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

Friday, January 13, 2017

 The Post’s Karen Tumulty looks at several instances where President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees have disagreed with him on some of his campaign pledges during their confirmation hearings. (Video: Bastien Inzaurralde/Photo: Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)

  

Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees, in their first round of confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill, have one after another contradicted the president-elect on key issues, promising to trim back or disregard some of the signature promises on which he campaigned.

A fresh set of examples came Thursday, the third day of hearings.

Retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, Trump’s nominee to be defense secretary, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the United States must honor the “imperfect ­arms-control agreement” 
with Iran that Trump has vowed to dismantle because “when America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.”

He also took a more adversarial stance than Trump has toward Russian President Vladi­mir Putin and cited Moscow as one of the nation’s top threats.

“I’ve never found a better guide for the way ahead than studying the histories. Since [the 1945 meeting of world powers at] Yalta, we have a long list of times we’ve tried to engage positively with Russia. We have a relatively short list of successes in that regard,” Mattis said. “I think right now, the most important thing is that we recognize the reality of what we deal with [in] Mr. Putin and we recognize that he is trying to break the North Atlantic alliance.”

At the confirmation hearing for President-elect Trump's nominee for secretary of defense, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis warned about the threat Russia poses and vowed to stand up to Trump when necessary. (Video: Sarah Parnass/Photo: Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)


At a witness table in another Senate hearing room, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), whom Trump picked to head the CIA, assured the Intelligence Committee that he would “absolutely not” use brutal interrogation tactics on terrorism suspects in contravention of the law, even if ordered to do so by a president who campaigned on a promise to reinstate the use of such measures.

Trump indicated in a tweet Friday morning that he is unconcerned about the contradictions. “All of my Cabinet nominee are looking good and doing a great job,” Trump wrote. “I want them to be themselves and express their own thoughts, not mine!”

The discordant notes that Cabinet nominees have struck as they have been questioned by senators suggest that a reality check may lie ahead for Trump.

It may be that the grandiosity and disregard for convention that got Trump elected were inevitably bound for a collision with the practical and legal limitations of governing.

“His rhetoric was so far outside the boundaries — in some instances of reality, and in some instances, of the laws of the nation, and in other issues, outside the boundaries of pass-fail issues for some of these nominees,” said Republican strategist Steve Schmidt, who as an aide to President George W. Bush oversaw the confirmation process for the Supreme Court nominations of Samuel A. Alito Jr. and John G. Roberts Jr.

The American system of government places “extraordinary constraints” on even a president’s power, Schmidt said. “You’re seeing the reality-show aspects of campaigning bending to the reality of governance.”

But others say that Trump is such a singular figure, whose fervent supporters are convinced that he can topple the established order in Washington, that it is impossible to predict how things will play out once he has been inaugurated.

“We are in such uncharted territory with this guy,” said Elaine Kamarck, director of the Brookings Institution’s Center for Effective Public Management. “The interesting thing will be, does Trump pay attention to what his government does?”

The comments by Mattis and Pompeo on Thursday continued a pattern set in the first two days of hearings.

On Tuesday, retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, nominated to head the Department of Homeland Security, played down the significance of Trump’s promise to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, saying that “a physical barrier in and of itself will not do the job.”

And Kelly, too, disavowed torture, saying, “I don’t think we should ever come close to crossing a line that is beyond what we as Americans would expect to follow in terms of interrogation techniques.”

In 2009, President Obama signed an executive order that bars the CIA from using interrogation methods beyond those permitted by the U.S. Army Field Manual. That excludes such measures as waterboarding. In 2015, that policy was written into law.

Trump, on the other hand, argued during his campaign that “torture works.” He vowed to resume it “immediately” and to come up with “much worse.”

On Wednesday, secretary of state-designate Rex Tillerson contradicted the president-elect’s repeated suggestions that climate change is a hoax and said it is important for this country to “maintain its seat at the table on the conversations around how to address the threats of climate change, which do require a global response.”

As a candidate, Trump had said he would withdraw the United States from a 2015 international accord to reduce ­greenhouse gas emissions, although he has since softened that stance and said he is keeping “an open mind to it.”

