Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Monday, January 2, 2017


A Palestinian boy sits on a sofa following the 26 October 2016 demolition of his family’s home, which Israel said was built without a permit, in occupied East Jerusalem’s Silwan neigborhood. The destruction of the multi-unit building left 30 people, mostly children, homeless, in a year which saw Israel’s demolitions of Palestinian buildings break all records.
Mahfouz Abu TurkAPA images
Charlotte Silver-30 December 2016

Israel has demolished or seized a record number of Palestinian buildings throughout the West Bank in 2016, according to the United Nations, displacing over 1,500 people.

In its year-end report, the UN humanitarian coordination agency OCHA states that Israel demolished 1,089 structures, double the number in 2015.

The demolitions and seizures displaced 1,593 persons and affected the livelihoods of another 7,000.
These are the highest figures for displacement and demolitions in the occupied West Bank since OCHA began tracking them in 2009.

The staggering rate of demolitions and displacement kicked off early in 2016, and barely relented over the 12 months.

On one cold morning in February, the Israeli army conducted what some described as the single largest demolition in over a decade, razing 23 Palestinian homes in two villages in the South Hebron Hills and leaving 100 people homeless.

Permit predicament

In June, the nonprofit Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, or Euro-Med, recorded more demolitions of European-funded structures in the first three months of 2016 than in all of 2015.

An average of 165 privately and internationally funded structures were demolished or partially destroyed each month, according to Euro-Med, representing a more than three-fold increase from the previous rate of 50 demolitions per month between 2012 and 2015.

The OCHA report notes that the majority of demolitions were officially carried out because the structures had been built without permits.

But building licenses are nearly impossible to obtain for Palestinians.

According to recent data from Israel’s Civil Administration, the military bureaucracy that rules the lives of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, Israel has demolished 18 times as many structures as the number of building permits it granted Palestinians in Area C of the West Bank.

Under the Oslo agreements of the early 1990s, the West Bank was divided into areas A, B and C. Areas A and B are under nominally full or partial control of the Palestinian Authority, while Area C, which makes up about 60 percent of the land, is under full Israeli military control.

The Israeli group Bimkom-Planners for Planning Rights obtained the data documenting that Palestinians requested a total of 1,253 building permits between 2014 and 2016 and were granted a mere 53.
Of the three years, 2016 saw the highest number of permits issued, at 37 for 428 requests through June.

Forced transfer

Occupied East Jerusalem also saw a doubling of demolitions, with 154 structures destroyed between January and October alone.

On one day in October, Israel destroyed the homes of more than 40 people in the city. This included the multi-unit building of the Jaafreh family in the Silwan neighborhood, which had been the home to an extended family of 30, mostly children.

The building, belonging to the Jaafreh family, had been built 17 years earlier. The family had tried in vain to get permits from the Israeli authority for the past nine years.

“These demolitions are intended mainly to keep Palestinians confined to small pockets and to maintain the induced housing shortage so that Palestinians will be forced out of the city, thereby keeping the desired overwhelming Jewish presence in the city,” Jeff Halper, the founder of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitionstold the publication Al-Monitor in August.

As for Israel’s demolitions in the Jordan Valley and the South Hebron hills, some analysts fear the increase portends annexation.

Last week, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution that reaffirmed, for the first time in years, that “all [Israeli] measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem” are violations of international law.

This includes settlement construction and the “demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians.”

Over the summer, Israeli human rights group B’Tselem reported the record number of demolitions.

It noted that most were carried out in small, underprivileged communities located far from Palestinian population centers, primarily in the Jordan Valley and the South Hebron Hills, as well as east of Jerusalem.

B’Tselem describes Israel’s policy of systematic demolitions as constituting the “forced transfer” of Palestinian residents in the occupied West Bank.

“The extensive demolitions are part of a broader Israeli policy in Area C,” B’Tselem writes. “This policy is based on the approach that this area, which spans some 60 percent of the West Bank, is intended primarily to serve Israeli needs.”

“Accordingly, Israel acts to establish facts on the ground and to create a reality that it will be difficult to change in any future agreement.”

Indeed, these “facts on the ground” have already delivered an apartheid one-state reality.

Israel refuses to release bodies of slain Hamas men


Decision follows Hamas's release of video of mock birthday party for Israeli soldier Oron Shaul, believed killed in 2014 Gaza war
Graffiti depicting portraits of what may be Israeli soldiers painted on wall in Gaza City (AFP)

