data suggests families caring for a child with this type of eczema spend as much as 35 percent of their discretionary income on care each month. Estimates put the total cost of eczema care in the U.S. at up to $3.8 billion per year.

Now, new research suggests that a solution under $10 might be able to help prevent the condition from developing in the first place. The fix? Moisturizing newborns with petroleum jelly until they are six months old.

“We could really save a lot of newborns ― and save families ― a lot of suffering,” researcher Dr. Steve Xu, a resident physician in the department of dermatology at Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, told The Huffington Post.

“It’s also a pretty good deal in terms of cost,” he said. 

Xu and his team built on a 2014 study of 124 babies, in which researchers from Oregon Health & Science University found that parents cut their newborns’ risk of atopic dermatitis in half when they moisturized them daily (or at least 5 times a week, everywhere but the scalp) for their first six months of life. The parents in the study used either an over-the-counter drugstore ointment, moisturizing cream or sunflower seed oil, all of which provided a similar benefit in terms of preventing eczema.

In a follow up analysis of the research, Xu and his colleagues looked at cost and determined that using a daily moisturizer for a baby’s first six months was cheap ― way cheaper than the costs of dealing with eczema if it develops later on.

A six-month supply of Vaseline petroleum jelly was just $7.30, the cheapest of all the moisturizers in the analysis. And the total cost for the most expensive moisturizer, Vaniply ointment, was $173.39 for a six-month supply.

“We added the economic argument why prophylactic moisturizing is a really reallygreat idea,” Xu said.

There are still a lot of unanswered questions about eczema

Moisturizers are a big part of the way eczema is treated, but until now they haven’t necessarily been used to prevent the problem. The evidence is still unclear as to how they actually help thwart the condition ― in a big part because the evidence is still unclear about what exactly causes atopic dermatitis in the first place ― and why individuals who have it are so likely to go on to develop allergies, hay fever and asthma.

The researchers suspect using moisturizers during infancy helps correct outer-layer skin defects in babies who will go on to develop eczema. Those defects are thought to play a role in how the condition actually develops, along with hereditary and environmental factors, too.

Whether or not preventing eczema would also prevent the allergies, hay fever and asthma that come along with it is yet another unsolved question. But there’s a growing body of data that suggests that atopic dermatitis does in fact makes individuals more susceptible these comorbidities, which some doctors refer to as the “atopic march.” 

Vaseline petroleum jelly is one of the moisturizers recommended for the treatment of eczema by the National Eczema Association, though not as a prophylactic treatment. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends petroleum jelly as one of the top choice moisturizers for treating (not necessarily preventing) eczema, including atopic dermatitis, because it’s among the most moisturizing. 

Plus, it’s safe, Xu said. Petroleum jelly is fragrance-free and doesn’t have preservatives or additives that could potentially cause irritation or other allergies, he added. That said, some people may still avoid it for political or environmental reasons: Petroleum jelly is actually a byproduct of the oil refining process. 

Sunflower seed oil was the second cheapest moisturizer in the study, costing $18.25 for six months of using it daily on a newborn, and may be a solid choice for those who want to avoid petroleum jelly. 

Not all infants need a daily moisturizer

Ready to slather your infant with Vaseline tonight? Not without talking to your pediatrician first, Xu said.

It’s important to note that the initial study only included babies who were already considered high-risk of developing atopic dermatitis: They each had a parent or sibling who had at some point been diagnosed with eczema, asthma or hay fever.

Larger studies with longer follow-up are still needed ― and are currently ongoing ― to confirm that the method continues to prevent atopic dermatitis in babies who were moisturized beyond the first six months of their lives. But at this point, the data is encouraging, since nearly half of all individuals who develop eczema do so in the first year of their lives, Xu said.

So far, the research only suggests that using a daily moisturizer on newborns could be a good idea for babies at high risk. The risk of trying this intervention is low, even if it ultimately doesn’t prevent atopic dermatitis.

