Tuesday, April 18, 2017

The Meethotamulla tragedy: The face not failure of development

Photo by Dinuka Liyanawatte—Reuters, via Time magazine

IROMI PERERA AND VIJAY NAGARAJ on 04/18/2017

On the afternoon of 14^th April tons of garbage at Meethotamulla, one of the biggest dumping sites just outside Colombo, came crashing down destroying scores of homes. At the time of writing, the death toll was reportedly 26 but expected to rise. There have been serious allegations made by the affected community that rescue efforts did not even begin in earnest till very late into the night owing to lack of direction and failures of authority.

According to Nuwan Bopage, a lawyer representing residents of Meethotamulla, people were left using shovels to dig to try and get to those buried. “During that whole time we could hear the echoes of the dying breath of those buried under the garbage”, he said at a media conference the next day.

Behind the tragedy is a litany of broken promises—including an assurance by the Prime Minister himself in 2015 of solving the problem within six months—and protests being met with tear gas or batons. A group of residents of Meethotamulla approached the Supreme Court in 2014 seeking to stop the dumping of garbage.

According to some of the lawyers as recently as two weeks ago there were warnings of a collapse sounded in Court. But the protection of the right to equality offered the Constitution lies buried today under tons of garbage. The judiciary, the bureaucracy, elected representatives, as well as all of us have failed the people of Meethotamulla.

Death by design

Soaring almost 200 metres high and spread over a vast area, the Meethotamulla dump was a veritable death sentence for those who had no choice but to live in its ominous shadow. Labeling it a ‘disaster’ is misleading because it did not just happen, it was allowed to happen; the hazard of a garbage dump came to the community in Meethotamulla and not the other way round.

Tragic as it is, Meethotamulla is a familiar story. Consider other ‘disasters’—Koslanda/ Meeriyabedda in 2014, Kotmale in Nuwara Eliya in 2015, and Aranayake in Kegalle in 2016, followed by the floods in Colombo. In each of these cases, and there are others, it is the poor who have paid the ultimate price.

Each of these cases underscores what development has meant for the estate, rural, or urban working class poor. Their lives precarious, their legitimacy and citizenship extends only as far as the cheap labour and services they provide and the votes they cast. But unlike the other cases, Meethotamulla is quite literally the wasteland of Sri Lanka’s economic geography.

The tragedy of Meethotamulla is that it is the outcome of planned development not its failure. And this is precisely also why just like no one was held accountable for the tragedies in Meeriyabedda or Aranayake, none is likely to be held accountable for Meethotamulla either.

In almost every case, from Meeriyabedda to Meethotamulla, the state claims people ignored warnings or defied calls to relocate. Or worse, simply holds the victims responsible, like blaming the floods in Colombo on those living on canal banks or floodplains. The planned and organised destruction of the environment in the name of development that in fact exposes the poor to the highest risk continues unabated.

But what is implicated is also development itself not just its agents. Many people have asked why people were not relocated. But why should they have been? As people in Meethotamulla have long said, the problem is the garbage not them.

The relocation reflex is actually symptomatic of the many prejudices and presumptions regarding the urban poor and their entitlements. That somehow their presence is more often than not risky, illegitimate, and illegal, that places like Meethotamulla must be just ‘settlements’, informal and impermanent anyway.

Development without justice

The previous government showed so much alacrity in forcibly relocating thousands of Colombo’s poor into high rises at great economic and social cost. But with all its militarised might and efficiency it could not stop the dumping of garbage in Meethotamulla.

If the then government was out to make Colombo ‘slum-free’ and a ‘world-class city’, the present one has its eyes set on ‘megapolis’ and a ‘smart city’. That Colombo has entrenched pockets of poverty, where the average life span and levels of health, income and consumption are far below what they should be matters little in these plans.

None of these grandiose visions are grounded in equity, inclusion or spatial, social and economic justice, in securing the lives of those most at risk. The only kind of risk that is valued is that taken by real-estate investors. As much as other factors, it is poverty and distance from power that turns hazards into disasters for some but not others.

Meethotamulla, much like the floods, puts paid to the assertions of the previous and current government of taking measures to improve the lives of the urban poor. In fact, far from prioritising the improvement of habitats and housing conditions of those most at risk in Colombo, the focus has and continues to be on ‘liberating’ land that can be marketed as real estate, in the service of a financialised economy.

If the Meethotamulla dump had been on anything that might become valuable real estate it would have been moved, like thousands of Colombo’s working class poor were. They were obstructing economic corridors that needed ‘liberating’, but living in the shadow of mountains of garbage was acceptable.

The palpable sense of outrage and out-pouring of support for the survivors from across Colombo and beyond is indeed welcome. But the forced evictions of thousands of Colombo’s poorer residents in the name of development evoked no such outrage or sympathy.