AFP- Monday 2 January 2017
Israel on Sunday ruled that it would not release to their families the bodies of Hamas fighters killed during attacks on Israelis, but would instead bury them, the government said.
The decision by the security cabinet followed the release on Saturday by the Palestinian group of video footage showing a mock birthday party for Israeli soldier Oron Shaul, believed by the army to have been killed in the 2014 Gaza war.
"The political-security cabinet discussed standing policy on treatment of the bodies of Hamas terrorists killed during terror attacks and decided that they will not be returned but will be buried," a statement posted on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's official Twitter account said.
It did not elaborate on the burial plan, but said that the same meeting discussed ways of getting back the remains of soldiers killed in the 2014 Gaza war and obtaining the release of two Israeli civilians missing in Gaza and believed to be held by Hamas.
The statement said ministers adopted a "plan of action," but gave no details.
Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum said Sunday's decision on Hamas corpses was "evidence of criminality and barbaric occupation" by Israel.
"These decisions will not give positive results," he told AFP in Arabic, without elaborating on the possible consequences.
In the past, Israel has buried the bodies of slain fighters at secret locations in remote parts of the country.
Hamas's military wing, the al-Qassam Brigades, said in a New Year's Eve statement that it had posted online "two video clips to mark the 23rd birthday of the Zionist soldier and prisoner Oron Shaul".
The Israeli army believes that another soldier, Hadar Goldin, was killed along with Shaul two years ago and that Hamas holds their bodies as potential bargaining chips.
In September, a senior Israeli official said that Israel had been holding since the 2014 Gaza war 18 Palestinians from the enclave as well as the bodies of 19 others and "offered to swap them for the bodies of the two Israeli soldiers".
But Lior Lotan, who is in charge of prisoners and missing persons, said at the time that Hamas rejected the offer.

The Last Act of Obama’s Israel Drama May Be His Best

The Last Act of Obama’s Israel Drama May Be His Best

No automatic alt text available.BY DAVID ROTHKOPF-DECEMBER 28, 2016

The Israeli government’s settlement policy puts it on the wrong side of history, justice, demography, the law, its own interests — and therefore the interests of its friends and allies. For each of these reasons, Israel should neither be surprised nor outraged at the recent U.N. Security Council resolution condemning those settlements. Nor should they be offended by the U.S. government’s policy with respect to that vote, a policy that was well-articulated and defended by Secretary of State John Kerry in an address Wednesday.

The Obama administration’s abstention, which enabled that resolution to pass, should for the same reasons not be seen as a betrayal. Indeed, as a friend of Israel, the United States should have gone further and actively supported Resolution 2334, which passed with 14 votes in favor and just Washington abstaining. The settlements are hurting Israel, and true friends have the courage to tell each other what they need to hear, even when they don’t want to hear it.

I have regularly criticized the Obama administration for what I have seen as weak, vacillating, or strategically unsound behavior in the Middle East. A regular point of that critique has been that we have not recognized who our friends are and in so doing have failed to support our traditional allies in the way that we should. I was deeply skeptical of the Iran nuclear deal (although in the end, I accepted it as better than not having any deal at all), so I am no reflexive defender of Obama-era policies. Yet what the administration did with regard to Resolution 2334 was sound and good policy.

Indeed, if the Obama team should be subjected to any criticism at all for its stance on the settlements, it is not, as the Israelis have subsequently hissed, that the administration may have helped orchestrate the vote — a position refuted by Kerry. Rather, it is that it did not take a stronger position on this issue sooner. We are almost at the end of President Barack Obama’s time in office.The United States should not have tolerated Israel’s settlement policy for one single day. It should have fought against it, even as it was continuing to fund Israeli arms purchases at record levels and work for a peace deal without the notable cooperation of the Israelis (or, to be fair, the Palestinians).

Some Israelis, seeking to defend Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s handling of this issue, note that he has supported a settlement policy that is not as extreme as that of the far-right wing of his party. This is an absurd defense. Committing a hundred wrongs is not forgiven merely because you could have committed 200 but chose not to.

Bibi’s spluttering outrage on this deal is not only unproductive; it is revealing in the worst ways. He speaks of betrayal and seeks to shutter relations with friends who supported the vote — but he betrayed both Israel’s interests and its best values when he instructed his emissary not to vote for an inquiry into war crimes in Syria a week earlier, as a craven sop to Vladimir Putin. That he could curry favor with a serial violator of international law and norms like Putin, fail to seek justice in Syria, and thus exacerbate tensions throughout the region, which will only increase risks for Israel, is a sign that for Bibi everything is about political tactics, not strategy or principles. He has succeeded at being prime minister largely by doing things that were good for his base in the short term and bad for his country in the long term.

The settlements are the prime example. Supporting the colonization of land on which Israel has no legitimate claim may make the hard right in Israel happy and may, their defenders argue, give the country (dubious) advantages from a security perspective. But those settlements will not stem the tides that will ultimately subsume Netanyahu’s vision of Israel. The Palestinian population continues to grow so that very soon Israel faces the fateful choice of whether it wishes to be a democracy (in which the majority Palestinians living within the state’s claimed borders would have real rights they currently do not have) or a Jewish state (which would depend on the adoption of policies that permanently disenfranchise the majority population). Further, the security threats against Israel are increasingly missiles, drones, cyberwarfare, and other tools that settlements do little to protect against. While Bibi and his minions argue that the U.N. resolution will empower terrorists, nothing does that more effectively than building settlements or aligning with ruthless killers of Muslims like the Russians.

If the settlements inflame risks to Israel, undermine its legitimacy, and hollow out international support, they are clearly not in the Israeli interest. Further, they weaken the support of those who might otherwise support Israel, including American Jews. It is increasingly difficult to embrace American ideals of justice, respect for the rule of law, and respect for human rights while supporting the current government of Israel — whether because of settlements or because of a policy of disproportionate response to localized, small-scale attacks as occurred during the last Gaza conflict.

