Friday, December 30, 2016

The Grinch that stole Good Government’s Christmas gift

GOOD GOVERNANCE GIVETH, AND GOOD GOVERNANCE TAKETH AWAY – The unspeakable, unutterable, unfathomable gift was the focus of Christmases past. Maybe as the New Year dawns and the Caravans of Constitutional Republicanism hasten toward the Desert of Nothingness, the Princes of Peace – increasingly growing into the image and likeness of the very Caesars they ousted – might come to realise that the Gospel has bypassed the temple, tower, theatre; and has entered into the byways of a more plebeian Bethlehem. Where, now as of old, the evangel (“Good News and Great Tidings of Glad Joy”) comes with an ethical component (“God must be pleased if the people are to be blessed”)

Thursday, 29 December 2016

We all have selective hearing. For example, a wife may tell her husband: “Go to the supermarket. Lay down the shopping on the kitchen table. Clean and sweep the house. Get the kids after school today. Do something productive instead of just sitting around. Maybe you could finish the rest of the dishes.” But the husband hears only what he wants to hear… “Go … lay down … and … get … some … rest!” We choose the better bits and pieces that suit our worldview, and ignore the context and content of the message.

At Christmas a popular message preached from many pulpits is, “Peace on earth and goodwill to all people.” The full text of the passage reads, “Peace on earth and goodwill to those with whom God is pleased.” That there is an ethical component to the evangel is forgotten in the all too human desire to find favour with whatever supernatural powers as may be. We appropriate the comfort of God with us, but are apathetic to the challenge such a Being might make on us. Sadly we live in times when the earthly powers too are not above ignoring the context and content of the message that the masses are sending out to them.

“Goodwill to those with whom Good Governance is pleased” is a rather more mundane message. It is increasingly becoming a time, therefore, when the comfortable need to be disturbed as much as the disturbed need to be comforted. It is a time, however, when the most vital parts of the most meaningful messages of Christmas – as much as the gifts of Good Governance – are being misidentified and misappropriated.

Epiphany

The scriptures that are not often heard at Christmas time can come as an epiphany to discerning readers. The heralding of the Good News that would announce liberation from tyranny and bondage is a study in contrasts. Luke, a subversive writer, records the historical and political context in which the gospel began to be shaped and presented. “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar – when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, his brother Phillip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene – during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.” Rome sat enthroned over the civilised world. Religion was enshrined in holy capitals. Revelation, however, comes to the rude and rough in a far-flung corner of true spirituality far-removed from the centres of worldly power.

Could it be that the ‘Gospel of Good Governance’ has bypassed the centres of power in republican Sri Lanka today also… and that the message being pounded in the pulpits of our island’s plenipotentiaries is a false evangel: a prosperity gospel with neither grace nor truth? At first blush, the prospect seems absurd. The incumbent administration is neither corrupt nor criminally manipulative as a previous regime! There is amorphous progress being made in shaping a third republican constitution! Good news about growth, development, and progress, are all around us (whether true or false; whether propaganda and hype, or the real state of the nation)! And there is peace for most – even if it comes without the expected justice for all, yet!

But scratch the surface of the status quo, and the discerning reader will see how the Gospel of Good Governance is in danger of becoming the very beast that once slouched towards Bethlehem to be born and against which it raised its standard a long time ago. The powers that be – past and present, and possibly future – are still immune from prosecution. The people struggle under increasingly oppressive economic burdens. Progress comes at an indeterminate cost to participatory democracy, dissent, and other civil liberties – although this yoke is lighter than former crimes against humanity. And the ‘Johns’ in the wilderness – the prophetic voices that warn against “regime normalisation” and who note that a latent Caesarean dispensation is still popular (in an albeit more liberal, less repressive, avatar) are ignored and neglected.

Advent

The original gospel comes with glamour to the grubbiest and grimiest of souls. There were shepherds in the field – those outcastes of Judean society: suspected of every crime from bad morals to bad manners – who reportedly heard the angelic choir hymn of peace on earth. That Herod in his palace missed the clarion call of Heaven makes interesting reading to students of History. The ‘high holy humility’ required of Princes of Peace somehow manages to bypass the high and mighty, scattering the proud in the imagination of their hearts.

Caesar is dead, buried, lying unpraised and unappreciated on the periphery of the true power. (The Rajapaksa machine seeks to resurrect its regime through Machiavellian wiles.) Christ is alive, unburied, resurrected into the abundant life that poverty of spirit brings. (Good Governance has crucified itself on a cross of its own making.)