That Trump’s nominees would air their disagreements with the president-elect at their confirmation hearings is “extraordinarily unusual,” Kamarck said. “The first thing a president and a transition team does is make sure the president and his Cabinet are on the same page.”

But it may be that they have not yet even discussed their differences.

Among the startling turns in the confirmation hearings has been the revelation by some of Trump’s nominees that they have not had detailed conversations with the president-elect about critical issues that will fall within their portfolios.

Tillerson, for example, told the Foreign Relations Committee that he and Trump had discussed foreign policy “in a broad construct and in terms of the principles that are going to guide that.”

“I would have thought that Russia would be at the very top of that, considering all the actions that have taken place,” Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said. “Did that not happen?”

“That has not occurred yet, Senator,” Tillerson replied.

Kelly made a similar comment when he was asked about the fate of hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who have applied for protection from deportation under the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals executive action. In his campaign, Trump vowed to “immediately terminate” the program.

“The entire development of immigration policy is ongoing right now in terms of the upcoming administration. I have not been involved in those discussions,” said Kelly, who is slated to head a sprawling department that includes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

One question is whether his appointees will persuade Trump to moderate some of the strident positions that he took during his presidential campaign.

He has already indicated that they have influenced his thinking in some areas.

During an interview with the New York Times shortly after his election, for instance, Trump said that Mattis had made the case that “a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers” were more effective in getting information from terrorism suspects than waterboarding and similarly controversial techniques.
“I was very impressed by that answer,” Trump said.

Another unknown, however, is how the Cabinet nominees’ views will mesh with those of senior members of Trump’s White House staff, who do not undergo confirmation by the Senate.

Tillerson, for example, said under questioning by the Foreign Relations Committee that supporting human rights globally is “without question” in the long-term national security interests of the United States.

But at a forum a day earlier at the United States Institute of Peace, K.T. McFarland, who will be Trump’s deputy national security adviser, contended that Trump will take foreign policy in a less-idealistic direction.

“The mistake that we make is that we constantly tell other countries how they should think,” McFarland said. “What I’m hoping is that we can start seeing things through their eyes.”

Read more:



SitRep: U.S. Tanks Arrive in Poland, But Will Trump Let Them Stay?; China Hints at War Over Tillerson’s South China Sea Comments

SitRep: U.S. Tanks Arrive in Poland, But Will Trump Let Them Stay?; China Hints at War Over Tillerson’s South China Sea Comments

No automatic alt text available.BY PAUL MCLEARYADAM RAWNSLEY-JANUARY 13, 2017

Russia policy. The first real test of President-elect Donald Trump’s NATO and Russia policy could take place in Poland, where American tanks are rumbling into position as part of a new Pentagon strategy of reassuring nervous Eastern European allies in the face of an increasingly aggressive Russia.

Heavy equipment and the first of what will be about 4,000 U.S. troops arrived on Thursday, where they’ll set down in western Poland, while another deployment, set for April, will settle in eastern Poland near the “Suwalki Gap,” a pocket that sits between Belarus and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. FP has lots more on this critical patch of land here.

Not having it. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Thursday that Russia sees the U.S. troop deployments as a direct threat. “Any country can regard a buildup of foreign military presence near its borders negatively,” he said. “We interpret this as a threat to us and as actions that endanger our interests and our security.”

A senior Pentagon official speaking on the condition of anonymity told SitRep that the moves — including hundreds of troops from the U.K., Canada, and Germany taking up positions in NATO’s Baltic states — are intended as a message to Moscow. “Russia takes advantage of a lack of resolve,” the official said, and the deployments, though small, are intended to demonstrate commitment.

Breaking from Trump Tower. The incoming president’s nominees for secretary of defense and director of the CIA on Thursday broke sharply with the boss on how to handle Russia and NATO, though it remains to be seen what Washington’s policies will be come Jan. 20. Retired Marine General James Mattis repeatedly backed NATO during his appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, while also lambasting Russia and offering a grudging acceptance of the Iran nuclear deal, FP’s Paul McLeary reports.

“If we did not have NATO today, we would need to create it,” Mattis said, adding that Russian President Vladimir Putin — long an object of Trump’s praise and his hopeful dance partner on the global stage — is “trying to break the North Atlantic alliance.” Mattis said that he has spoken with Trump about NATO and Iran and “he understands where I stand.”