The reality is that the poor have long been paying not enjoying the dividends of so-called development. If we can see Meethotamulla for many fundamental wrongs it exemplifies and begin to be outraged by them, we will have perhaps started towards ensuring so many lives are not lost in vain, yet again.

Iromi Perera works with the Centre for Policy Alternatives and Vijay Nagaraj with the Law & Society Trust.

Garbage piles up in Colombo with Meethotamulla dump site shut

A Sri Lankan child walks by piles of garbage on a street in Colombo on April 18, 2017. Hundreds of tons of rotting garbage piled up in Sri Lanka’s capital on April 18 after the main rubbish dump was shut following an accident that killed at least 30 people - AFP

Wednesday, 19 April 2017

AFP: Hundreds of tonnes of rotting garbage piled up in Sri Lanka’s capital Tuesday after the main rubbish dump was shut following an accident that killed over 30 people.

Authorities sealed the massive 300-foot (90-metre) rubbish mountain on the northeastern edge of Colombo after it collapsed Friday, destroying 145 homes nearby and burying victims in a garbage landslide. Military spokesman Roshan Seneviratne said hundreds of troops were still searching for six people missing since the accident, but authorities were not hopeful of finding any survivors four days on.

The Colombo Municipal Council was scrambling for new locations to dump the roughly 800 tonnes of garbage produced every day in the capital, as crows and stray dogs picked through bags of reeking garbage left on city streets.

The council sought permission Tuesday from a local magistrate to access another tip outside the city limits, promising it would clear the four-day backlog of trash within 24 hours.

“We are finding new locations. By noon Wednesday I am hopeful of restoring normality in clearing the garbage,” Commissioner V.K. A. Anura told AFP.

“We will not dump it all in one location, but at several sites.”

The death toll from Friday’s accident climbed to 30 on Tuesday as another victim was found, Seneviratne said.

“We are still carrying out clearing of damaged homes,” he told AFP.

Officials said 1,700 people living near the tip had been relocated to temporary shelters while the government searched for alternative accommodation.

A night of heavy rain, followed by an outbreak of fire, destabilised the 23 million-ton garbage heap, causing its collapse as Sri Lankans celebrated the traditional new year.

Parliament had been warned the vast tip posed a serious health hazard, and that a long-term solution was needed to dispose of Colombo’s trash.

Disaster management minister Anura Yapa said the loss of life could have been avoided had local residents acted on warnings to move, issued as recently as a fortnight ago.

But activists have complained that ad hoc compensation and relocation was not the answer to a festering problem that politicians have been unable to resolve for years.

Jenin won’t forget Israel’s massacre

Ilan Pappe-18 April 2017

Fifteen years ago this month the Israeli army bombarded and assaulted the Jenin refugee camp for more than 10 days. This was part of Israel’s so-called Operation Defensive Shield, during which it sent troops into the heart of six major cities in the occupied West Bank and surrounding towns and refugee camps that were ostensibly under Palestinian Authority control.

In a report on the assault, the United Nations concluded that the Israeli army killed dozens of Palestinians in a camp that is just 0.4 square kilometers and hosts about 15,000 people.

After the assault, a long debate ensued about the number of casualties. In the immediate havoc that reigned in the camp, the numbers were thought to be very high.

Israel barred members of a UN commission of inquiry mandated by the Security Council from conducting an investigation, but a subsequent report compiled by the secretary-general concluded that at least 52 Palestinians were killed in Jenin refugee camp.

Almost 500 Palestinians were killed and another 1,500 injured in the course of Israel’s assault across the West Bank from March to May of 2002.

However, it was not just the numbers involved that shocked the world at time, but the brutal nature of an Israeli assault that was unprecedented even in the harsh history of the occupation.

This brutality can be best appreciated when you visit the camp. This crowded neighborhood was assaulted from the air by helicopter gunships, shelled by tanks from the hills above it and invaded by monstrous vehicles – a hybrid of a tank and bulldozer which the Israelis nicknamed Achzarit, the brutal one, that grazed the houses and made the alleys into highways through which tanks could pass.

The tanks revisited the camp after the operation, usually coming in the dead of night, traumatizing children for years to come with their roar.

“Geography of disaster”

I went to the camp last week as part of a visit to Al-Quds Open University’s branch in Jenin.

We rushed to the city and back from 1948 Palestine (present-day Israel), since the private company that manages the Jalameh checkpoint was to close the gates for the next few days so that Israeli Jews could celebrate Passover, while forgetting the besieged Palestinians in the West Bank.

The army imposed closure on villages and neighborhoods inside the West Bank and incarcerated millions of people in local enclaves so that Israeli settlers could move around as if this was terra nullius – a land without a people.

Al-Quds Open University caters for the children, among others, of political prisoners and martyrs. It is hosted in a rented building, with the hope that one day it will be moved to a proper campus – if the millions of dollars needed for its completion can be found.