That the advent of the lordly goodwill intended for all people everywhere was hailed by herald voices island-wide is a fading memory. A glory has passed from the midnight of destiny, and the Spirit of the Gift has receded like a dream dies at the opening of the day. Good Governance was the present gifted in the past to the grubbiest and the grimiest; but it has no apparent future use now that the shepherds are in the palace, with silken girls bringing sherbet. Annas and Caiaphas may still conspire in some unholy complicity in some distant temple where the faux spirituality from which our isle’s rulers draw their mass appeal resides.

Pilate, in the person and the work of the magistrates who bow to private pressures in exonerating a once outspoken member of parliament’s brutal assassins, has washed his hands off innocent blood: he asked, jestingly, “What is truth?” – but did not wait for an answer. Caesar has been ousted by the Palace Guard, but the Praetorians who rule in his place bear an uncanny resemblance to their former master and reflect a growing discomfort of the hoi polloi that regime changes only consolidate the antidemocratic authoritarian imperatives the revolution once challenged. The tetrarchs are girding their loins for local government elections that will draw the battle lines for a bigger war of sedition that is yet to come. Only John is still in the wilderness. (Be that as it may!)

Revelation

All of the above may reek of religious paraphernalia dressed as political commentary. But all of us have selective hearing, too, as much as our rulers. We are not quick, neither willing nor able to see the political ramifications in the subtext of scripture. If we were willing to subject holy writ to a subversive reading, though, the republican parallels between bygone empires and burgeoning enterprises would be clearer, sharper, a treat to read… Certainly less effete than draft republican constitutions that will consolidate the imperatives of democratic Caesarianism – And more meaningful as a significant essay in the ineluctability of human nature, the inevitability of power’s corrupting influence on people’s corrosive ambitions.

The gift of Good Governance, given with arguably good intentions, has been taken back, taken away, thrown away. The present rulers in the old palace have only subjected the power structures to some trims and streamlining. The usual suspects are at it again, to the detriment of the demographics they represent. Shepherds once in the field, grubby and grimy and guilty of bad morals and bad manners, are now to be seen seated in the places of power and privilege.

Christmas has become the world’s tallest tree in the world’s smallest island-republic: A tower of fake tolerance and real extravagance. Good Governance has become no less an eyesore on the socio-political landscape; and will be uprooted and cast into the fire of trial and judgment by an electorate grown weary of promises unfulfilled, pretentious posturing, and ostentatious expenditure on its supporters and stakeholders.

May the New Year see a righteous axe laid to the tree. May we all grow less selective in our hearing. May there be peace with justice in our many splendoured isle.

Upsurge in cost of living Celebrating festive season and welcoming the new year

2016-12-31

As the festive season brings to a close another eventful year many claim the cost of living to be ‘burdensome’, and ‘overwhelmingly high’. Economics experts point out that the rate of inflation has risen resulting in the rise of the cost of living. The Dailymirror spoke to a wide cross section of society - beggars, coolie labourers, traders, businessmen, managers, and engineers - on what they felt about the cost of living.

Accordingly we found that sales have dropped and the general public were unable to manage their household budget due to the rising cost of living. While some expressed hope for long term prosperity envisioned through the yahapalanaya government, there seemed to be a growing dissent against the current government as well due to oppressive taxes which have made the cost of living unbearable to many.

“The annual average inflation increased from 0.9% in 2015 to around 4% in 2016, increasing the cost of living of the people.”Vincent Mervin Fernando - Former Director of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka “Colombo Consumer Price Index (CCPI) and the new National Consumer Price Index (NCPI) are the two main price indices used to measure the cost of living in Sri Lanka. The rate of inflation for the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 are 3.3%, 0.9%, 4.0% and 4.0% respectively.”

He further added, “Sri Lanka’s high inflation was an issue of concern when considering the cost of living for many years, particularly since the liberalization of the economy in Lanka during 1977. Sri Lanka’s inflation was on average around 11.2% for the period 1978-2008. This high rate of inflation has reduced to a mid-single digit average around 5.9% since 2009 to 2014.”

Speaking of the low inflation rate seen last year, he said, “The year 2015 witnessed a generous package of welfare improving measures being implemented across various sectors of the economy encompassing a wider range of socio-economic strata.

Most of such measures were fashioned in the newly formed government’s ‘100-Day Programme’ which was intended to provide immediate relief for people, among other objectives.

Excess taxes levied on 10 essential food items including sugar, milk powder, wheat flour, chillies etc. were lowered immediately, thereby reducing the market prices substantially. The price of a cylinder was reduced on two occasions while the increase of total allowances paid to public sector employees stood at Rs.10,000. Such relief measures generated a substantial amount of savings for people to meet their needs. As a result the average inflation decreased to 0.9% in December 2015 from 3.3%, which was the lowest percentage ever recorded since 1977.”