“Gentle, bland moisturizers have very little to no risk of harm to newborns,” Xu said, adding it’s definitely reasonable for parents with infants who are at high risk of developing atopic dermatitis to ask their pediatricians about using a moisturizer as a preventative measure.

And at just more than $7 for the full six months of petroleum jelly, it’s not that expensive to do.

Sarah DiGiulio is The Huffington Post’s sleep reporter. You can contact her at sarah.digiulio@huffingtonpost.com. 

Families of the disappeared in Vavuniya mark Human Rights Day

11 Dec  2016

Families of the disappeared living in Vavuniya marked international Human Rights Day on Saturday with a demonstration followed by a discussion forum. 

The event was organised by the'Forum for Families of Searching, Handed, Kidnapped and Forcibly Disappeared Relatives - Tamil Homeland'. 

At the discussion forum, the families decided they would send a petition to the Sri Lankan president, Maithripala Sirisena explaining the current situation faced by the families of the disappeared, as well as calling on the TNA and the Sri Lankan government to clearly state their views on enforced disappearances. 
 

SRI LANKA: UNCAT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THE GOVERNMENT APPOINT INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATING BODY TO INQUIRE INTO TORTURE

12/12/2016

United Nations Committee against Torture (CAT Committee) has published its concluding observations after considering the 5th Periodic Report of Sri Lanka. A high level delegation from Sri Lanka met the members of the CAT Committee on 15th and 16th November 2016. The most comprehensive set of recommendations made by the CAT Committee on Sri Lanka is contained in the present report. The Committee makes recommendations to the Government on almost all aspects of the system of administration of justice in Sri Lanka that the Committee finds to have serious defects.

The Committee had come to the conclusion that torture is “a common practice carried out in relation to regular criminal investigations in a large majority of cases by the Criminal Investigations Department of the police”, regardless of the nature of suspected offences.

The Committee has made the following recommendations regarding arrest and detention of suspects:

“…Make the necessary legislative amendments requiring the police to
obtain an arrest warrant issued by a judicial authority in order to conduct an arrest, except in cases of flagrante delicto;

Ensure that detained persons are promptly brought before a judge
within the time limit established by law, which should not go beyond 48 hours;

Ensure that arresting officers register the exact date, time, ground for
the detention and place of arrest of all detained persons. The State party should ensure that compliance with the detention registration system is closely monitored and penalize any officers who fail to adhere to it or to ensure that their subordinates do so;

Establish effective prosecutorial oversight over the police’ actions during
investigation and improve criminal investigation methods to end practices whereby statements obtained during police interrogation are relied on as the central element of proof in criminal prosecutions;

Remind judges of their duty, whenever they have a reason to believe that
a person appearing before them may have been subjected to torture or duress, to actively ask the detainees about their treatment during detention and request a forensic examination. The competent authorities should hold responsible those persons whose duty is to apply the law, including judges who fail to respond appropriately to allegations of torture raised during judicial proceedings;
Install video surveillance in all places of custody where detainees may be
present, except in cases where detainees’ right to privacy or to confidential communication with their lawyer or doctor may be violated. Such recordings should be kept in secure facilities and be made available to investigators, detainees and lawyers;

Encourage the application of non-custodial measures as an alternative to
pre-trial detention. …”

Effective investigation by independent body

The Committee has urged Sri Lanka to ensure that all allegations of unlawful detention, torture, and sexual violence by security officers are promptly, impartially, and effectively investigated by an independent body. The Committee urged Sri Lanka to publish a full list of all Gazetted Detention Centers, close down any unofficial ones still in existence, and ensure that no one is detained in unofficial detention facilities as this practice is per se a breach of convention.