More than 50,000 Palestinians use the services of the university at its branches across the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in a geopolitical reality of Israeli-imposed fragmentation and control that requires the university to come to the students, as the students cannot come to the university.

Resilience and resistance can be performed in many ways, and in 2017 – unlike the armed resistance of 2002 – it is through this kind of steadfastness that the present regime in Israel is reminded that it cannot wipe out, or totally ignore, the millions it has oppressed daily since 1967.

Within this geography of disaster, there are degrees of poverty and oppression. There is a clear divide between the city of Jenin and the camp.

You know when you have left the city and entered this huge camp, which is built on the slope of a steep hill on the western side of the city. It is also very easy to see which of the houses in the camp were demolished during the 2002 massacre – they are the ones that have been rebuilt with the help of money from the Gulf.

Very few houses were left unscathed by the vicious assault in 2002. When you climb to the top of the hill, you can see the place where the Israeli tanks were positioned, raining their fire on the defenseless camp below, wreaking havoc and death, tactics all too familiar from repeated Israeli assaults on Gaza.

Clear view

However, there is something else you notice when you are on the hill. You can see the whole region stretching from Jenin, which is in the northern West Bank, down to the Mediterranean Sea. You can see through Marj Ibn Amr – the fertile region also known as the Jezreel Valley – to the city of Haifa on the coast.

The villages and towns that were there before 1948 were wiped out in the Nakba – the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Zionist militias. Many of the people who used to live in them were driven to this area and could watch from the hill how their homes and fields turned into Jewish colonies and Jewish National Fund “forests.”

The connection between what you see from the hill and the horrors of April 2002 is clear. It is yet another reminder of what the late scholar Patrick Wolfe articulated so well when he noted that settler-colonialism is a structure, not an event.

In the case of Zionism, it is a structure of displacement and replacement, or to paraphrase Edward Said’s words, substituting presence with absence. It began in 1882 with the first Zionist settlements, reached a certain peak in 1948, continued with vehemence in 1967 and is still alive and kicking today.

The attempt to break down the resistance to the displacement is what occurred in the camp 15 years ago.

Pictures of the martyrs from 2002 and since cover the walls and streets. Beneath them sits a large number of unemployed youth – Jenin refugee camp has one of the highest unemployment rates of any camp in the West Bank.

Talking to them it is clear that they are determined not to succumb to despair or apathy. Education offered by Al-Quds Open University is one way of coping with life in the camp and under oppression. But resistance is still an option.

After all, this is the area from which the most significant anti-colonialist effort by the Palestinians sprang already in the early 1930s: the rebellion led by Izz al-Din al-Qassam.

It is symbolic that on this visit I met his grandson, Ahmad. We talked briefly about how his grandfather’s historical image is distorted by anyone who compares him to present-day so-called jihadists. He was very far from being one.

Had the British not killed him in 1935, he would have become the Palestinian Che Guevara. He was a charismatic anti-colonialist leader operating among the people who were the first victims of Zionism in the 1930s – the displaced peasants and tenants driven out of the lands which they had cultivated for centuries.

One homeland

The geography and topography of the camp tells you something else: the two-state solution is an absurd idea.

The camp is located near the Salem checkpoint between the West Bank and present-day Israel. The drive from Jenin to Haifa by car through this crossing took me 20 minutes in previous years.

Before the Oslo accords were signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1993, there was free movement of people and trade in this part of northern Palestine, which until 1948 was administered as one region.

Even after the agreement was signed – when Salem checkpoint was Jenin’s only outlet to the world – it was obvious that the whole area was part of the same homeland. The architects of Oslo wished to disrupt this historical, cultural and economic integrity and close the passage, forcing people to use the northern Jalameh checkpoint. This turned a short trip into a very long one, while Salem became a military court where to this day Palestinians are sent to jail without, or after mock, trials.

Oslo was meant to solve the eternal Zionist problem: how to have the territory without the people. The “solution” was to confine the Palestinians in enclaves while controlling their space and using brute force, as the Israelis did in Jenin in April 2002, whenever the people had enough, demanded change or fought back.

That Zionist colonial project continues, but it will be resisted in this land of Izz al-Din al-Qassam and in a camp where people do not forget and have little to lose.

The author of numerous books, Ilan Pappe is professor of history and director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter.

Where is the UN? Korean Crisis is Aggravating

There is no question that North Korea is a tricky country. That is the only remaining old type communist country. It is possible to call other names; a ‘failed state’ or even a ‘rouge state,’ but that would not help to understand and change the situation.

by Laksiri Fernando- Apr 16, 2017

( April 16, 2017, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) What I mean by the UN in the title is particularly the UN Secretary General (SG). Where is he? What is he doing? What is his name? I am asking the last question because compared to the previous SGs, this person is conspicuously absent from his duties. A very few in the world would even know his name (Antonio Guteress). He can be a good man and an innocent one, but that is not sufficient for the position.