Further examining the sudden rise in inflation rate and subsequent rise in the cost of living he added, “However the annual average inflation increased from 0.9% in 2015 to around 4% in 2016, increasing the cost of living of the people. This was mainly due to the increase of expenditure value of food items in rice, coconut, vegetables, potatoes, lime, big onions, tea leaves, dhal, coconut oil, red onions etc. However price decreases were reported for fresh fish, papaw, chicken, banana, mangoes, eggs and green chillies. Further very small increases in expenditure value were reported for groups of Transport and Restaurant and Hotels. The expenditure value increases in Health, Communication and Alcoholic beverages, Tobacco and Narcotics were a result of the implementation of the new Value Added Tax (VAT) rates with effect from November 1. However in conclusion, the CoL in Sri Lanka is 56.7% lower than in the United States, European and some other Asian countries.”

Negative trends in society linked with cost of living - Prof. Daya Amarasekara, University of Peradeniya “Social class can be interpreted as a social group experiencing similar economy and consumerism. Changes in social status, norms and values could be inspected within this group and all these changes are hard-wired with increasing cost of living. Imposing new taxes are a prominent cause for increased cost of living and that has affected all the social classes, namely the higher middle class, middle class and lower class. Poverty, prostitution and anti social activities are all connected with the struggle of life. People tend to be attracted to earn in secretive ways due to the high cost of living.” he explained.

“Exploitation of child labour is also increasing, because school leavers crushed by economic difficulties try to earn money without furthering their studies. Child labourers, flower vendors and candlestick sellers we see during rush hour traffic are some examples of child exploitation. The sociologist Frantz Fanon has pointed out a group of urban orphans called urban loompon group. They are generally jobless, lives day to day by doing both good and bad. Drug peddling, vehicles theft, printing of counterfeit currency are some of these illegal activities they are engaged in. There is another group of people who leave the country with disappointment and determined not to return. There’s also a very negative trend of elderly parents being left alone by their children employed in foreign countries. Or after marriage they settle far from their parents; children and parents have weak relationships. As a result, the elderly are rendered helpless and lonely.”

Professor

Amarasekara opined.

Israeli police shoot Palestinian woman at checkpoint

After approaching the checkpoint with a knife, the woman, whose injuries were described as 'serious,' was left on the ground for an hour before receiving medical treatment

A screengrab from mobile phone footage shows the Palestinian woman on the ground after being shot (Twitter)

Friday 30 December 2016

A Palestinian woman was shot and wounded Friday after approaching an Israeli security checkpoint near Jerusalem with a knife, Israeli police said.

The woman approached the crossing point in Qalandia, between Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank, in a lane designated for vehicles despite repeated calls from guards to stop, a statement said.

She was wounded when security forces opened fire, police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said.

Police said she was 35 and from Issawiya, a neighbourhood in east Jerusalem - local sources named her as Jihan Mohammed Hashima.

She was left on the ground for around an hour after the attack before receiving treatment, an AFP photographer at the checkpoint said.

Footage emerged that appeared to show the woman lying on the ground with her arms in the air just after she was shot before being wheeled into an ambulance.

لحظة اطلاق قوات الاحتلال النار على الشابة "جيهان محمد حشيمة" (35عاما) على حاجز قلنديا شمال القدس المحتلة صباح اليوم . pic.twitter.com/mmLgOBYXON
— Nayef-saif (@naifsif2) December 30, 2016

Translation: The moment when occupation forces opened fire on Jihan Mohammed Hashima (35) at Qalandia checkpoint in the north of occupied Jerusalem this morning

A spokeswoman for the Israeli hospital she was taken to described her condition as "serious".

Israel public radio said forces checked her for explosives before allowing her to be transported to hospital.

The latest violence came a day after a local Israeli committee in Jerusalem approved the building of a three-storey settlement bloc in East Jerusalem, amid a wave of international criticism of settlement building.

Since October 2015, 246 Palestinians, 36 Israelis, two Americans, a Jordanian, an Eritrean and a Sudanese national have been killed in a wave of violence, according to an AFP count.

Most of the Palestinians killed were allegedly carrying out knife, gun or car-ramming attacks, according to Israeli authorities.

Others were shot dead during protests or clashes, while some died in Israeli air strikes on the Gaza Strip.

Israeli soldiers who beat journalists escape punishment

Charlotte Silver-30 December 2016

In 2012, Israeli soldiers attacked a group of foreign and Palestinian journalists, beating them with clubs before detaining them.

It has taken the Israeli army three years to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the commanding officers who gave the orders.