Spies like us. Likewise, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R.-Kan.) — Trump’s pick to run the CIA – told the Senate Intelligence Committee that he accepts the assessment that Russia meddled in the election to boost the Republican’s candidacy.

“Pompeo sought to reassure lawmakers that he did not share Trump’s often extreme views, and that he would faithfully carry out his duties in the Trump administration, even if that led to clashes with the new president,” FP’s Elias Groll writes. “Pompeo said he would continue investigating the Russian effort to meddle in the U.S. election and would share that information with the FBI, even if that investigation ensnares Trump or his associates. As CIA director, Pompeo said he would “‘pursue the facts wherever they take us.’”

Hold on there. All of this talk of independence was quickly squelched by Trump spokesman Sean Spicer on Thursday, however. He told reporters that “at the end of the day, each one of them is going to pursue a Trump agenda,” adding, “They’re being asked their personal views here and there. They’re giving them.”

Behind closed doors. The gatekeeper to the Oval Office for Mattis, Pompeo, and Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson will be national security advisor Mike Flynn, who shares some of PEOTUS’ instincts to reach out to Moscow to cooperate on a range of issues. An interesting note: On Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced it was expelling 35 Russian diplomats in response to Russian hacking during the presidential election, Flynn reportedly dialed up Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak “several times,” the Washington Post’s David Ignatius writes.

Missiles and tanks. With NATO-Russia relations at their lowest point in decades, the two former Cold War adversaries are in a tense stand-off over missile defense, FP’s Robbie Gramer writes in a fascinating new piece. “In recent years, Russia established a dense thicket of overlapping missile and missile defense systems with ranges that jut into NATO territory. Those systems could hinder NATO’s access to the territory in which it operates — akin to a 21st century moat around a castle. In defense jargon, it’s a strategy known as anti-access/area denial, or A2/AD. And it’s a top worry for NATO commanders.” Come for the story, and stay for the maps. Everyone loves a good map.

Beijing not happy. All this focus on Russia has in some respects clouded the comments that Tillerson made earlier in the week about the South China Sea. He told senators at his nomination hearing that Washington is “going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops, and second, your access to those islands is also not going to be allowed.”

His answer amounted to more than just staking out a tough line on China. “It was a stunning break with years of American foreign policy,” reports FP’sEmily Tamkin. “Tillerson’s warning that the United States would block China’s access to the contested islands shocked and bewildered lawmakers and their aides, and diplomats across Asia. If carried out, it could violate international law as Washington has interpreted it and could put the United States on a collision course with China, raising the danger of a military clash.”

Beijing has sure noticed. On Friday, the government-run the Global Timesnewspaper said Washington would have to “wage a large-scale war” in the South China Sea to prevent Chinese access to the islands.

Good morning and as always, if you have any thoughts, announcements, tips, or national  security-related events to share, please pass them along to SitRep HQ. Best way is to send them to: paul.mcleary@foreignpolicy.com or on Twitter: @paulmcleary or @arawnsley
China

China has a new ally in its pushback against the decision by the U.S. and South Korea to deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery to South Korea. The U.S. offered up the missile defense system to help South Korea cope with North Korea’s ever-busier ballistic missile program but China objected, arguing that THAAD’s could be used to see into Chinese airspace. Russia has also objected to the THAAD deployment and Reutersreports that Chinese state news claimed that China and Russia are now at work on “countermeasures”

Never tweet

U.S. Central Command has stumbled into an accidental Twitter flap with Turkey over a tweet from the command carrying a statement from the U.S.-backed Syrian Defense Forces denying any links to the Kurdish PKK terrorist group. The National reports that the tweet landed with a thud in Turkey, where President Recep Tayyip Erdogan responded by saying “nobody has the right to claim they have nothing to do with the PKK” and his spokesman asked on Twitter “Is this a joke or @Centcom has lost its senses?”

 The U.S. has relied heavily on Kurdish fighters from the YPG militant group to provide troops for the Syrian Democratic Forces, but Turkey has fought bitterly with YPG, fearing the growth of a Kurdish state on its border.