We should also add the UN Commissioner of Human Rights to the UN list, particularly because this Prince (Zeid Al Hussein) was unnecessarily commenting on Donald Trump’s ‘unsuitability to the presidency’ during the American elections, but silent thereafter after Trump came to power. What a shame!

The evolving situation in the world today, in the Middle East and in the Korean Peninsula, has a direct relevance to human rights, more than anything else. If a conflict flares up, particularly in the Korean peninsula, possibly millions of people would die and become displaced. Even otherwise, from a human rights point of view, what is already happening in the Middle East, right down to the borders of the South Asian region in Afghanistan, is horrendous. The latest (15 April) is the dreadful suicide bombing in the al-Rashideen area, obviously by Islamist extremists, near Aleppo where over hundred have been killed, mostly women and children.

UN Responsibility

What are the purposes of the UN? Those are in brief, according to the Charter: (1) “To maintain international peace and security.” (2) “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” (3) “To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems.” (3) “To be a Centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.”

I am not imagining or inventing. I am quoting from the four paragraphs of Article 1 of the UN Charter. We do have a serious situation, as particularly the US and North Korea are threatening each other, and therefore, ‘peace and security’ in the region and beyond are under threat. Whatever the odds, the UN and the ‘international community’ (whatever the latter means), should try to ‘develop friendly relations between the countries involved in present hostilities. The UN should promote ‘international co-operation’ in solving these problems within and beyond the region. Otherwise, there is no point in calling it (the UN) ‘a Centre of harmonizing actions of the nations,’ as the Purposes of the Charter declares.

As China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, stated day before yesterday (Nine News, Australia, 14 April), “a conflict over North Korea could break out at any moment.” He also added that “there will be no winners and only losers” which is absolutely true in this type of a war and particularly under the given conditions. In my last article (“Chemical Attacks in Syria and America’s Continued Military Campaign”), I pointed out that China should call an immediate session of the Security Council to possibly avert an emerging disaster. In this article, my focus is on the responsibilities of the Secretary General, not only in calling but also trying to avert such a disaster in all possible ways.

Under the existing rules of procedure, formally a meeting of the Security Council is called by its President. It can be on a request from a member or on his/her initiative. Under similar arrangements, the Presidency is rotated and this month (April) ironically the Presidency is with the United States of America! The current US representative to the UN is Nikki Haley, who in fact stated at the last meeting that ‘there should be a regime change in Syria.’ This is against the UN Charter and its principles. Under such circumstances, the SG has a special responsibility to call the Security Council and to take an active part in resolving the current imbroglio. Article 99 specifically says, “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” The UN Secretary General’s role should be proactive and independent.

North Korea

There is no question that North Korea is a tricky country. That is the only remaining old type communist country. It is possible to call other names; a ‘failed state’ or even a ‘rouge state,’ but that would not help to understand and change the situation. Of course, one can go beyond like Donald Trump, and call the Kim Jong-un as ‘evil,’ ‘butcher’ or ‘animal.’ That does not help either.

When two prominent scholars from South Korea, Jung Tae-hern and Han Jong-woo, edited the “Understanding North Korea: Indigenous Perspectives” (Lexington Books, 2014), containing contributions of sixteen South Korean scholars, they pertinently asked the following question. “Why have the two sides, members of the same people, diverged so drastically and become so hostile toward each other?” Addressing particularly the American readers, the question was explained further in the following manner.

“American readers might find it surprisingly ironic that the people of such disreputable country have shared, throughout nearly 5,000 years of its history, the same language, the blood line, and an identical culture with the people of South Korea, the very nation of the ‘Miracle on the Han River’ and an ‘important axis in the value-sharing US-ROK [South Korea] alliance.”

I am quoting from the first page itself. I am not sure whether Donald Trump ever reads books! But this is good for others and particularly for the Oxford graduate, Theresa May, or even Malcolm Turnbull, the two Prime Ministers (UK and Australia) whose support that Trump might be banking on in attacking North Korea. Do I consider America as the aggressor in this instance? Yes, I do. Otherwise, there was no point in Trump sending a highly sophisticated (nuclear powered) large battle carrier to the Korean Peninsula. This was before any provocation or belligerence from Pyongyang. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, in defiance of the UN sanctions, should have been handled by the UN itself, and not by the US.

However, there is no question that a nuclear armed North Korea can be a threat to the stability in the region in the medium to long term. That is why the UN (the SG, the Secretariat and experts) should intervene without any bias to any side. The current situation can be harmful to North Korea itself. North Korea is not that sophisticated in its armaments, although the military/political determination is high, as evident by this year’s ‘Day of the Sun’ or Kim Il-Sung’s birthday celebrations. Immediately after the main event in Pyongyang, there had been a missile test (not so successful it seems) in Sinpo. The demonstration of ballistic missiles and speeches at the celebrations also were provocative. What is going on from both sides is a kind of tit-for-tat without any sense.