This recommendation of the Committee, on establishment of an independent body to investigate allegations of unlawful detention, torture, and sexual violence, is of great importance in the context of Sri Lanka. The situation that prevails at the moment is that most of the complaints of such violations are not being investigated. Often, it is the Assistant Superintendents of the Police (ASPs) who receives the complaints because at the local police stations where such acts are committed, it is almost impossible to register a complaint. The Assistant Superintendents of Police, in most of the instances, attempt to bring about compromises with the final aim of exonerating the officers against whom such complaints are made. In the light of the CAT Act No. 22 of 1984, acts of torture constitute a grave offence in Sri Lanka. However, this grave offence is not investigated as a crime in most instances. The senior police officers treat allegations against their subordinates as a nuisance. The unwritten rule that is almost universally practiced in Sri Lanka is that no criminal investigation can be conducted without torture and ill-treatment.

Therefore, the ASPs, and even those who are of higher ranks, are fully aware that torture takes place routinely and they treat it most of the time as a necessary institutional practice. When the pressures are brought on such high-ranking police officers to investigate torture, what they often do is to create a show of taking some action by such acts as transfer of some policemen temporarily, but virtually transform the entire investigation into a farce. The problem that needs to be dealt with, in ensuring a proper investigation, is to take such investigations out of the hands of such high-ranking police officers. This could be done only if an independent investigating body is available. However, all the governments in the recent past, including the present government, have been determined not to allow the creation of an independent body for the investigation against the police or other security officers. Thus, there will be a great conflict between the Committee’s recommendation for the creation of an independent body for investigations and the government’s determination not to create such an independent body.

If the CAT Committee recommendations are to yield any positive result it will depend primarily on the appointment of an independent body to investigate torture and ill-treatment and also issues like unlawful detention and sexual abuse. On the other hand, this will most likely not happen. How are we to resolve this conflict between a dire need for investigations into illegal acts committed by the police and the non-availability of an independent and credible investigating authority to investigate such acts? This will mostly depend on how much effort can be generated by the civil society to pressurize the government to appoint such an independent investigative authority.

However, the problem is that even the civil society organizations have not yet taken the issue of prosecuting offences relating to torture and other abuses of human rights seriously. It is only a few organizations and individuals who have dedicated themselves earnestly to document the acts of torture and the failures of the State to prosecute such offences. If there is to be a successful outcome, all major civil society organizations, such as the Organization for a fair society – “Sadharana Samjayak Sandhaha Vyaparaya” and all other such organizations should begin to highlight the need for such an independent authority. Much will depend also on the kind of media interest that can be generated in pursuing the implementation of recommendations made by the CAT Committee.

Concerns on Sisira Mendis

The Committee has also made some serious observations on the participation of Mr. Sisira Mendis, the Deputy Inspector General of the Criminal Investigations Department, as a member of the Sri Lankan delegation that participated at the 5th Session of the CAT Committee on Sri Lanka.

The Committee has observed as follows:

“… Bearing in mind the findings of the OISL that the Sri Lankan security forces committed widespread or systematic torture, enforced disappearances, and other serious human rights violations during and in the aftermath of the internal conflict, the Committee is seriously concerned at the failure of the State party to carry out an institutional reform of the security sector. In this regard, the Committee was alarmed by the presence of the Chief of National Intelligence, Sisira Mendis, as part of the Sri Lankan delegation, since he was the Deputy Inspector General of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) from March 2008 to June 2009. The Committee observed that Mr. Mendis is named in the OISL Report, which notes that the CID’s “4th Floor” facility at police headquarters in Colombo was known as a notorious site of torture. The OISL report also recounts allegations of widespread torture, including sexual violence, perpetrated against individuals detained at Manik Farm camp and elsewhere in the aftermath of the conflict by personnel of the CID and the Terrorism Investigation Department (TID) over which Mr. Mendis also allegedly exercised supervisory authority until June 2009. In this connection, the Committee deeply regrets that neither Mr. Mendis nor any other member of the delegation provided information in response to the many specific questions raised by the Committee on this subject during the dialogue with the State party and in its written additional information provided to the Committee….”