Footage from the incident, which took place in the occupied West Bank village of Kufr Qaddum, shows a crew of five journalists wearing gas masks, helmets, and vests marked as “PRESS,” as they walk down an empty street.

The video, filmed by a Palestinian volunteer with the human rights group B’Tselem , can be seen above.

The journalists had been covering the village’s weekly demonstration against being cut off from their land.

Two Israeli military jeeps speed up the road towards the journalists, who move to the side of the road. Soldiers then exit the vehicles, stop the journalists and begin grabbing their equipment and hitting their bodies with clubs.

At least two of the journalists appear to be detained, while another is forced to the ground as he screams in agony.

One of the injured journalists in the ambush was Jaafer Ashtiyeh, a photographer with the AFP news agency.

Ashtiyeh was only informed last month that the commanding officer and the battalion commander were disciplined over a year ago, after three years of the investigation languishing.

Dormant

According to the Tel Aviv newspaper Haaretz, the military police immediately opened an investigation at the time of the incident but it was left dormant until 2014, when Ashtiyeh filed a civil suit against the Israeli government.

Israel’s military investigations are notoriously ineffective.

Earlier this year, B’Tselem stopped cooperating with them, stating “We will no longer aid a system that whitewashes investigations and serves as a fig leaf for the occupation.”

Of the 739 cases of alleged abuse of Palestinians since 2000 that B’Tselem has demanded the army investigate, only 25 ever resulted in disciplinary action.

B’Tselem says that a quarter of the complaints never prompted an investigation at all.

The military police only began to complete its investigation into the assault on journalists in Kufr Qaddum after Ashtiyeh’s lawsuit was filed.

A year later, in August 2015, former Military Advocate General Danny Efroni recommended that disciplinary proceedings against the commanding officers begin.

Just following orders

According to Haaretz, the military found the company commander had ordered the use of excessive force. After he was reprimanded, the commander left the army. Haaretz does not indicate that he was asked to resign.

In fact, Haaretz reports that the army deliberately chose to enact low-level disciplinary proceedings out of consideration for an unrelated personal tragedy in the commander’s life.

The battalion commander was reprimanded for negligence for not sufficiently training soldiers on how to use clubs.

“It was found … that while preparing for violent disturbances of the peace, and while intending to limit the use of potentially lethal means, it was decided to equip some of the members of the [Israeli army] force with clubs,” the military said in a statement to Haaretz.

“Still, in carrying out arrests, the soldiers used force that exceeded what was necessary.”

None of the soldiers who beat the journalists were disciplined or charged, on the grounds that they were following orders.

Ashtiyeh’s civil suit ended in a settlement that includes monetary compensation.

Human rights groups have documented habitual physical attacks by Israeli forces against Palestinian journalists.

Earlier this month, the Committee to Protect Journalists revealed that Israel remains one of the world’s worst jailers of reporters, all of whom are Palestinians.

British leader Theresa May breaks with John Kerry’s condemnation of Israel

British Prime Minister Theresa May speaks at the annual Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham, Britain, Oct. 2, 2016. /File Photo (Toby Melville/Reuters)

By Michael Birnbaum December 30 at 10:36 AM

BRUSSELS — British Prime Minister Theresa May condemned a blunt speechthis week by Secretary of State John F. Kerry on the state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an unusual move that boosted Britain’s relations with the incoming Trump administration at the expense of President Obama.

The rare diplomatic spat between Britain and the United States, which was met with surprise by the State Department, highlighted the fast-collapsing influence of the lame-duck White House. It also pointed to a vast reordering of international affairs expected after Trump takes office in three weeks, as U.S. allies position themselves to curry favor in the new order.

The transatlantic split was particularly unexpected given that May’s government acted as a key broker between U.S. and Palestinian interests ahead of a U.N. Security Council vote last week to declare Israeli settlement construction “illegal.” British diplomats worked as go-betweens in shaping the measure to ensure that the language was acceptable to the United States, Britain’s Guardian and Israel’s Haaretz newspapers reported this week.

Kerry on Wednesday offered a harsh assessment of the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that “his current coalition is the most right-wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by its most extreme elements.” He criticized persistent Israel settlement expansion on the West Bank as a threat to the “two-state solution” under which Israel and a new Palestinian state would coexist side by side.

In major speech, outgoing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry defends the U.S. abstention of a U.N. resolution vote that demanded Israel end settlement building, saying the vote reflected U.S. values and was intended to defend the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (Reuters)

[Kerry harshly condemns Israeli settler activity as an obstacle to peace]

In major speech, outgoing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry defends the U.S. abstention of a U.N. resolution vote that demanded Israel end settlement building, saying the vote reflected U.S. values and was intended to defend the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (Reuters)

May’s office retorted that “we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally.” It said in an emailed statement late Thursday that “we are also clear that the settlements are far from the only problem in this conflict. In particular, the people of Israel deserve to live free from the threat of terrorism, with which they have had to cope for too long.”