It is this author’s view that most of the conflicts in this world are largely (not totally) based on ‘imagined fears,’ ‘perceived threats’ and ‘unnecessary antagonisms.’ Some of them are also fabricated for vested interests of the involved parties and/or of outsiders.

China’s Responsibility?

How much China could do to appease the situation is controversial. There are efforts to pass the buck to China and even using coercion to do the bidding. It is true that China and North Korea were at the same wavelength aftermath of the revolutions/civil wars as communist countries. However, since 1978, under Deng Xiaoping first, China has been going in a different direction. Chinese and Koreans are different peoples. It would have been good, if China did better to influence North Korea. However, the circumstances were different.

China could influence North Korea economically, but not so much in politics. This is a well- balanced view of several experts. It is not correct to consider North Korea as a client state of China, based on their own perceptions or experiences by the Western countries. Kim Jong-un has never travelled to Beijing and there had been no summits between the two country leaders. One may say, it was a mistake on the part of China to be somewhat aloof, but that has been the case. If there is any influence to be done that must be a common effort through the UN. Given that premise, China might be able to play a pivotal role, but not under coercion. Economic sanctions are not a panacea as many Western advocates advocate in this case as well as other instances. They heart, not the regime/s but primarily the people.

The recent developments in North Korea have been contradictory, not in its bad sense but in a positive meaning. North Korea has been changing economically although slowly. Sebastian Berger has been one who was reporting the situation to the world on this count recently (“North Korea Reforming Economy while Denying Change,” France 24, 12 April). There is no question that her nuclear tests pose threats to the region and understandably countries like Australia are also nervous. However, war against North Korea is not the solution.

After President Xi Jinping’s visit to US, Donald Trump made several Tweets in this regard and one I have found was the following dated 13 April.

“I have great confidence that China will properly deal with North Korea. If they are unable to do so, the U.S., with its allies, will! U.S.A.”

This is a dangerous statement in the name of USA, allowing a blame game aiming at China. What does it mean when it says, ‘properly deal’ in the first sentence? It could mean war, which is clear from the second sentence: “If they are unable to do so, the US, with its allies, will [do].”

For Lasting Peace

The Korean question is a much more complicated issue than the claimed ‘rogue state’ in Pyongyang, both politically and ‘technically.’ We can see that, if there is a proper Security Council discussion on the matter, without mere political posturing.

Analyzing “Northeast Asia’s Security Dilemma: Korea at the Centre,” Leonid Petrov wrote to the Annual Security Outlook of the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP) in 2015, that “Stable peace and security in Northeast Asia cannot be achieved without ending the Korean War.” Why did he say ‘Korean War? Because, technically (or politically) speaking, there was only an armistice agreement or truce in 1953, and not a proper settlement or a peace agreement. The UN has been sleeping all these years, without resolving the situation.

Leonid Petrov, a Korea expert, is attached to the Australian National University (ANU) and to my knowledge holds the same view/s, highlighting its present complications to the media regularly in Australia. As he further said (in 2015),

“From the first days of their separation after World War II, both North and South Korea have lived in a constant fear of invasion mixed with the constant desire to pre-empt this invasion by attacking first and unifying the country. The unfinished nature of the Korean War left both Pyongyang and Seoul frustrated and paranoid about each other’s intentions, effectively precluding any improvement in bilateral relations to the present day.”

This is the situation that the UN should resolve, without allowing its big members to bully other countries, jeopardizing their own people’s security through jingoism and warmongering. The ‘unfinished nature of the Korean war’ should be resolved and ‘finished’ through a proper and a lasting peace.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte Wins TIME 100 Reader Poll

TIME Staff-Apr 16, 2017

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte won the 2017 TIME 100 poll after consistently leading the survey, which asked readers who should be included on this year's TIME 100 — an annual list of the world's most influential people.

Duterte received 5% of the total "yes" votes in the poll, which closed Sunday night. Since taking office in June, Duterte has waged an aggressive war on drugs that has killed more than 8,000 people in the Phillippines, according to Reuters. The controversial anti-drug campaign has inspired growing opposition from human rights groups and some political leaders, including Philippine Vice President Leni Robredo.

Closely following Duterte in the TIME 100 poll were Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Pope Francis, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg — all of whom received 3% of the total "yes" votes.

U.S. Bernie Sanders won the reader poll in 2016 while Russian President Vladimir Putin took the lead in 2015.

The official TIME 100 list, which is selected by TIME's editors, will be announced on April 20.

Venezuelan President Criticizes Neighbors for ‘Rude Meddling’ Ahead of Protests

BY EMILY TAMKIN-APRIL 18, 2017

Ahead of a planned protest against his government, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has criticized 11 of his country’s neighbors for “rude meddling.”

How did they meddle? Since late March, when Venezuelans began protesting a (now mostly reversed) Supreme Court decision to usurp the functions of the legislature, widely seen as the last stronghold of the opposition, six citizens have died demonstrating.