There is also a generational shift taking place among American Jews. Virtually all who are under the age of 55 simply do not remember the Israel of the Six-Day War, the little country that could, the David that stood up to the Goliaths of the Arab world. For the new majority among American Jews, Israel is the nuclear superpower of the Middle East, the regional bully behind the outrages that began in the Sabra and Shatila camps, the “peace-loving” hypocrite of settlement construction and Gaza destruction.

That the response of Israelis is condescension and a suggestion that simple, coddled, soft American Jews could never understand their situation is hardly helpful. The lack of outrage among many moderate and liberal American Jews at the recent vote indicates just how much Israel’s hard-right has done to undercut the country’s most important relationships over the past couple of decades.

Now, of course, Bibi and his loud-mouthed bully boy of an ambassador here in the United States, Ron Dermer, are feeling empowered by the recent election of Donald Trump (who attacked the Obama-Kerry position from his Twitter-based Oval Office waiting room). Quite apart from the obvious notion that you must be in deep trouble when a foreign-policy neophyte and shoot-from-the-lip buffoon becomes your champion, Netanyahu and Co. are making a big mistake. Trump and his world-class awful choice of an ambassador to Israel, a far-right fringe character named David Friedman, may offer some succor to Netanyahu for a while. They may even enlist the help of Putin, friend to Bibi and the Donald. But this will only alienate the rest of the world — and massive portions of the base within the United States upon which the Israelis will depend for their long-term support. Further, there is a hard reality that has seemingly been tough to grasp for Israeli hard-liners: The only alternative to a two-state solution is a one-state solution — which cannot be a Jewish state if it is to be secure, sustainable, or just.

Bibi, Trump, and Putin are part of a dying breed, the last politicians of the 20th century. They seek to preserve realities that are founded in the post-World War II and Cold War realities in which their views were shaped. But the world has moved on from them, and future generations of leaders will see a radically different picture — one in which Israel not only has no better claim on its land than the Palestinians but one in which the memories of the Palestine Liberation Organization and much of Palestinian terrorism lie in the foggy past; in which Palestinians without a nation outnumber Israelis; in which Palestinians lack rights because Israelis deny them those rights; in which Russia is a failing state with a faltering economy; in which Russia is seen as a supporter of oppressors and not of the people (always a lousy long-term strategy); in which China and other powers are much more important; and one in which new technologies will empower new leaders in new ways, creating new threats and shifting the regional balance of power in the Middle East and elsewhere. Meanwhile, Trump will seek to bully a world he does not understand, one in which America’s leverage on trade has been diminished and in which his chosen tactics for doing so long ago proved to be ineffective and damaging to U.S. interests.

Indeed, the reason this settlements vote has so many in the Israeli leadership so outraged is not because they didn’t want it to happen. It is because it is only the latest proof that their preferred narrative about Israel has been overtaken by reality — and that the days of their ability to defend Israel as the region’s lone democracy are numbered as their demographic clock keeps ticking and their policies keep undercutting the legitimate rights of Palestinians. The vote was infuriating to them because it showed that the countries of the Security Council were unanimously opposed to their policies. It was scary to them because it underscored that their policies and diplomacy were failing them and that the time has come for a new generation of leaders with new ideas for Israel — just as it has come for the aging, failed leadership of the Palestinians, and just as it is coming for the political dinosaurs of our era, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

Photo credit: JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

Donald Trump's Indonesian business partner considers running for president

Billionaire developer Hary Tanoe, who is building two Trump resorts, says he has ‘access’ to the US president-elect
Donald Trump’s Indonesian business partner, a billionaire developer and media mogul, has announced he might run for president in Indonesia’s 2019 elections.

 in Bangkok-Monday 2 January 2017

“If there is no one I can believe who can fix the problems of the country, I may try to run for president,” Hary Tanoesoedibjo told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

“Not for myself, for the country,” he said, adding that the nation of about 260 million people needs “a leader with integrity who can bring a solution for the country”.

Known locally as Hary Tanoe, the tycoon is building two Trump developments – a 100-hectare, six-star luxury resort on the coast of Bali and a resort outside Jakarta with a championship golf course designed by former world No 1 Ernie Els. The resort will have 300 villas and adjoin a theme park.
Both projects are due to be completed while Trump is in office.

Unlike Trump before his presidential run, the 50-year-old has already delved deeply into politics. Tanoe made a failed attempt in 2014 to get the nomination for vice-president and has since set up his own political party, United Indonesia, using Twitter and appearances on his TV stations as a platform.

His company, Global Mediacom, also known as MNC Group, saw stocks rise significantly when Trump won the election in November.

Tanoe said he has “access” to Trump although it was limited and most of his contact regarding the joint developments was with the president-elect’s adult children; Donald Jr, Eric and Ivanka. “Each of them has different roles. Don Jr has responsibility for the overall project, Eric the design and golf, and Ivanka more of detail – the fit-out of the hotel,” he said.

Vast foreign business interests held by an incoming president have been flagged as a potential conflict of interests, especially if the ventures are linked to businesspeople with aspirations for power.

In Indonesia’s last election, Tanoe threw his support behind former general Prabowo Subianto, who went on to lose to Joko Widodo, meaning Trump’s biggest financial stake in Indonesia is run by a political adversary to the country’s leader.