Turkey

Meanwhile, relations between Turkey and Russia are on a different course. The AP reports that the two countries have signed a memorandum of agreement on flight safety over Syria. The agreement marks a sharp turn in relations between Ankara and Moscow since a November 2015, when a Turkish F-16 shot down a Russian Su-24 Turkey claimed violated Turkish airspace. Since then, Turkey has been inching closer to Russia’s way of seeing things in Syria, and Moscow has reciprocated by offering air support to Turkish forces looking to take back the town of al-Bab from the Islamic State.

Syria

Syria is once again accusing Israel of striking one of its military facilities, the AP reports. Locals in Damascus reported seeing explosions near the Mezzeh military airport. Syrian state news claimed that the explosions were the result of Israeli missiles fired from the vicinity of the Sea of Galilee. Israel typically does not confirm or deny carrying out strikes against Syria, but it has reportedly struck targets in Syria to prevent weapons transfers from Syria to the Lebanese terror group Hezbollah.

The Obama administration is slapping more sanctions on Syria on its way out the door. The Treasury Department announced sanctions against 18 members of the Assad regime it says are involved with weapons of mass destruction. The decision to apply the sanctions, according to Treasury, was prompted by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’ late 2016 reports concluding that the Assad regime had used chlorine gas weapons. Treasury also cited five branches of the Syrian military — the Air Force, Air Defense Force, Army, Navy, and Republican Guard — alongside the 18 individuals.

Yemen

Central Command issued a terse press release announcing that the U.S. had carried out two airstrikes on operatives from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula figures in Yemen. The two strikes took place on December 29 and January 8, killing three people in total, according to the command.

Israel

Israeli investigative journalist Ronen Bergman has a story up at Ynetnewsreporting that some Israeli intelligence officials are worried that under the Trump administration intelligence shared with the United States could end up getting passed to Russia. Israeli spies are apparently worried that some of that information could also make its way to Iran by way of Russia. American intelligence officials who met with their Israeli counterparts also reportedly warned them that Russian intelligence may have compromising blackmail material on President-elect Trump, further heightening Israeli concerns.

Photo Credit: VINCENT JANNINK/AFP/Getty Images

Upheaval and fightback will continue


01/01/2017
Everything to play for in 2017

Peter Taaffe, Socialist Party (CWI in England & Wales) general secretary

2016 was the year when the pent-up anger of the masses worldwide finally spilled over in a series of political earthquakes - a delayed reaction to the devastating world economic crisis of 2007-08. And tremors are still being felt, with serious aftershocks – if not new earthquakes - expected in 2017.

Trump’s foreign network


 Kevin Sullivan-January 13, 2017

Dnald Trump will enter the White House with a network of un­or­tho­dox foreign contacts — some of them high-living risk-takers, some with past trouble with the law — who have done business with him in nations from Latin America to the Middle East to Asia.

Several of Trump’s foreign business partners have been investigated for financial improprieties, and some of them were required to pay large fines or settlements. Others were relatively inexperienced local developers who had major economic problems with their risky, Trump-branded mega-projects. Trump has also worked with businessmen with close connections to authoritarian governments.

Above photos: Mohammed Salem/Reuters, Andrey Rudakov/Bloomberg, Tolga Bozoglu/EPA, Fernando Lemos/Agencia O Globo, Michael Steele/Getty Images, Kena Betancur/Associated Press
Ethics lawyers have raised concerns about whether some of the Trump family’s overseas alliances could raise conflicts of interest for the incoming president or tie the White House to questionable characters.

“A businessman can deal with these types of businesspeople and hopefully be smart enough not to get sucked in or be taken advantage of,” said Richard Painter, chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush and a vocal critic of Trump. “But when you move into public service as president of the United States, these are exactly the types of business entanglements you have to dispose of.”

Washington Post correspondents in nine countries reviewed the records of many of those whom Trump and his family have worked with on foreign real estate, golf and hotel projects. Like Trump, some are outspoken and larger-than-life characters with a taste for glitz and Rolls-Royces. A couple of them have also jumped from business into politics — one has a plan to “make Mumbai great again” and another said he intends to run for president of Indonesia.