And so, before Wednesday’s planned protest in Caracas, the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay released a joint statement condemning violence, and asking the government to “guarantee the right to peaceful protest.” They also asked opposition groups to protest responsibly. (Noticeably absent from the list: Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua, other members of the Venezuelan-led leftist ALBA bloc.)

Like the opposition, many of Venezuela’s neighbors are asking the government to set a date for elections, which the government is postponing — while it keeps opposition leading figure Leopoldo Lopez in jail and former presidential candidate Henrique Capriles banned from holding office.

This was apparently too much for Maduro, who is calling on his supporters to hold their own counter protest. He was echoed by his foreign minister, Delcy Rodriguez. Rodriguez called the missive “rude interference,” and said, “there is no imperialist force in this world which can defeat the sovereign people of Venezuela.” (No word on how the likes of Brazil and Mexico felt at being called an “imperialist force.”)
Unfortunately for Rodriguez, it is not at all clear that the sovereign people of Venezuela support the Maduro government. Protests have spread to the low-income suburbs of Caracas, which were previously seen as strongholds of support for the government.

And there won’t be any good economic news to assuage the angry crowds. Unemployment is expected to pass 25 percent this year, the fourth straight in a recession, and the International Monetary Fund expects inflation to increase a tidy 2000 percent by the end of 2018. Human Rights Watch wrote on Tuesday that tens of thousands have fled the country seeking refuge in bordering countries. (Refugee flows might have given Venezuela’s neighbors cause to “meddle” in the first place.)

Maduro, in other words, will soon have bigger problems to respond to than a letter from his neighbors.

Photo credit: FEDERICO PARRA/AFP/Getty Images

Theresa May calls for general election in bid to secure Brexit mandate

Prime minister asks parliament for snap vote on 8 June
Two-thirds majority will be required in Commons on Wednesday
Jeremy Corbyn backs move despite trailing by 21 points in ICM poll

Prime minister Theresa May calls general election for 8 June – full video statement

Anushka Asthana and Peter Walker-Tuesday 18 April 2017

Theresa May has stunned Westminster by demanding a snap general election on 8 June that she hopes will turn her party’s clear lead in the opinion polls into a healthy parliamentary majority and secure her Conservative vision for Brexit.

The prime minister made an unscheduled statement on Tuesday morning from behind a lectern outside 10 Downing Street, in which she recanted her repeated promise not to go to the polls before 2020.

She accused opposition parties of trying to jeopardise her government’s preparations for exiting the EU as she called for what would be a third nationwide poll in three years – while the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, responded by saying he would welcome the opportunity to fight an election opposing Tory austerity.

May said: “We need a general election and we need one now because we have at this moment a one-off chance to get this done while the European Union agrees its negotiating position and before the detailed talks begin.”

Supporters of the prime minister said she would use the election to crush dissent over Brexit, with one projection by the election expert Michael Thrasher suggesting she could secure a majority of 140 on the basis of current polls. His estimate suggests the number of Tory MPs could rise from 331 to 395, with Labour potentially slumping from 229 to 164.

Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, May cannot call an election directly but will lay down a motion in the House of Commons requiring two-thirds of MPs to back it. Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party all promised not to stand in her way, allowing for the Commons to be dissolved on 3 May.

MPs will vote on whether to dissolve parliament after a 90-minute debate on Wednesday, after prime minister’s questions.

In a sign of the tone she is likely to adopt during the seven-week campaign, May quickly focused on her opponents in her address to the nation, saying: “The country is coming together but Westminster is not.”

She added: “In recent weeks Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the SNP say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union, and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way.”

Corbyn made clear that Labour would back the government in calling for dissolution despite anger from some of his party’s MPs who are worried about losing their seats in the election.

The Labour leader said: “I welcome the prime minister’s decision to give the British people the chance to vote for a government that will put the interests of the majority first. Labour will be offering the country an effective alternative to a government that has failed to rebuild the economy, delivered falling living standards and damaging cuts to our schools and NHS.”

'I welcome the opportunity': Jeremy Corbyn on 8 June general election

One shadow cabinet member and ally of the Labour leader argued that Corbyn could turn around public expectations over the next eight weeks.

Opposition politicians pointed out that May had repeatedly said she would not call a general election. The prime minister said she had come to the decision reluctantly and recently, but felt it was necessary to secure stability, at a time when her party is riding high in the polls. Sources suggested that advisers believed the argument would resonate with the public.

May used a television interview with ITV’s political editor, Robert Peston, to suggest she had made her decision during last week’s break from parliament.

“Before Easter I spent a few days walking in Wales with my husband, I thought about this long and hard and came to the decision that to provide for that stability and certainty, this was the way to do it,” she said.

But the Guardian understands that May had been considering the question for a few weeks and had all but made up her mind before using the holiday to mull it over. The idea had been a tightly guarded secret, only discussed among a very small group of her closest advisers, with senior colleagues in the party only finding out on Tuesday.