The move was an olive branch both to Netanyahu and to President-elect Donald Trump, who railed against the Obama administration’s decision to abstain from a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the settlements and who has urged Israel to “stay strong” until he assumes office Jan. 20. Trump has expressed near-unconditional support for actions by the Israeli government, breaking with long-standing U.S. policy that has sought a middle ground between the two sides.

Kerry’s speech and the U.S. abstention in the Security Council vote were received warmly by Germany and France, among other European nations, which led to a stunned reaction in Washington to the message from May’s office.

“We are surprised by the U.K. Prime Minister's office statement given that Secretary Kerry's remarks — which covered the full range of threats to a two-state solution, including terrorism, violence, incitement and settlements — were in line with the U.K.'s own longstanding policy and its vote at the United Nations last week,” the State Department said in a statement.

British leaders have publicly embraced Trump since his victory last month, despite his urging that Nigel Farage, a lead campaigner for Britain’s exit from the European Union and a thorn in the side of the British government, be named British ambassador to Washington. Britain, which is preparing to negotiate the terms of a messy exit from the E.U., is hoping that a strong economic relationship with the United States will help smooth out the disruptions from leaving the union’s common market.

During his presidential campaign, Trump praised Britain’s vote to leave the European Union and took to calling himself “Mr. Brexit.”

For the first time in 36 years, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution critical of Israel's Jewish settlements on Palestinian territory. The United States abstained. (Reuters)

For the first time in 36 years, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution critical of Israel's Jewish settlements on Palestinian territory. The United States abstained. (Reuters)

This week, Britain’s ambassador in Washington, Kim Darroch, expressed hopethat Trump and May would build “on the legacy of previous leaders such as President Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.”

Kerry’s hour-long speech Wednesday was unusual in its breadth and frankness, coming from a man who devoted much of his energy as the top U.S. diplomat toward Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that were ultimately abandoned.

Kerry said Wednesday that Israeli settlement activity, which has accelerated in recent years, was extending far into the West Bank, “in the middle of what, by any reasonable definition, would be the future Palestinian state.”

“No one thinking seriously about peace can ignore the reality of what the settlements pose to that peace,” he said.

The speech came at a historic low in relations between Israel and the United States, the Jewish state’s staunchest international ally. The Obama administration intended the abstention on the U.N. resolution as a warning sign to the Netanyahu government that international support would not be unconditional, as settlement populations swell on territory extending beyond the pre-1967 armistice lines that defined Israel’s boundaries.

The Australian government also distanced itself Friday from the Obama administration’s stance on settlements and the U.N. resolution.

Australia supports negotiations leading to two independent states, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. But she said that Australia — which is not a member of the Security Council where the vote was taken — did not support the U.N. resolution condemning settlements.

“In voting at the U.N., the coalition government has consistently not supported one-sided resolutions targeting Israel,” the statement said.

The impending realignment of U.S. foreign policy that apparently led to the rare break between Downing Street and the White House could also be seen Friday in Russia, where President Vladimir Putin opted not to retaliate publiclyagainst fresh U.S. sanctions and the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from U.S. territory.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had recommended Friday the expulsion of 35 U.S. diplomats in retaliation. But Putin appears to be banking on markedly warmer relations with Trump. The president-elect has praised the Kremlin and expressed disbelief at an assessment by the U.S. intelligence community that Russian-government-backed hackers were responsible for the leaks of sensitive emails from Democratic Party officials in a bid to help Trump win the White House.

Carol Morello in Washington contributed to this report.

India's cash crunch making some in Modi's party anxious

A notice is displayed on the gate of an automated teller machine (ATM) counter which is no longer dispensing cash in Chandigarh, India, November 21, 2016. REUTERS/Ajay Verma/Files

A woman checks her wallet as she stands in a queue outside the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to exchange her old high denomination bank notes in New Delhi, India, December 30, 2016. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi

By Rupam Jain- Fri Dec 30, 2016

Cash shortages weeks after Prime Minister Narendra Modi's decision to abolish large currency notes are making allies and members of his ruling party anxious, with some distancing themselves from the move ahead of a series of state elections.

Modi removed 500 and 1,000 rupee notes, worth around $7.50 and $15 respectively, on Nov. 8, billing it as an attempt to root out corruption, end terror financing and move the country into the age of digital payments.