Trump will be the first U.S. president who has built a fortune by turning himself into a global business brand, and his constellation of foreign contacts is unique. Many previous presidents had cultivated networks of diplomats, political leaders, military officers, intelligence officials and dissidents before entering the White House. But Trump’s overseas partners have been primarily businessmen looking to make a profit using his name.


Trump on Wednesday announced a plan to shift his assets into a trust managed by his sons and a longtime employee and turn over operation of his business to them. The Trump Organization said it will also avoid any new foreign deals during his presidency. But Trump will still own the business, and concerns remain that policies he pursues in office could affect the value of his family’s holdings.

Alan Garten, the Trump Organization’s general counsel, declined to comment specifically on the Trump partners reviewed by The Post. But he said that any with blemishes on their records are not “reflective of the portfolio as a whole,” which includes business dealings in at least 18 countries.

He also said the organization conducts thorough “due diligence” background checks on partners.
“The company does not engage in transactions that they’re not comfortable with at the time,” Garten said. “There’s always been close vetting and extensive diligence performed. I think going forward, vetting will be more intensive because it’s a much different situation now.”

Since his election, Trump has met with several of his foreign partners , raising questions about their continued relationship once he is in the White House. Trump representatives have described the meetings as social calls.

Hussain Sajwani, the Trump company’s billionaire partner in Dubai, and his family attended a New Year’s Eve celebration at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, according to a video obtained by CNN.

On Wednesday, Trump said at a news conference that Sajwani’s company, Damac Properties, offered him $2 billion this month to do new deals in Dubai — deals Trump said he rejected, even though “I didn’t have to turn it down.”
 
Sajwani, whom Trump described as “a very, very amazing man,” has had legal trouble in the past. He was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison on corruption-related charges in Egypt in 2011 over a real estate deal. He fought the conviction in an international arbitration court, eventually paying a fine of about $15 million, and the conviction was canceled, according to a lawyer involved in the case and Egyptian media reports.

“That’s why he [Trump] has got to divest from his business,” Painter said after the news conference. “We can’t have the president have these kinds of business contacts all over the world.”

Many of Trump’s partners operate in developing economies where bribery is common and ethical lines between business and government are not as sharply drawn as they are in the United States.

F. Joseph Warin, a former federal prosecutor and specialist on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act at the Gibson Dunn law firm in Washington, said that having foreign partners who had trouble with the law could be dangerous for any U.S. company, since a repeat of that behavior could potentially put an American company in violation of U.S. law. And there is even greater risk for an entrepreneur who becomes president.

“Presidents must be ethically pristine, and associating with business partners with unsavory pasts diminishes the president’s reputation,” Warin said.
 
Michael D’Antonio, author of “Never Enough,” a Trump biography, said his research into Trump’s life and career suggests that even as president, Trump will be willing to reject traditional ways of doing things.

“He’s not that concerned about the usual definitions of conflict of interest or disqualifying backgrounds,” D’Antonio said. “If there’s advantage in it for him to partner with unsavory characters, he’ll do it.”

Trump has noted that he is not legally required as president to divest from his private business holdings. He has also said that voters were well aware that he had a global business.

In recent weeks, however, Trump has announced that he is pulling out of two of his most controversial foreign projects: a Brazil hotel and a hotel in Azerbaijan, the former Soviet republic with a famously kleptocratic and repressive government.

In Azerbaijan, Trump partnered with Anar Mammadov, 35, whose companies have profited from more than a billion dollars’ worth of transportation and construction contracts by the Transportation Ministry, run by his father, according to investigations by media organizations and an anti-corruption watchdog group.

Human rights activists have voiced concern about Trump dealing with a man so closely linked to a government the State Department has criticized for “corruption and predatory behavior by politically connected elites.”

Before he ended the relationship recently, Trump had earned at least $2.8 million from the project since January 2014 — even though the hotel has never opened — according to his financial disclosure forms.
Trump ended his hotel deal in Brazil amid a federal investigation into potential bribery involving his local partners. Trump Organization officials have said their company was not a target of that investigation. No charges have been filed in the case.

Here are closer looks at some of Trump’s overseas business partners.