Come March 2017 UN Needs To Act On Sri Lanka

By Usha S Sri-Skanda Rajah –December 12, 2016

Usha S Sri-Skanda-Rajah

Come March 2017 UN Needs To Act On Sri Lanka: An ICC Referral Or An International Special Tribunal Is Now Proven To Be Most Wanting – Part 1

Come March when the 34th session of United Nations Human Rights Council gets underway, all eyes should be on Sri Lanka when it is expected, under paragraph 18, to produce a, “a comprehensive written report, followed by a discussion on the implementation of the resolution,” it co-sponsored. The resolution initiated by America, passed without a vote on 1st October 2015 at the 30th session of the UNHRC, which also got the backing of India and China – both of which otherwise hold the position that they would not support a, “country specific resolution” if it’s not, “accepted by the country concerned.”

As the world was observing International Human Rights Day, the day the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1950, for Tamils there was actual frustration and no better time to go back to what the new regime under President Sirisena co-signed in the resolution, “promoting accountability, reconciliation and human rights,” in Sri Lanka.

How far has Sri Lanka gone towards fulfilling its obligations under HRC 30, i.e. towards delivering transitional justice to victims of Mullivaiikal? Sri Lanka seems to be inching its way to nowhere as many still ponder over the question that’s been asked again and again: In the search for justice, will Sri Lanka match up to the task? Transitional justice meaning, criminal Justice, reparations, truth and memory, institutional reform, gender issues, matters pertaining to children and youth etc..

As regards even the new regime the answer still seems to be a resounding no!

An examination of a few of the key provisions would show there has been little or no genuine will on the part of the Sirisena regime to implement the resolution comprehensively as stated. While this is the reality, more evidence is emerging, that violations and abuses such as the dreaded ‘white van abductions’ are still going on.

Take for instance, Paragraph 13, whilst ratifying the ‘ international Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances’, and albeit legislating to creating an Office of Missing Persons (OMP), the regime, has still to get it operational and working. The OMP in itself is a disappointment and did not come up to expectations, the Human Rights Watch reported, because of the, “lack of consultations with the families of the disappeared.”

Moreover, Thambu Kanagasabai in his analysis, wrote the OMP was deceptive and futile, stating, although the, “OMP for its intent and purpose is a positive step to trace, search, and collect information as to the circumstances which led to disappearances, it is just an inquisitional mission without any powers on its own to prosecute those involved in the disappearances after identifying them.”

The ‘office of reparations’ called for under the resolution, is not even in the radar, a main component of transitional justice.

As per Paragraph 12, the draft to replace the much feared, ‘Prevention of Terrorism Act’ (PTA), now referred to as the ‘Counter Terrorism Act’ (CTA) has been condemned by civil society organisations as being worse than the existing one, the text of which is said to be, according to the Sri Lanka Campaign, “deeply disturbing” and quoting a commentator’s observation, “a cure far worse than the disease.” Mr. A Sumanthiran TNA MP, called the draft law, “old wine in a new bottle,” and not, “in tune with international best practices,” and, “fears that the new law will retain objectionable features of the PTA like preventive detention for indefinite periods and legal acceptance of “confessions” made to police officers in the first instance.”

Read More

Vigneswaran says only 5.2 % of private lands have been returned


December 12, 2016

Chief Minister of the Northern Province, C.V. Vigneswaran, has said that out of the 67,000 acres of private lands of the Tamils seized by the Sri Lankan armed forces during the war, only 3,500 acres have been returned so far, the New Indian Express reported. 

  Since the war ended in May 2009, only 5.2 % of the lands seized has been given back to their rightful owners, he said. 

The Chief Minister said that if the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government is sincere about walking the talk on reconciliation, it should do the following things: return all private lands to their original owners; stop erecting Buddha statues and Buddhist temples illegally and in places where there are no Buddhists (barring army camps); stop arbitrary arrests under the Prevention of Terrorism Act; repeal the PTA; start an inquiry into war crimes  with international participation; release Tamil prisoners who have been in detention for long without being charged; release militants and others arrested during the conflict; release fishing harbors now under the navy’s control; build houses which were destroyed during the war ; and consider stopping people from South Sri Lanka taking away the resources of the Tamil areas. 