Sources admitted that a key hope was to boost the Tories’ slim working majority of 17 in order to help pass Brexit-linked legislation such as the “great repeal bill” as well as plans for a future immigration system and domestic policies such as May’s flagship grammar schools reform. They said the prime minister was determined to avoid “endless back and forth” on important issues.

Key cabinet members including the home secretary, Amber Rudd, the Brexit secretary, David Davis, and the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, were informed of the decision in individual meetings on Tuesday morning. The chancellor, Philip Hammond, also knew in advance.

Recent polls show a healthy lead for the Conservatives. A Guardian/ICM survey on Tuesday placed the party 21 points ahead of Labour despite a policy blitz by Corbyn’s party. It had the Tories on 46%, compared with 25% for Labour and 11% for the Lib Dems. It also suggested there was support for a snap election, with 55% of respondents backing the idea compared with 15% opposing it.

Labour sources pointed out that polls had not been consistent, with one recently placing the Tory lead at just nine points.

But sources admitted that a key hope was to boost the Tories’ slim working majority of 17 in order to help pass Brexit-linked legislation such as the “great repeal bill” as well as plans for a future immigration system and domestic policies such as May’s flagship grammar schools reform. They said the prime minister was determined to avoid “endless back and forth” on important issues.

The Lib Dems made clear that they planned to turn the general election into a referendum on a hard Brexit, with the leader, Tim Farron, telling voters: “This election is your chance to change the direction of our country.”

Writing in the Guardian, he said: “There are large numbers of Conservative seats where the Lib Dems are the challengers. Seats up and down the country where the Tories are looking vulnerable, where constituents will question this brutal, dumb hard Brexit. The only way to stop Theresa May winning a majority, the only way to stop a hard Brexit, is by the Lib Dems winning in those seats.”

Among well known Lib Dems standing for re-election will be the former cabinet ministers Vince Cable and Ed Davey.

The SNP was less supportive of the notion of an early election, but said it would not stand in the way. The party’s Westminster leader, Angus Robertson, claimed that Scotland was now a two horse race between the SNP and the Conservatives, adding that he was hopeful of gaining on the 56 of 59 Scottish seats won in 2015.

Senior Conservatives suggested that May would focus the election on leadership, as well as on completing Brexit, and key domestic policies such as education. The party is also likely to repeat a 2015 tactic: to contrast the likelihood of a Conservative majority to a Corbyn-led coalition that included the SNP.

Downing Street ruled out May appearing in any head-to-head TV debates, despite demands from Corbyn. “I say to Theresa May, who said this election was about leadership: come on and show some,” he said. “Let’s have the debates. It’s what democracy needs and what the British people deserve.”

But broadcasters are likely to avoid heated clashes with Downing Street, as seen during the 2015 election, which ended with David Cameron taking part in special election programmes instead of head to heads.

The election caused nerves among Labour MPs, with some bemoaning the possible loss of colleagues and two of the party’s politicians, Tom Blenkinsop and Alan Johnson, saying they would not contest their seats.

Tony Blair has called on voters to consider maintaining politicians of any party determined to maintain an open mind on Brexit. “The damage to the country will be huge if we end up with an unrestrained ‘Brexit at any cost’ majority,” he wrote, claiming May was trying to take advantage of Labour’s difficulties.

“The state of the Labour leadership offers such an obvious target that it would be an extraordinary act of political self-denial to refuse to put the opposition to the test,” said Blair, arguing that the prime minister also wanted a mandate for Brexit before the talks ran into inevitable difficulties.

Conservatives were largely supportive of the decision with Steve Baker, a key backbencher who chairs the European research group, claiming that Labour and the Lib Dems were trying to scupper Brexit.

“I am delighted that the prime minister has decided to ask the parliament to go to the country in pursuit of a mandate for the plans she has set out for leaving the European Union. This should be great news for a strong and stable government, a strong negotiating hand and a good deal,” he said.

“Labour are going to decide if they want a real Brexit or a fake one. A fake Brexit is staying in the customs unions or EEA, unable to chart our own course on trade policy and services regulation.”

Others claimed that May had been driven by controversy facing her party over election expenses in 2015, with the CPS still considering charges against dozens of MPs.

But some Tories were more nervous, with one MP first elected in 2015 with a relatively small majority over the Liberal Democrats saying he was preparing for a tough battle.

“I’m in a better position than some colleagues – there’s a few who are more panicky than me,” he said.

“But it’s still tricky for me. I’d have preferred to get more things done before I stood for election again, and there’s only so much you can do in less than two years. Five years gives you a chance to make your mark.”