Duterte slammed by human rights watchdog for unleashing a ‘rights calamity’

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte faces criticism in recent Human Rights Watch, World Report 2017. Source: REUTERS/Erik De Castro
13th January 2017
FIREBRAND president Rodrigo Duterte has been criticised for unleashing a “rights calamity” in the Philippines and for being part of a movement of rising populist politicians who have intensified the “flouting of human rights.”
The damning evaluation comes from the Human Rights Watch (HRW) in their World Report 2017 that was released Friday.
HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth warns of the rise of populist leaders claiming to speak for “the people,” whilst seeking to overturn the concept of human rights protections. Roth fears that “when populists treat rights as an obstacle to their vision of the majority will, it is only a matter of time before they turn on those who disagree with their agenda.”
As has been seen in the Philippines when the senate ousted the chair of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Senator Leila De Lima, in apparent reprisal for her inquiry into Duterte’s controversial “war on drugs”.
Opposition Senator Leila De Lima delivers a speech during the Philippine Senate session a day after being ousted from the chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016. Source: AP.
Since taking office in June 2016, Duterte has pursued a controversial and bloody campaign to wipe out drug crime. In the process, police and “unidentified gunmen” have killed several thousand people, HRW said.
Rather than holding those responsible for the killings to account, Duterte and his senior government officials have praised the deadly approach.
“In the name of wiping out ‘drug crime,’ President Duterte has steamrolled human rights protections and elevated unlawful killings of criminal suspects to a cornerstone of government policy,” Phelim Kine, deputy Asia director at HRW, said in a statement on Friday.
According to the HRW report, levels of extrajudicial killings by police have reached unprecedented levels since Duterte came to power last year.
From July to November 2016, according to statistics released by the Philippine National Police, police killed an estimated 1,959 suspected “drug pushers and users.” That death toll constitutes a nearly twenty-fold jump over the 68 such police killings recorded between January and June.
A further 3,658 killings have been attributed to unknown vigilantes between the months of July and November.
The figures are troubling in themselves, but it is Duterte’s insistence that the high death toll reflects the success of his campaign, his encouragement to police to “seize the momentum”, and his threats to declare martial law if the judiciary obstructs him, that also raised concerns with the rights watchdog.
The report also highlights rights infringements in other areas, namely attacks on indigenous people and the growing HIV epidemic.
In March 2016, police fired live ammunition into a crowd of some six thousand indigenous people gathered in protest in the city of Kidapawan, Mindanao. The group were calling for government food aid and other assistance. Two people were killed in the incident but, as yet, neither the senate nor the police have released the results of their respective investigations.
The Philippines is also recording one Asia’s fastest growing epidemics of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in Asia. The significant increase is mostly seen in the demographic of men who have sex with men (MSM), in which prevalence has increased tenfold since 2010. HRW believes that the increase in incidence is due primarily to national, provincial, and local government policies that are hostile to evidence-based policies and interventions.
In the face of the growing problem, Duterte just this week implemented a presidential intervention to provide free contraceptives throughout the country in an attempt to tackle the issue. However, this is set to face challenges from conservatives and church leaders in the predominantly Catholic country.
With growing concerns over human rights in the country, the main focus of which is on the mounting extrajudicial killings, Kine stresses that “friends of the Philippines need to make clear that it can’t be business as usual until the killings stop and there are meaningful moves toward accountability.”

Control your Anger, before it controls you


Not everyone processes anger by punching someone or being aggressive. Some people express anger passive-aggressively or direct their anger toward themselves; others deny their anger, or become silent and withdrawn.

by Prasanna Cooray-

( January 13, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Anger sucks. The Medicinenet defines anger as “an emotional state that may range in intensity from mild irritation to intense fury and rage”. Anger is also known to bring about physical effects such as raising of heart rate, blood pressure and the levels of adrenaline and noradrenaline in blood.

However, scientists believe like all emotions, anger too serves a purpose, typically alerting us that we are suffering from some form of distress. This is important, because although anger can be uncomfortable mentally and physically, it can also motivate us to address our underlying needs, desires, or perceived threats. It’s unprocessed anger that can lead to conflict, social isolation, problems at work, substance abuse, depression, shame, and even incarceration.