Vigneswaran noted that while many Sinhalese politicians are making statements which go against reconciliation, the utterances and actions of President Mahinda Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe are encouraging. “But they have to keep walking the talk in the face of  opposition from even their own ministers.” 

-NIE -Agencie

PROGRESSIVE RHETORIC TO JUSTIFY NATIONALISM IN SRI LANKA

Image: Gramsci laid out several levels for analysis including: 1) class struggle, 2) the relationship between the State and society, and 3) the international system.

by Devaka Gunawardena-12/12/2016

Recently, an event was put on at the University of Colombo by the “Virodhaya” Collective on November 16th, titled “The Meaning of Mahinda.” The discussion centred on the question of the Left’s approach to the former regime of Mahinda Rajapaksa and its current position. Based on the outcome of the conversation, it is worth addressing the persistent belief among some that the Mahinda Rajapaksa-led section of the SLFP is the progressive alternative to the UNP. In particular, the leadership of the Old Left parties such as the Lanka Sama Samaja Party and Communist Party continue to provide a progressive veneer to justify the Rajapaksa regime. I will refer to the Old Left in general throughout this essay, but it is important to note that there were important dissident factions that disagree with the majority position, especially the “Vame Kendraya.”

While the Rajapaksa regime was hardly anti-capitalist, the Old Left leaders promote the old distinction between the comprador-affiliated UNP and the national bourgeoisie, epitomised by the SLFP. In addition, they claim that the regime fought back against Western imperialism. These arguments are used to justify the Old Left parties’ alliance of convenience with the Rajapaksa regime long after the civil war ended. This includes elements that now form the Joint Opposition.

While the Rajapaksa regime is no longer in power, it is worth taking stock of the intellectual justification and support for Rajapaksa. This argument continues to shape the belief that the UNP and SLFP represent competing political paradigms. Rather, the UNP and SLFP both share a tremendous amount of consensus on areas such as economic liberalisation. In terms of foreign policy, while the Rajapaksa-led SLFP was vocally pro-China, it was happy to receive investors from all over the world. Meanwhile, the current government is promoting a new Non Aligned policy that uncritically embraces integration into the global market. The public is disenchanted with the entire political class, channelled into a narrow focus on corruption. These facts do not prevent some from mimicking progressive rhetoric in order to justify alliances with the Rajapaksa section of the SLFP and Sinhala nationalists.

To respond, we must address the Left’s strategy to create what Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci referred to as a national-popular bloc. The Old Left adopts the position that progressive forces should support Rajapaksa against Western imperialism by making tactical alliances with Sinhala nationalists. They employ vaguely social democratic rhetoric, but they avoid the question of how the Left should achieve socialism. In contrast, Gramsci analyses how the State maintains power in capitalist society. Gramsci’s thinking does not justify consolidating power on any kind of nationalist basis. Instead, he analysed the historical preconditions for class struggle, including steps toward Italian unification during the 19th century.

Rather than looking at how the State shapes working class struggle, the Old Left often relies on the dictatorial “Caesarist” model of the State that Gramsci and Marx before him heavily criticised. They claim that the Rajapaksa regime represented the people, but its suppression of marginalised ethnic groups and popular protests even after the civil war indicates otherwise. Accordingly, there can be no progressive justification of the former regime. More importantly, the Left must continue to critique Sinhala nationalism and come to terms with its patchy record of compromise on this issue.

Building off of the discussion at the seminar organised by the Virodhaya Collective, I will outline briefly how these issues are represented in changes to the class system, the State, and international relations. Finally, I will conclude with a programmatic call for the Left to return to the question of how to achieve socialism through class analysis.