Vijay Mallya granted bail in London extradition hearing

Force India team principal Vijay Mallya waves in the paddock during the third practice session of the Indian F1 Grand Prix at the Buddh International Circuit in Greater Noida, on the outskirts of New Delhi, October 27, 2012. REUTERS/Ahmad Masood/Files

By Devidutta Tripathy and Douglas Busvine | MUMBAI/NEW DELHI-Tue Apr 18, 2017

Flamboyant businessman Vijay Mallya, pursued by Indian authorities over unpaid loans tied to his defunct Kingfisher Airlines, was arrested in London on Tuesday and appeared in court for an extradition hearing.

A source close to Mallya said he attended a police station voluntarily and the arrest was a technical procedure. Mallya, 61, was arrested on behalf of the Indian authorities over accusations of fraud and appeared in Westminster Magistrates' Court, British police said.

Television channels said he was granted bail at the hearing.

Mallya, in a message on Twitter, called the news of his arrest "usual Indian media hype".

India had asked Britain to extradite Mallya to face trial after the liquor and aviation tycoon fled there last March after banks sued to recover about $1.4 billion that Indian authorities say Kingfisher owes.

Mallya has repeatedly dismissed the charges against him and defended himself in messages on Twitter. On January 28 he said that "not one rupee was misused".

A spokesman for India's foreign ministry said "the two governments are in touch" over India's extradition request.

India and Britain have a mixed record on extradition, say legal experts. Some cases have collapsed when evidence fell short of the standard of "dual criminality", or actions that amount to a crime in both countries.

"The court usually focuses on whether there is sufficient evidence of criminality to extradite someone," said Andrew Smith, a partner at London law firm Corker Binning.

"India needs to show a prima facie evidential case against this man."

Television channel CNN News18 said a team of Indian law enforcement officials would visit London to begin work on the extradition. The Central Bureau of Investigation did not immediately comment.

Mallya co-owns the Force India Formula One team. He has a base in London and a country home bought from the father of triple Formula One world champion Lewis Hamilton.

India's top brewer, United Breweries, part-owned by global giant Heineken, this year asked Mallya, its non-executive chairman, to step down from the board, following a regulatory order. United Breweries was not immediately available to comment after Tuesday's development.

India's capital markets regulator has barred Mallya from participating in the securities market for having allegedly diverted funds from whisky maker United Spirits.

(Additional reporting by Swati Bhat and Sudipto Ganguly in Mumbai, Alan Baldwin in London and Sanjeev Miglani in New Delhi; Editing by Andrew Roche)

Nearly 9,000 migrants rescued in Mediterranean over weekend

Migrants during a rescue operation in the central Mediterranean, off the coast of Zawiya in Libya, 14 April (Reuters)

Tuesday 18 April 2017

Nearly 9,000 mainly African migrants were rescued in the Mediterranean this past long weekend, after setting out from Libya on unseaworthy boats to try to reach Europe, UN aid agencies said on Tuesday.

"This was an overwhelming search and rescue operation by all sides involved," Babar Baloch, spokesman of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), told a news briefing.

International Organisation for Migration (IOM) spokesman Leonard Doyle said that better spring weather had encouraged smugglers to take migrants out of detention centres in Libya.

At least 900 migrants have died or have gone missing while attempting to reach Europe by sea so far this year, while 36,000 have been rescued, against 24,000 last year, Doyle said.

Some 36,000 migrants have been rescued, against 24,000 at this time last year, he said.

The migrants, many from Nigeria and Senegal with some from Bangladesh, are among an estimated 20,000 held by criminal gangs in irregular detention centres in Libya, the International Organisation for Migration said.

On release, they pay to board the overcrowded boats, often just inflated rubber vessels that could not cross the Mediterranean, in the hope of starting a new life in Europe.

Libyan fishermen found the bodies of 28 migrants on Tuesday who appeared to have died of thirst and hunger after their boat broke down off the coast of Sabratha city, a ministry of interior official said on Tuesday.

Interior Ministry security unit commander Ahmaida Khalifa Amsalam told Reuters the 28 migrants, including four women, had been found after sunset by the fishermen who towed the vessel to shore. The victims were buried together in a cemetery for migrants, he said.

"It is obvious that better spring weather has encouraged smugglers to take people from their detention centres," said IOM spokesman Leonard Doyle.

"The smugglers have clearly taken them to sea and pushed them out in the hope and belief that they would be rescued."

More than 35 vessels, including private charity boats, the European Union border agency Frontex, the Italian and Libyan coast guards and 12 merchant ships were involved in rescuing dozens of vessels, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said.

IOM reported earlier this month that growing numbers of African migrants passing through Libya are traded in what they call "slave markets" before being held for ransom, forced labour or sexual exploitation.

"So there's a full-on economy of trafficking or trading in migrants who think they are going to a better life in Europe and end up effectively in a gulag of exploitation," Doyle said.

Distressing images of African migrants being plucked from heaving seas or the coffin-strewn aftermath of major sinkings have become a regular feature of television news bulletins since the crisis began spiralling out of control four years ago.