The founder of Anger Management Education in Chicago, psychologist Dr. Bernard Golden, in his latest book Overcoming Destructive Anger: Strategies That Work (John Hopkins University Press, 2016) discusses the factors that trigger anger, how it affects our bodies and minds, and what we can do to manage it effectively. Golden writing to Greater Good Science Centre, University of California, Berkley comments, “luckily, there are ways to maintain a healthy dose of anger without letting it rule you—whether you’re an average person trying to manage the stresses of everyday life or a star basketball player”.

The anatomy of anger

Not everyone processes anger by punching someone or being aggressive. Some people express anger passive-aggressively or direct their anger toward themselves; others deny their anger, or become silent and withdrawn. None of these are healthy reactions. But because many of us are predisposed toward anger—either because of our biology, how we were treated by others in the past, or what we observed from family members, partners, friends, or even the media—we may not have learned other ways to cope.

Anger usually begins with a triggering event that challenges your internal harmony and well-being. It may or may not be related to another person’s behavior—it could also be due to circumstances, such as a sudden illness. A trigger may involve a single negative event or a series of events that combine to affect your mood.

According to Golden “trigger can even be imaginary, based on something you anticipate happening in the future”.

Anger – a result of an unmet expectation

Whatever the trigger, how you respond to it is the result of a series of expectations you have about how people should behave or about how life should play out, some of which may be quite unrealistic. For example, you may feel that your friends should always be available to help when you need them, or that you should never have to feel the effects of aging. If you have these expectations, then experiencing the unavailability of a friend or arthritic pain in your joints may trigger you to respond in anger, observes Golden.

Anger can also result from how you choose to appraise a triggering event. You may think the event has a deeper, more general meaning. Golden exemplifies a typical family scenario in this regard. “When your spouse comes home late from work because of a traffic jam you may interpret it as uncaring or disrespectful. Being more aware of your thought processes here can help you avoid getting lost in stories of what your spouse’s behavior might mean”.

Usually, anger is a reaction to other uncomfortable feelings below the surface, such as hurt, disappointment, sadness, anxiety, embarrassment, or shame. Even if these uncomfortable emotions are not acknowledged in the moment, they may still be there.

“Sadly, too many people tend to want to flee these feelings before they fully understand them—and that’s where mindfulness comes in”, believes Golden.

Three skills for managing anger

Golden identifies mindfulness (and mindfulness meditation), self-compassion, and self-awareness as the three fundamental skills that are needed to manage anger in a healthier way—and to prevent it from turning destructive.

How can these help?

Mindfulness

Mindfulness and mindfulness meditation help you examine your own experiences without reacting to them or becoming overwhelmed. Practicing mindfulness and meditation can help teach you that your thoughts, feelings, and physical reactions are only temporary rather than a fixed part of who you are. This gives you increased freedom to choose how to react to them.

For example, through mindfulness—acceptance of your moment-to-moment experience—you may be able to say to yourself in a moment of anger, “This is a feeling I’m experiencing right now,” creating the sense that you are the observer and in control. This awareness allows you to ponder the choices available to you in responding to anger. It can also help you to be more accepting of your thoughts and feelings, so that you don’t have to push them away.

According to Golden, support for this comes from studies showing an association between mindfulness and the ability to differentiate between different emotions—an ability that, in turn, helps you better regulate negative emotions.

In a 2011 review of mindfulness research, authors Daphne Davis and Jeffrey Hayes of Pennsylvania State University found that mindfulness “predicts relationship satisfaction, ability to respond constructively to relationship stress, skill in identifying and communicating emotions to one’s partner, amount of relationship conflict, negativity, and empathy.” In addition, “people with higher trait mindfulness reported less emotional stress in response to relationship conflict and entered conflict discussion with less anger and anxiety.”

Self-compassion

Once you are mindfully aware of your experiences, self-compassion involves being sensitive to your own suffering and accepting yourself without judgment, as well as seeing yourself as deserving of nurturing and care. It embodies neither self-pity nor self-indulgence, but rather a healthy affirmation of oneself. Practicing self-compassion allows you to recognize anger as a signal of underlying pain that must be addressed. Furthermore, it can help you to judge your emotions less harshly, another way to mitigate anger.