Updating the Left’s Analysis

The first issue is that the Old Left has failed to analyse classes in the current Sri Lankan context. They rely on the outdated distinction between the comprador and national bourgeoisie. According to this argument, the UNP represents Western-linked mercantile interests. On the other hand, the SLFP represents local entrepreneurs and others who were protected historically from global market forces through subsidies and State-sponsored industrialisation. This analysis might have been relevant for the period from the 1950s to the 1970s, during the SLFP’s ascendancy. The question is, does this paradigm still apply after decades of economic liberalisation and the increasing integration of Sri Lanka into global financial markets? Can we really continue to make such a distinction between Sri Lankan capitalists and their representation in the two mainstream parties?

Because the Old Left skirts this question, we run into a second problem: the idea that the working class should align with a bourgeois party such as the SLFP without any clear vision of socialism or the steps to achieve it. The Old Left is content to believe that Rajapaksa’s populist dole based on an extensive network of patronage epitomised concern for the collective good. The reality is that the Rajapaksa regime used populism to consolidate its own power. Rajapaksa closed the space for working class resistance. When subaltern groups rebelled, in addition to marginalisation of ethnic minorities, they were violently suppressed. Meanwhile the regime claimed to build investor confidence after the civil war. It promoted mega infrastructure projects, while ignoring the long-term social costs for taking out loans on financial markets.

Ultimately, “progressive” support for Rajapaksa leads us to the third issue, which is the consolidation of nationalist forces. The Old Left dresses up alliances with Rajapaksa and Sinhala nationalists by arguing that it is key to forming a national-popular bloc. The reality is nationalisms have consistently divided the working class. Gramsci argued that the Left must operate on the terrain of the Nation-State in order to create a bloc that can carry out democratic tasks. He did not, however, justify nationalism as such. The Left must vehemently oppose any attempt to undermine the working class by promoting ethnic divisions. The Old Left supported the Sinhala nationalist Rajapaksa regime because it claimed the regime was opposed to Western imperialism.

This perspective ignores the current crisis in the global system and change in the balance of forces, including the advent of Trumpism. Nationalist forces are gaining ground in many countries. While liberal imperialism must be opposed, it does not mean the Left should endorse regimes that suppress democracy. The most obvious example is the Rajapaksa regime further entrenching the national security apparatus, cynically appealing to Islamophobia and the West’s “War on Terror,” in order to close the space for dissent in society. The Old Left leadership fails to explain how these actions help the Left advance the cause of socialism. More worryingly, they do not see why nationalisms of any stripe should be a red line for the Left when it comes to support for a regime or political group.

Reconsidering the Left’s Alliances

The Left in Sri Lanka has often encountered awkward overlaps with Sinhala nationalist forces because the latter appear to mimic some of the concerns of its constituencies, including farmers and the working class. The Old Left capitalises on this aura of social democracy in order to justify their alliances with reactionary forces. They argue that Sri Lanka is a small island facing a Western imperialist assault. In contrast, Gramsci laid out several levels for analysis including: 1) class struggle, 2) the relationship between the State and society, and 3) the international system. Fixating on the latter while ignoring the balance of forces within the working class and its confrontation with the State leads to the dangerous belief that authoritarian regimes should be supported as long as they claim to fight Western imperialism, even when they repress their own people.

The Left on the other hand cannot afford to make common cause with nationalist forces. The moment such forces gain power, they shut down the space for dissent. This forecloses precisely the Left’s attempt to achieve a fair and just society. Rajapaksa “fused the regime with the State,” to paraphrase political scientist Jayadeva Uyangoda. He offers this analysis from a liberal democratic perspective, in support of checks and balances. While liberal democrats may be sympathetic to some of the Left’s concerns, they don’t necessarily adopt the vision of socialism. Nevertheless, they are a more natural constituency with whom the Left can ally to achieve specific demands, as opposed to reactionary nationalists.