He promised to replace all old bills with enough new currency notes by the end of this month. But his government has struggled to do that, leading to long lines at banks and a slump in economy activity. Nearly 90 percent of transactions in India used to be in cash.

Interviews with six lawmakers from Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and a senior leader of the party's ideological parent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), show his party cadre is starting to worry that the cash crunch could hurt their prospects in several states that go to the polls next year.

Some parliamentarians said that while they thought Modi's decision was good, its execution had been botched and they were faced with constituents who were increasingly upset.

"There is no doubt that it is difficult to convince voters that everything will be fine," said Santosh Gangwar, the junior finance minister who is leading the BJP campaign in Uttar Pradesh.

"Every candidate who will be contesting polls is nervous because they feel people may not vote for the BJP ... There is tension and we cannot deny it," he said.

Of the BJP's 71 MPs from Uttar Pradesh, 28 have been to BJP President Amit Shah and the finance minister's office to seek solutions for the cash crunch, said a senior finance ministry official.

BJP EXPECTS "BIG VICTORY"

BJP spokesman G.V.L. Narasimha Rao said that despite temporary difficulties, the prime minister continued to enjoy overwhelming support.

"Party cadres are highly enthused about a big victory in upcoming elections, and if a few are apprehensive, they will realise the reality soon," Rao said.

Disquiet within the BJP underscores how Modi's unprecedented bet is turning into a test of popularity, and could go some way to determining his political future.

It has become a central issue in Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state, where the outcome of elections early next year will be key for Modi's expected bid for a second term in 2019.

The opposition, led by the Congress party, has joined forces, mocking the government for being ill-prepared for so-called "demonetisation" and blaming it for hardships faced by the poor as a result. It has called for Modi's resignation.

The senior RSS official said they had counselled Modi days before the move to take time to prepare the ground for such a massive exercise, including setting up two new mints and expanding the banking network, and to roll it out in phases.

But the prime minister decided to press ahead, and he alone would bear responsibility for its failure or success, the official added.

Earlier this month, N. Chandrababu Naidu, chief minister of Andhra Pradesh and a political ally of Modi, abruptly distanced himself from the move.

Modi and senior members of his cabinet defend demonetisation. In an interview with India Today magazine on Thursday, Modi said it would give the economy a boost and provide long-term benefits, including forcing the country's vast shadow economy into the open.

"GRIM SITUATION"

Modi's announcement enjoyed popular support at first, with many people prepared to endure hardship as long as others were forced to give up ill-gotten wealth or pay tax.

But shortages of new 500 and 2,000 rupee notes have caused tempers to rise as millions queue at banks and ATMs to draw money.

Last week, more than three dozen BJP lawmakers, many of whom came from states that go to polls next year, met with Shah to demand that the government sends more cash to their constituencies, and quickly.

The MPs told Shah about severe cash shortages and hardship to local businesses and ordinary people, according to several lawmakers who attended the meeting.

They told the BJP president that they did not have the courage to hold election rallies at a time when people still had to stand in line, sometimes for hours, to get money. Some said they had not started door-to-door campaigning.

"The situation is grim, and we cannot ignore it," Jagdambika Pal, a BJP lawmaker from Uttar Pradesh who attended the meeting, told Reuters. "It is a challenge for every BJP lawmaker to manage the situation, but we cannot do anything if there is no money in the banks."

($1 = 67.9550 rupees)

US evicts Russians for spying, imposes sanctions after election hacks

US President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin walk into a photo opportunity before their meeting at the United Nations General Assembly in New York September 28, 2015. Kevin Lamarque, Reuters

Jeff Mason and Lesley Wroughton, Reuters-Dec 30 2016

HONOLULU/WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama ordered the expulsion of 35 Russian suspected spies and imposed sanctions on two Russian intelligence agencies over their involvement in hacking U.S. political groups in the 2016 presidential election.

The measures, taken during the last days of Obama's presidency, mark a new post-Cold War low in U.S.-Russian ties which have deteriorated over Ukraine and Syria.

Allegations by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally directed efforts to intervene in the U.S. election process by hacking mostly Democrats have made relations even worse.

"These actions follow repeated private and public warnings that we have issued to the Russian government, and are a necessary and appropriate response to efforts to harm U.S. interests in violation of established international norms of behavior," Obama said in a statement from vacation in Hawaii.

It was not immediately clear whether President-elect Donald Trump, who has repeatedly praised Putin and nominated people seen as friendly toward Moscow to senior administration posts, would seek to roll back the measures once he takes office on Jan. 20.

The Kremlin, which denounced the sanctions as unlawful and promised "adequate" retaliation, questioned whether Trump approved of the new sanctions. Moscow denies the hacking allegations.