And Tanoe has already arranged for two controversial Indonesian politicians to meet Trump. The first was Setya Novanto, the speaker of the House of Representatives who was at the centre of a $US4bn corruption scandal in Indonesia. He denies all allegations.

The second was Fadli Zon, the deputy speaker, who is close to Indonesian religious hardliners who have been pushing for Jakarta’s governor to be jailed for blasphemy.

Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, known by his nickname Ahok, is fighting a racially charged attempt to prevent him from winning a second term next month by Islamists who are against a Christian Indonesian of Chinese heritage being in power.

But Tanoe, also a Chinese Indonesia Christian, said the country was ready for a leader of any background. “The majority of the people are more realistic. They want to see a leader who can bring solutions,” he said.

He blamed the president, known as Jokowi, for not responding “quickly enough” to quell protests in that capital that saw roughly half-a-million people rally against Ahok on 2 December. “The issue is more with President Jokowi. He has to show his leadership is firm enough to make people calm down.”

President-elect Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan meet in the speaker's office in November. Ryan says their discussions have centered on “a timeline” for passing already- determined Republican priorities. (Alex Brandon/AP)

 

For six years, since they took back the House of Representatives, Republicans have added to a pile of legislation that moldered outside the White House. In their thwarted agenda, financial regulations were to be unspooled. Business taxes were to be slashed. Planned Parenthood would be stripped of federal funds. The ­Affordable Care Act was teed up for repeal — dozens of times.

When the 115th Congress begins this week, with Republicans firmly in charge of the House and Senate, much of that legislation will form the basis of the most ambitious conservative policy agenda since the 1920s. And rather than a Democratic president standing in the way, a soon-to-be-inaugurated Donald Trump seems ready to sign much of it into law.

The dynamic reflects just how ready Congress is to push through a conservative makeover of government, and how little Trump’s unpredictable, attention-grabbing style matters to the Republican game plan.
That plan was long in the making.

Almost the entire agenda has already been vetted, promoted and worked over by Republicans and think tanks that look at the White House less for leadership and more for signing ceremonies.

Republicans are about to hold both houses of Congress, the White House, and could soon have more allies on the Supreme Court. The Fix's Chris Cillizza explains how the balance of power in Washington rests with the GOP. (Peter Stevenson, Julio Negron/The Washington Post)

In 2012, Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist described the ideal president as “a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen” and “sign the legislation that has already been prepared.” In 2015, when Senate Republicans used procedural maneuvers to undermine a potential Democratic filibuster and vote to repeal the health-care law, it did not matter that President Obama’s White House stopped them: As the conservative advocacy group Heritage Action put it, the process was “a trial run for 2017, when we will hopefully have a President willing to sign a full repeal bill.”

“What I told our committees a year ago was: Assume you get the White House and Congress,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) told CNBC in a post-election interview last month. “Come 2018, what do you want to have accomplished?” Negotiations with the incoming Trump administration, he said, were mostly “on timeline, on an execution strategy.”

Few presidential candidates have dominated the coverage of an election like Trump did in 2016. In the campaign’s final stretch, Republican candidates often got less attention for their records in Congress than for their positions on Trump’s controversial statements.

The irony, as Democrats realized after the election, was that congressional Republicans were poised to have more influence over the national agenda in 2017 than congressional Democrats did after the 2008 election that put Obama in the White House with his party in control on Capitol Hill.

While the Democratic majority in 2009 was larger than the GOP advantage this year, the Democrats were hamstrung in ways they came to regret.

Responding to the Great Recession, they spent the transition and first month of 2009 on a $831 billion stimulus package, with Obama aides openly hoping that they could pass it with bipartisan supermajorities. Every House Republican and all but three Senate Republicans opposed it, and within 20 days of inauguration, the first tea party protests had broken out against it. Protesters twinned their opposition to the stimulus with opposition to the bank bailouts, which had bipartisan backing.

Since November, Republicans have preempted any problems like this by making no attempt to frame their agenda as bipartisan.
In his first news conference after the election, Ryan said that voters had delivered a mandate for “unified Republican government.” Eight years earlier, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had said only that Americans “voted in large numbers for change” and said the White House would be driving the agenda.

This year’s agenda from House and Senate Republicans has clarity that was often lacking from Trump’s own campaign. Senate Republicans favor using a procedure known as “budget reconciliation,” in which measures can be passed with a simple 51-vote majority rather than a filibuster-proof 60 votes, to tackle the ACA and to undo much of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform.

As part of undoing the financial overhaul law, some GOP leaders have begun planning strategies for how to effectively kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, whether by giving Congress control over its budget or finding cause to replace its director, Richard Cordray, with a weaker board.

“I’d like to repeal the whole thing, period,” Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard C. Shelby said of Dodd-Frank in a December interview with the Wall Street Journal.

The reconciliation process is also likely to be used to pass tax changes, which both Trump and congressional Republicans want to use to lower rates and end the estate tax.

Republicans also are examining ways to undo many of the regulations and other orders enacted by Obama and his administration, including ones issued in the weeks since Trump’s victory and designed to solidify the Democratic president’s environmental legacy.

GOP leaders have cited the 21-year old Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to cast simple majority votes of disapproval for regulations, as a way to block anything the administration has ordered since June 2016.