This does not imply letting the current government off the hook, especially its neoliberal economic policy and disastrous proposals for workers’ rights. It does mean opposing tooth and nail any attempt by Rajapaksa and Sinhala nationalists to claw back power. Long after the defeat of the regime, the Old Left continues to mimic the rhetoric of “Third World solidarity” to justify its support for Rajapaksa. Without class analysis and a socialist vision that builds solidarity with marginalised ethnic, caste, gender, etc. members of society, however, such claims are reactionary, not progressive.

This article was first published in The Island.

A Mistake Is A Portal Of Discovery

By Sarath de Alwis –December 11, 2016

Sarath de Alwis

That famous presidential pronouncement two months ago, at the Sri Lanka Foundation institute qualified the applicability of the principle – no one is above the law. It redefined ‘independence’ of independent commissions. On that day, this writer decided to refrain from writing and commenting on the performance of the current government. It was just as well. The rarely good, often bad and frequently ugly governance of the UNP – SLFP coalition led by the Maithri- Ranil duumvirate is beyond retrieval, recovery and redemption.

Having voted for the common candidate Sirisena on 8th January 2014, and blatantly betrayed on 13th October 2016, it was wiser to take note of the advice of James Joyce in Ulysses. ‘A mistake is a portal of discovery.’

On Saturday 10th December 2016, I listened to the former Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Mrs. Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe delivering the key note address at an event organized by an activist group that call themselves ‘Intellectuals for Human rights’ to mark the Human Rights Day. This bunch of learned, pragmatic minds had invited her to speak on the theme “Bribery & Corruption Deprives People of Their Human Rights.’ In a display of sagacious preference they had also invited Parliamentarians Vijitha Herath and Eran Wickemeratne as guest speakers.

The two parliamentarians spoke first and made two interesting statements. The public denouncement of the actions of the former Director General of CIABOC left her with no alternative but to resign. MP Vijitha Herath insisted that it was a grave violation of her Human Rights. Parliamentarian Eran Wickremeratne came out with a priceless gem. As Chief Executive of the National Development Bank he had occupied a ring side seat watching the dealer room where treasury bonds were bought and sold. In disarming innocence he told the gathering that, understanding how bonds were traded was not rocket science!

The former Director General of CIABOC took her task seriously. With a power point presentation she amplified on corruption and defined bribery. As no notes were taken, I will not attempt a detailed account. She quoted Kautilya the oriental Machiavelli. “It is impossible to know when and how much water a fish drank, similar is the act of stealing government money by officials.” The main thrust of her thesis was that the existing laws were more than adequate to fight corruption, reduce bribery and punish offenders. What it required was the political will.

In four weeks, we will arrive at the second anniversary of the ouster of Mahinda Rajapaksa and his coterie of power peddlers. Conversely we complete two years of delusional fantasy under the Sirisena-Wickermesinghe duumvirate and their power brokers. Nuancing matters. Mahinda had peddlers of power. This lot has brokers. To simplify further the crudity of hawkers have been replaced with sophistry of salesmen. The earlier lot did not care to explain looting. The new breed write copious foot notes.

Mahinda was a despot who unhesitatingly repressed determined dissent. Yet he adroitly allowed differential dissent. Unlike his successors, he never claimed even a desultory familiarity with the discipline of economics. He is not a humbug. Therein lies the contrast between what we had before 8th January 2015 and what we are saddled with thereafter.

Mahinda is accused of imprudent borrowing. A charge from which he will soon be absolved. There cannot be an imprudent borrower without an imprudent lender. To prove that charge, his accusers must show the nation who his imprudent lenders were. The bond scam that took place under the minority UNP government within the first few weeks of the Sirisena presidency points to where Mahinda found his imprudent lenders. Nivard Cabraal was an endogenous solution. Arjuna Mahendran was an exogenous solution provider.

Mahinda Rajapaksa was blamed for financial profligacy and procurement through unsolicited proposals. We now have the solicited wisdom and expertise of Charitha Ratwatte, R. Paskeralingam and Arjuna Mahendran who constitute an all-powerful team dispensing Kautilyan wisdom on economic policy.

Read More