U.S. intelligence agencies say Russia was behind hacks into Democratic Party organizations and operatives ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election. U.S. intelligence officials also say that the Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Trump, a Republican, defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Trump has rejected that conclusion and said on Wednesday that "we ought to get on with our lives," when asked about possible tough sanctions for the cyber attacks.

Should Trump seek to overturn Obama's measures, he would likely encounter wide bipartisan Congressional opposition.

U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, the top Republican in Congress, said Russia "has consistently sought to undermine" U.S. interests and the sanctions were overdue.

Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham said they intended to lead effort in Congress to "impose stronger sanctions on Russia."

The actions on Thursday were the strongest response by the Obama administration to Russia's cyber activities, however, a senior administration official acknowledged that Trump could reverse them and allow Russian intelligence officials back into the United States once he takes office. He said that would be "inadvisable".

"We believe these steps are important because Russia is not going to stop," one official said. "We have every indication that they will interfere in democratic elections in other countries, including some of our European allies," the official said.

Television crews assemble outside the Russian embassy on Wisconsin Avenue in Washington, U.S., Wednesday. James Lawler Duggan, Reuters

PERSONA NON GRATA

Obama is seeking to deter Russia and other foreign governments from leveraging cyber attacks in the future to meddle in U.S. politics, former officials and cyber security experts said.

Obama put sanctions on two Russian intelligence agencies, the GRU and the FSB, four GRU officers and three companies "that provided material support to the GRU’s cyber operations.

Obama said the State Department declared as "persona non grata" 35 Russian intelligence operatives and is closing two Russian compounds in New York and Maryland that were used by Russian personnel for "intelligence-related purposes". The State Department originally said the 35 were diplomats.

A senior U.S. official told Reuters the expulsions would come from the Russian embassy in Washington and consulate in San Francisco. The Russian embassy declined to comment on the expulsions.

The Russians have 72 hours to leave the United States, the official said. Access to the two compounds will be denied to all Russian officials as of noon on Friday, the senior U.S. official added.

"These actions were taken to respond to Russian harassment of American diplomats and actions by the diplomats that we have assessed to be not consistent with diplomatic practice," the official said.

The State Department has long complained that Russian security agents and traffic police have harassed U.S. diplomats in Moscow, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has raised the issue with Putin and his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov.

The U.S. official declined to name the Russian diplomats who would be affected, although it is understood that Russia's ambassador to the United States, Sergei Kislyak, will not be one of those expelled.

The United States also released an analysis report by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security examining forensic evidence officials said linked the cyberattacks to computer systems used by Russian intelligence services.

The report largely corroborates the existing findings of private sector cyber firms that investigated the breach at the Democratic National Committee and elsewhere.

(Additional reporting by Dustin Volz and Yeganeh Torbati in Washington and Katya Golubkova and Svetlana Reiter in Moscow; Writing by Yara Bayoumy; Editing by Alistair Bell)

What is Henry Kissinger Up To?

Every Russian needs to understand that being part of the West means living by Washington’s rules. The only country in the Western Alliance that has an independent foreign and economic policy is the US.

by Paul Craig Roberts-Dec 29, 2016

( December 29, 2016, Washington DC, Sri Lanka Guardian) The English language Russian news agency, Sputnik, reports that former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is advising US president-elect Donald Trump how to “bring the United States and Russia closer together to offset China’s military buildup.”

If we take this report at face value, it tells us that Kissinger, an old cold warrior, is working to use Trump’s commitment to better relations with Russia in order to separate Russia from its strategic alliance with China.

China’s military buildup is a response to US provocations against China and US claims to the South China Sea as an area of US national interests. China does not intend to attack the US and certainly not Russia.

Kissinger, who was my colleague at the Center for Strategic and International studies for a dozen years, is aware of the pro-American elites inside Russia, and he is at work creating for them a “China threat” that they can use in their effort to lead Russia into the arms of the West. If this effort is successful, Russia’s sovereignty will be eroded exactly as has the sovereignty of every other country allied with the US.

At President Putin’s last press conference , journalist Marat Sagadatov asked if Russia wasn’t already subject to forms of foreign semi-domination: “Our economy, industry, ministries and agencies often follow the rules laid down by international organizations and are managed by consulting companies. Even our defense enterprises have foreign consulting firms auditing them.” The journalist asked, “if it is not time to do some import substitution in this area too?”

All of us need to understand that although Trump has been elected president, the neoconservatives remain dominant in US foreign policy, and their commitment to the hegemony of the US as the uni-power remains as strong as ever. The neoconservative ideology has been institutionalized in parts of the CIA, State Department and Pentagon. The neoconservatives retain their influence in media, think tanks, university faculties, foundations, and in the Council on Foreign Relations.