Since its passage, the CRA has been used only once. But in December, the conservative House Freedom Caucus began compiling a list of more than 200 regulations it views as vulnerable to a disapproval vote. They include “burdensome” school lunch standards, tobacco regulations, laws that set higher wages for contractors and elements of the Paris climate-change agreement.

“Talking to some individuals with the Trump transition team, they are taking this extremely serious[ly],” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the Freedom Caucus, told the Heritage Foundation last month.

Republicans intend to supplement the CRA by enacting a law that would subject any regulation with an economic impact greater than $100 million to a vote of Congress, a change that would have prevented nearly every climate or employment rule change of the Obama years. The measure, called the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, or Reins, is a conservative priority that passed the Republican House in 2011, 2013 and 2015 with backing from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republican aides now hope for a vote on Reins in the coming days so it can be sent for Trump’s signature immediately after he is sworn in on Jan. 20.

Some Republican lawmakers also want legislation that would stop courts from deferring to federal agencies’ interpretations of statutes — a practice known as “Chevron deference,” after the 1984 Supreme Court case that went against the energy company — and have them instead defer to Congress.
Little of this was discussed during the presidential campaign, and none has much buy-in from Democrats. Just one rural Democrat in the 115th Congress, Rep. Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota, voted for Reins. But Democrats do not see the next few months playing out for them the way the first half of 2009 played out for Republicans.

“I think there was a unique benefit to Republicans in obstructing the Obama agenda,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who served in the House in Obama’s first term and arrived in the Senate in 2013. “In 2008, Obama’s entire premise was built on fixing Washington by ending partisanship. It was dependent on getting two parties to work together. Mitch McConnell figured out quickly that he alone held the keys to success or lack of success.”

Democrats, said Murphy, would oppose Republicans where they can. But they are not in a position to block everything. “Trump pays lip service to bringing people together, but his theme is that ‘only he can fix it,’ ” he said. “That’s about results, not whether Washington is ‘working,’ so there’s not the same political benefit to pure obstruction.”

Instead, Democrats see opportunities on issues on which Trump clashed with his party or where Republicans themselves worry that the party’s position is unpopular. One of them is the Defund Planned Parenthood Act, which sailed through the House in 2015. Last month, when Obama issued an order halting state efforts to defund the group, the legislation’s sponsor, Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.), said new “pro-life majorities in Congress” would “not only roll back this latest overreach but also enact new legal protections for these most vulnerable members of our society.”

Trump, who became antiabortion late in life, sent mixed messages about Planned Parenthood, praising its non-abortion work in televised debates. That, say Democrats and abortion rights advocates, suggests a wedge can be shoved between the Republican Congress and the president. “Trump didn’t run on, nor was he elected to act on, attacking reproductive health care,” said Ericka Sackin, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood.

There’s less clarity about how to respond on other Republican priorities. Legislation to allow concealed weapons to be carried across state lines, a major goal of the National Rifle Association, was endorsed by Trump and may be hard for red-state Democrats to oppose.

A possible Trump-backed stimulus package intrigued even blue-state Democrats when it was floated in November. Interest waned when, in lieu of detailed spending plans, Trump allies suggested the stimulus would consist of tax breaks.

In the short term, Democrats are focused more on Trump’s Cabinet picks and the looming Supreme Court nomination. In 2009, 59 Democratic senators were occasionally bogged down in getting the 60th vote to confirm lower-level Obama appointees such as Tom Perez as an assistant attorney general at the Justice Department and Harold Koh as a legal adviser at State.

In 2017, thanks to Democrats’ change of the filibuster, Republicans no longer need to get 60 votes for cloture on nominees; they need a simple majority for any administration position or any judicial opening lower than the Supreme Court. This, Democrats admit, will give Republicans more running room and more floor time to pass bills. Shellshocked after being defeated in an election few people expected they could lose, some concede that Trump’s ability to command media attention will make it harder to turn their losing congressional battles into headlines.

They will try. On Jan. 15, Democrats will organize rallies in several states to draw attention to Trump’s campaign pledge to leave Social Security and Medicare untouched — a difference with Republicans like Ryan. And the party’s concurrent fight over who will head the Democratic National Committee has focused, in large part, on how the party can draw attention to the fast-moving Republican Congress and promote its own work, something Hillary Clinton failed to do in the campaign.

“There’s no question we’ll see a greater number of people who are uninsured, more people who are unemployed and more kids getting low test scores,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a leading candidate for DNC chairman. “But if we think Trump will create bad conditions and that’ll be enough for Democrats to win, we are absolutely wrong.”

Predictions for 2017: politics

A boy wearing a US flag facing a line of police in AmericaThe road ahead: how will the decisions of 2016 affect the next 12 months? CREDIT: GETTY

Let's be clear on policy for Brexit and climate change

The TelegraphNigel Lawson
By Nigel Lawson, Former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Conservative member of the House of Lords and Chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation
No crystal ball is needed to predict the dominant political stories of 2017. For the UK it will be about Brexit: the triggering of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty at the end of March to enable the UK to leave the European Union, the response of the EU and the subsequent discussions. For the wider world it will be all about the first year of the Trump presidency in the US.