Research by self-compassion scholars, such as Kristen Neff, has shown that self-compassion increases emotional resilience and stability, and decreases negative self-evaluations, defensiveness and the need to see oneself as better than others.

In a series of studies on self-compassion, researchers found that “people high in self-compassion appear to cognize about negative events in ways that reduce their impact” and that “self-compassionate participants had more self-relevant thoughts that reflected self-kindness, common humanity, and mindful acceptance” than those who were low in self-compassion. All of this bodes well for decreasing anger.

When practiced together, mindfulness and self-compassion skills “reduce reactivity, strengthen autonomy, promote emotional sensitivity, enhance understanding of historical sources of our hurts, and provide guidelines for safe, effective communication,” says Harvey Aronson, author of Buddhist Practice on Western Ground.
Self-awareness
There are other self-awareness skills that can help us look deeply into each experience and further our capacity for healthy anger. According to Golden filling out an anger log (after one has calmed down) to get him/her in touch with the types of situations that trigger anger for them and the feelings and thoughts that precede and follow a triggering event.

“The anger log can make you more skillful at altering the course of anger progression by giving you information about where you get stuck” claims Golden. By reviewing your thoughts and being open to new ways of thinking, as well as understanding your personal histories and emotions, you can learn how to be more compassionate for yourself and others.

A healthier kind of anger

Of course, one of the challenges to reducing unhealthy anger is that sometimes anger feels positive in the moment you experience it. Anger can give you a cortisol rush that makes you feel alive and energized. It can also help you avoid taking responsibility for your own decisions, since anger is a way of blaming others for your suffering. Plus, anger can temporarily give you what you want: It can distract you from pain and threatening feelings, while making others feel anxious or threatened, thus allowing you to gain the upper hand.

But regularly directing anger at someone is likely to make him or her less supportive of you in the long run and possibly withdraw, leaving you more isolated and vulnerable. Feeling and expressing anger frequently is a drain on your body and health—not to mention your work life and relationships.

If we make a commitment to ourselves to aim for healthier expressions of anger, we do a great service to ourselves and to others. Mindfulness, self-compassion, and self-awareness can lead us toward greater compassion for those around us, and to more authentic, happy relationships. It may take some discipline to look at anger this deeply, and there may be setbacks along the way. But, in the end, understanding and managing anger will lead to a more fulfilling and authentic life.

Bernard Golden’s Anger Management Strategies

Many people struggle with negative emotions. For your convenience, Bernard has compiled the following tips and tricks to help you manage your feelings and use your healthy anger.

* Deeply inhale and exhale 3 times when actually angry.

* Long before you are angry, learn and rehearse skills to calm your body and mind when you become angry. These can include practices in tensing and relaxing the muscles of your body, mindfulness and mindfulness meditation and self-compassion.

* Remember that anger almost always is a reaction to (and a distraction from) other negative emotions such as fear, shame, guilt, embarrassment, or hurt associated with rejection, being devalued, or feeling inadequate. Identify and focus on these reactions for better control.

* Recognize and replace unrealistic expectations you have for yourself and others – the need to be perfect, the need to be “right,” and other expectations you have regarding how you and others “should” be.

* Recognize certain of your “expectation” as a wish or hope that may or may not be satisfied– one that, unfortunately, may or may not be open for discussion and negotiation.

* Become aware of when you personalize conclusions that make you vulnerable to anger arousal. Think of at least 6 alternate reasons for the other person’s behavior instead of immediately trusting your first automatic conclusion.

* Remember that anger that feels “overly intense” may be tapping into our vulnerable “button”. This can lead us to revisit past experiences of hurt, shame, rejection, or a variety of negative emotions.

* Learn communication skills that include discussing anger and related negative emotions rather than taking actions that reflect your anger.

* With loved ones, adopt this major guideline for resolving conflict – agree to disagree for a period of time – agree ahead of time that either partner can request to shelve discussion of heated topics until you both can do so more calmly, whether it takes an hour, several hours, or a day.

* Find ways to access your most nurturing, supportive, objective self, and try to be compassionate with others and yourself.