We also need to understand that Trump revels in the role of tough guy and will say things that can be misinterpreted as my friend, Finian Cunningham, whose columns I read, usually with appreciation, might have done ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46103.htm ).

I do not know that Trump will prevail over the vast neoconservative conspiracy. However, it seems clear enough that he is serious about reducing the tensions with Russia that have been building since President Clinton violated the George H. W. Bush administration’s promise that NATO would not expand one inch to the East. Unless Trump were serious, there is no reason for him to announce Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson as his choice for Secretary of State. In 2013 Mr. Tillerson was awarded Russia’s Order of Friendship.

As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has pointed out, a global corporation such as Exxon has interests different from those of the US military/security complex. The military/security complex needs a powerful threat, such as the former “Soviet threat” which has been transformed into the “Russian threat,” in order to justify its hold on an annual budget of approximately one trillion dollars. In contrast, Exxon wants to be part of the Russian energy business. Therefore, as Secretary of State, Tillerson is motivated to achieve good relations between the US and Russia, whereas for the military/security complex good relations undermine the orchestrated fear on which the military/security budget rests.

Clearly, the military/security complex and the neoconservatives see Trump and Tillerson as threats, which is why the neoconservatives and the armaments tycoons so strongly opposed Trump and why CIA Director John Brennan made wild and unsupported accusations of Russian interference in the US presidential election.

The lines are drawn. The next test will be whether Trump can obtain Senate confirmation of his choice of Tillerson as Secretary of State.

The myth is widespread that President Reagan won the cold war by breaking the Soviet Union financially with an arms race. As one who was involved in Reagan’s effort to end the cold war, I find myself yet again correcting the record.

Reagan never spoke of winning the cold war. He spoke of ending it. Other officials in his government have said the same thing, and Pat Buchanan can verify it.

Reagan wanted to end the Cold War, not win it. He spoke of those “godawful” nuclear weapons. He thought the Soviet economy was in too much difficulty to compete in an arms race. He thought that if he could first cure the stagflation that afflicted the US economy, he could force the Soviets to the negotiating table by going through the motion of launching an arms race. “Star wars” was mainly hype. (Whether or nor the Soviets believed the arms race threat, the American leftwing clearly did and has never got over it.)

Reagan had no intention of dominating the Soviet Union or collapsing it. Unlike Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, he was not controlled by neoconservatives. Reagan fired and prosecuted the neoconservatives in his administration when they operated behind his back and broke the law.

The Soviet Union did not collapse because of Reagan’s determination to end the Cold War. The Soviet collapse was the work of hardline communists, who believed that Gorbachev was loosening the Communist Party’s hold so quickly that Gorbachev was a threat to the existence of the Soviet Union and placed him under house arrest. It was the hardline communist coup against Gorbachev that led to the rise of Yeltsin. No one expected the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The US military/security complex did not want Reagan to end the Cold War, as the Cold War was the foundation of profit and power for the complex. The CIA told Reagan that if he renewed the arms race, the Soviets would win, because the Soviets controlled investment and could allocate a larger share of the economy to the military than Reagan could.

Reagan did not believe the CIA’s claim that the Soviet Union could prevail in an arms race. He formed a secret committee and gave the committee the power to investigate the CIA’s claim that the US would lose an arms race with the Soviet Union. The committee concluded that the CIA was protecting its prerogatives. I know this because I was a member of the committee.

American capitalism and the social safety net would function much better without the drain on the budget of the military/security complex. It is more correct to say that the military/security complex wants a major threat, not an actual arms race. Stateless Muslim terrorists are not a sufficient threat for such a massive US military, and the trouble with an actual arms race as opposed to a threat is that the US armaments corporations would have to produce weapons that work instead of cost overruns that boost profits.

The latest US missile ship has twice broken down and had to be towed into port. The F-35 has cost endless money, has a variety of problems ( http://www.stopthef35.com/pentagon-f-35-wont-have-a-chance-in-real-combat/ ) and is already outclassed. The Russian missiles are hypersonic. The Russian tanks are superior. The explosive power of the Russian Satan II ICBM is terrifying. The morale of the Russian forces is high. They have not been exhausted from 15 years of fighting without much success pointless wars against women and children.

Washington, given the corrupt nature of the US military/security complex, can arms race all it wants without being a danger to Russia or China, much less to the strategic alliance between the two powers.

The neoconservatives are discredited, but they are still a powerful influence on US foreign policy. Until Trump relegates them to the ideological backwaters, Russia and China had best hold on to their strategic alliance. Anyone attempting to break this alliance is a threat to both Russia and China, and to America and to life on earth.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.