Supreme Court bans politicians from using religion, caste to win votes

A television journalist sets his camera inside the premises of the Supreme Court in New Delhi February 18, 2014. REUTERS/Anindito Mukherjee/Files
A television journalist sets his camera inside the premises of the Supreme Court in New Delhi February 18, 2014. REUTERS/Anindito Mukherjee/Files

 Mon Jan 2, 2017

Supreme Court on Monday prohibited politicians from using religion and caste to garner votes, a verdict that could force political parties to change their strategy in upcoming elections.

"No politician can seek vote in the name of caste, creed or religion," said Chief Justice T.S. Thakur in an order, adding that election process must be a "secular exercise".

India is officially secular but political parties have traditionally used religion and caste as the main criteria to select candidates and to appeal to voters.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has for years fought elections on a Hindu nationalist agenda, with party members in the past being accused of making anti-Muslim statements to polarise Hindu voters.

The court ruling comes just weeks ahead of a state election in Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state where the two issues of religion and caste generally dominate campaigns.

Results of the election will be important for Modi's expected bid for a second term in 2019.

State elections are also due this year in the states of Punjab, Uttarakhand, Goa and Manipur.

The Supreme Court, ruling on a petition filed by a politician in 1996, wrote in its opinion that the secular ethos of the constitution had to be protected.

The majority view of the seven-judge Supreme Court bench held that elections would be void if a politician made an appeal for votes on the basis of religious sentiment.

(Reporting by Rupam Jain, Suchitra Mohanty, Writing by Rupam Jain, Editing by Tom Lasseter, Robert Birsel)

Venezuela’s Military Is Trafficking Food as the Country Goes Hungry

"Lately, food is a better business than drugs," says one retired general

Venezuela Undone Profiting From Hunger
In this Nov. 1, 2016 photo, a man carries bags of recyclable material he collected at the dump in Puerto Cabello, Venezuela.

(PUERTO CABELLO, Venezuela) — When hunger drew tens of thousands of Venezuelans to the streets last summer in protest, President Nicolas Maduro turned to the military to manage the country’s diminished food supply, putting generals in charge of everything from butter to rice.

But instead of fighting hunger, the military is making money from it, an Associated Press investigation shows. That’s what grocer Jose Campos found when he ran out of pantry staples this year. In the middle of the night, he would travel to an illegal market run by the military to buy corn flour — at 100 times the government-set price.
“The military would be watching over whole bags of money,” Campos said. “They always had what I needed.”

With much of the oil country on the verge of starvation and malnourished children dying in pediatric wards, food trafficking has become big business in Venezuela. And the military is at the heart of the graft, according to documents and interviews with more than 60 officials, company owners and workers, including five former generals.

As a result, food is not reaching those who most need it.

The U.S. government has taken notice. Prosecutors have opened investigations against senior Venezuelan officials for laundering riches from food contracts through the U.S. financial system, according to several people with direct knowledge of the probes. No charges have been brought.

“Lately, food is a better business than drugs,” said retired Gen. Cliver Alcala, who helped oversee border security.

The late President Hugo Chavez created a Food Ministry in 2004. His socialist government nationalized and then neglected farms and factories, and domestic production dried up. When the price of oil collapsed in 2014, the government no longer could afford to import all the country needed.

Hungry Venezuelans began rioting, and so Maduro handed the generals complete power over food. The government now imports nearly all the country’s food, and corruption drives prices sky-high, said Werner Gutierrez, agronomy professor at the University of Zulia.

“If Venezuela paid market prices, we’d be able to double our imports,” Gutierrez said. “Instead, people are starving.”
In large part due to concerns of graft, the three largest global food traders, all based in the U.S., have stopped selling directly to the Venezuelan government.

One South American businessman says he paid millions in kickbacks to Venezuelan officials as the hunger crisis worsened, including $8 million to people who work for the food minister, Gen. Rodolfo Marco Torres. The businessman insisted on speaking anonymously because he did not want to acknowledge participating in corruption.

He explained that vendors like him can afford to pay off officials because they build large profit margins into what they bill the state. A single $52 million contract of his to import yellow corn last year, seen by AP, included a potential overpayment of more than $20 million, compared with market prices at the time.

Marco Torres did not respond to requests for comment by phone, email and hand-delivered letter. In the past, he has said he will not be lured into fights with an unpatriotic opposition.

Some contracts go to companies that have no experience dealing in food or seem to exist only on paper. Financial documents obtained by AP show that Marco Torres did business with Panama-registered Atlas Systems International, which has all the hallmarks of a shell company. Another government food supplier, J.A. Comercio de Generos Alimenticios, lists on its website a nonexistent address in an industrial city near Sao Paulo, Brazil.

The two companies transferred more than $5.5 million in 2012 and 2013 to a Geneva account controlled by the brothers-in-law of the then-food minister, Gen. Carlos Osorio, according to bank and internal company documents seen by AP.

Osorio, recently appointed to oversee transparency in the military, did not respond to requests for comment, but in the past dismissed charges of corruption as personal attacks from the opposition.
The socialist administration says it takes graft seriously.

“The state has an obligation to root out corruption in all levels of public administration,” the defense minister, Gen. Vladimir Padrino Lopez, said this fall.

And yet dirty dealing persists from the port to the markets, according to dozens of people working in Puerto Cabello, which handles the majority of imported food. Officials sometimes keep ships waiting at sea until they are paid off, according to a stevedore who spoke anonymously because he feared losing his job.

After the cargo is unloaded, customs officials take their cut, refusing to even start the process of nationalizing goods without a payment, four customs workers said, .

“It’s an unbroken chain of bribery from when your ship comes in until the food is driven out in trucks,” said Luis Pena, a director at the Caracas-based importer Premier Foods.

If importers try to get through the process without greasing the wheels, food sits and spoils, Pena said. Rotting food is a problem even as 90 percent of Venezuelans say they can’t afford enough to eat. The demands for bribes delay shipments, and state officials sometimes neglect to distribute what they import.

Puerto Cabello crane operator Daniel Arteaga watched last winter as state workers buried hundreds of containers of spoiled chicken, meat and beans.

“All these refrigerated containers, and meanwhile people are waiting in food lines each week just to buy a single chicken,” Arteaga said.

The corruption doesn’t stop once cargo leaves the port, according to truck drivers. The military has set up checkpoints along highways to catch food traffickers, and truck drivers say they have to pay bribes at about half of them.

At the end of the food chain, some soldiers partake in selling food directly to citizens, according to business owners. Bakery owner Jose Ferreira cuts two checks for each purchase of sugar: one for the official price of 2 cents a pound and one for the kickback of 60 cents a pound. He keeps copies of both checks in his books, seen by the AP, in case he is ever audited.
“We have no other option,” he said.

Flawed and Poor Quality Surgical Instruments Place Patients at Risk





Mercola.comBy Dr. Mercola-December 31, 2016 

The BBC documentary, “Surgery’s Dirty Secrets,” which originally aired in 2011, investigates the sources of surgical tools, and highlights flaws in British safety regulations.

If you’re like most, you probably assume that surgical instruments are made to the very highest, exacting standards. The reality of where and how these tools are made is downright shocking.  

According to BBC reporter Samantha Poling, who spent a year investigating this topic, there are significant problems in the industry — problems that can, and have, caused severe illness and death.
An estimated 30 million operations are carried out in British hospitals each year. In order to perform, surgeons need the right tools for the job, and these tools must be made to exact specifications and be of the highest quality.

Poorly made or non-functioning surgical tools can mean the difference between a successful surgery and the loss of a limb or organ, or death of the patient.

For example, for each fraction of a second a surgical assistant is struggling with a poorly functioning arterial clamp, the patient is losing blood, compromising the success of the surgery.

Lethal Infections Spread by Surgical Tools

In 2009, Dorothy Brown underwent heart surgery at Nottingham City Hospital. While the operation was a success, she contracted an antibiotic-resistant infection that nearly claimed her life. Ten other patients operated on by Brown’s surgeon around the same time contracted the same lethal infection.

Five of them subsequently died. In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports at least 1,000 incidences where poor quality surgical instruments have caused harm each year.

A confidential report obtained by Poling reveals the two most likely causes of the mass infection at Nottingham City Hospital were either air born bacteria or micro-punctures in the surgeon’s gloves. As a result of the internal investigation, surgeons must now wear thicker gloves or double-up on regular gloves. 

But what would repeatedly cause micro-punctures in the surgeon’s gloves in the first place? According to experts, the most likely cause is poor quality surgical instruments.

While few medical professionals were willing to go on record with the BBC, Tom Brophy, a lead technologist with Barts Health NHS (National Health Service) Trust, did. Deeply concerned about what he’s been seeing, he has started collecting evidence showing just how defective some surgical tools are.
Most of these defects cannot be seen with the naked eye, but under magnification, jagged edges and poor quality construction becomes readily evident. Common problems reported by Brophy include:
  • Fractured and re-welded instruments, which can harbor and spread bacteria
  • Sharp, protruding guide pins on forceps that can lacerate gloves
  • Sharp burs and metal fragments that can break off, lacerating gloves and/or pose an infection risk if deposited inside the patient
  • Corrosion and pitted metals that can pose an infection risk
  • Faulty screw heads

1 in 5 Surgical Instruments Is Flawed

According to Brophy, 1 in 5 instruments, or about 20 percent of all instruments he receives, are rejected due to flaws that place patients’ health at risk. He even reports receiving used equipment where blood and dried tissue could pose an infection risk.

These tools are somehow recycled and passed off as brand new — something that simply should not occur. Yet it’s happening. Poorly constructed instruments also should not enter the surgical suite, yet they do with frightening frequency. How is all of this possible?

In the U.K., manufacturers and suppliers of surgical instruments must be registered with the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and there are over 900 manufacturers registered.
In December, 2010, following mounting complaints about shoddy quality, the agency issued a warning to all manufacturers saying steps must be implemented to ensure that all instruments are “fit for purpose.”

However, the responsibility for ensuring that quality standards are actually met still rests with the manufacturers, not the MHRA or any separate quality control agency. The suppliers are not even required to inspect the products received from the manufacturer before re-selling them to a hospital.

In all, there are 180 health trusts and boards in the U.K., but Barts is the only health trust that actually employs a technologist to inspect all the instruments before they’re used in surgery.

Disturbingly, when Brophy sent back rejected instruments to an Asian supplier, he was told that the instruments were sent out to another U.K. hospital that accepted them without issue. “Well, of course they’re going to accept them,” Brophy says, “because they haven’t checked them.”

Where Are Surgical Tools Made?

Thoughts of Swiss-made precision come to mind when considering how surgical tools are made, but two-thirds of the world’s surgical instruments are actually manufactured in Sialkot, located in the northern Punjab area of Pakistan.

Seventy percent of the 900 surgical tool manufacturers registered with the MHRA are based there.
Some of these manufacturers appear to be doing a decent job, including Hilbro, which is one of the largest manufacturers. Each instrument is at least visually inspected with a magnifying glass before being sent out. Others operate under far more questionable circumstances.

Regal Medical Instruments, a small manufacturer in Sialkot that sends their wares to two small-scale suppliers in the U.K., offers a wholly different view of the industry. The facility is so dark you can barely see, and metal dust fills the air. Surgical instruments lie scattered in piles on the floor.

In their quality assurance department, employees visually inspect each instrument before stamping it with the requisite “CE” quality stamp required by the MHRA, but no magnifying glass is used. This means most defects caught by Brophy — who uses a microscope — will never ever be caught.

Then there’s “the ramshackle side to the industry,” to use Poling’s words. In this part of town, workers toil away at their grindstones in tiny dust-filled shacks with open sewers flowing past their doorways. According to Poling, larger, respectable companies frequently outsource work to these workers in order to meet demand.

In all, there are more than 3,000 of these “outsourcing units” in Sialkot, and these workers make less than $2.50 per day. According to some of the workers, both Hilbro and Regal Medical regularly buy surgical instruments from them.

‘Made in Germany’ — Not Quite!

Remarkably, the maker’s mark on these Pakistani-made tools will often say “Made in Germany.” As explained by Poling:
“Under EU law, the instruments made in these backstreets can be stamped with another country’s name so long as that country helps substantially transform the product. So, as the forged steel they’re working with here comes from Germany, the whole thing can be stamped ‘Made in Germany,’ and German instruments sell for much more than those stamped ‘Made in Pakistan.’”
Making matters worse, British suppliers rarely conduct quality inspections of their Pakistani manufacturers’ facilities. Part of the problem is the constant risk of terror attacks in Pakistan. It’s a dangerous area, and carrying out inspections in person is risky. Poling also found evidence suggesting the Pakistani surgical tool industry may be using child labor.

The MHRA declined meeting with Poling, but provided her with a statement saying they have “no evidence that non-compliant instruments are being supplied to the NHS.” Meanwhile, Brophy inspected the 19 instrument samples collected by Poling during her Pakistani trip, where she visited over 100 different instrument manufacturing facilities. Twelve of the 19 samples failed his inspection.

Poling even unearthed illegal activities during her investigation. While legal loopholes allow for a Pakistani manufacturer to label his goods as “Made in Germany” if the steel used is from Germany, it is illegal to use Pakistani or French steel, for example, and mark it as being German-made.

Undercover footage, in which she poses as a supplier of surgical instruments, shows two U.K. 
representatives of Regal Medical Instruments offering to sell her tools made with Pakistani steel stamped “Made in Germany,” so that she would then be able to resell them at an inflated price. According to the Pakistani representatives, they are already selling mid-priced French steel instruments to suppliers that bear the German mark, per the suppliers’ requests.

Non-Disposable Equipment Also Carries Contamination Risks

As discussed in my interview with Dr. David Lewis, a retired microbiologist with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last year, non-disposable tools such as flexible sigmoidoscopes and colonoscopies are also risky for the patient. Since they must be reused, these tools require cleaning and sterilization before each use, both inside and out. However, testing reveals that this is virtually impossible, and the disinfection process used by most clinics and hospitals fails to properly clean and sterilize these tools.

As a result, patients take great chances when these tools are used on them, as they can spread all manner of infections from one patient to another. There is a solution: create flexible scopes that can be autoclaved (heat sterilized). But manufacturers have not been pressured to come up with such a design. As noted by Lewis, it really boils down to federal agencies failing to take the contamination issue seriously enough.

If you’re having a colonoscopy done, or any other procedure where a flexible endoscope will be used, be sure to ask how it is cleaned, and which cleaning agent is being used.
  • If the hospital or clinic uses peracetic acid, your likelihood of contracting an infection from a previous patient is very slim.
  • If the answer is glutaraldehyde, or the brand name Cidex (which is what 80 percent of clinics use), cancel your appointment and go elsewhere.
Asking what they use to clean the scope is a key question that could save your life. It’s important that we all start to do this because the FDA simply does not have the incentive to take action on it.

However, once enough people refuse to have these procedures done with glutaraldehyde-sterilized instruments, then clinics and hospitals will change, even if the FDA does nothing. It’s also crucial that health care professionals who are reading this start addressing the issue from the inside. You really need to be aware of this issue, and how it’s placing patients at risk.

As for flawed surgical tools, there’s very little you as a patient can do about it. Ideally, hospitals everywhere would hire someone to carefully inspect all surgical tools prior to use. In all, Poling’s report reveals there is much room for improvement in this industry, if we are to place patient welfare first.