BDS is winning, admits top Israeli “sabotage” strategist

Gidi Grinstein at the “Ambassadors Against BDS” conference. (UN Web TV)

Owen Jones speaks at a meeting of Israel lobby group the Jewish Labour Movement.Asa Winstanley

Asa Winstanley-21 April 2017

The boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel is winning, a top anti-BDS strategist has conceded.

At the “Ambassadors Against BDS” conference in New York last month, former Israeli government advisor Gidi Grinstein said that “in 2016 our community probably invested 20 times … more resources in dealing with this problem compared to what we invested in 2010.”

Yet despite these tens of millions of dollars spent combating BDS, Grinstein asked: “why are we not winning?”

Grinstein was an advisor to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and founded influential think tank the Reut Institute.

The 29 March summit was hosted by Israel’s mission to the United Nations in New York. 

Ambassador Danny Danon opened the day promising to “eliminate BDS on our campuses.”

Other speakers throughout the day assured those gathered that BDS was losing. “Operation Fightback is underway, and we are winning,” claimed World Jewish Congress chief executive Robert Singer.

But Danon conceded that, “the BDS movement is still active and still strong. Every day, academic and religious groups, student unions and investment firms are all falling prey to boycott calls.”

Meant to show unity in the pro-Israel community, the event ended up highlighting deep divisions.

Attack and sabotage

In 2010, the Reut Institute published a strategy which outlined the ways it said the Israeli government should “sabotage” and “attack” the BDS movement and other expressions of solidarity with Palestinians.

Reut advocated for this campaign to be led by Israeli spy agencies and Israel lobby groups.

Since then, as Grinstein highlighted in New York, the amount of money and resources the Israeli government and its supporters have put into the anti-BDS campaign has skyrocketed.

An entire government department – the Ministry of Strategic Affairs led by Gilad Erdan – is now devoted to combating BDS.

Liberal Zionist newspaper Haaretz reported from New York that, “The event clearly cost a tidy sum; nine Israeli journalists were flown in to cover the summit, and there was a fancy VIP luncheon for speakers and the media. The organizers claimed ignorance when asked about the budget.”

Co-opting progressives

In answer to his own question as to why BDS was winning, Grinstein said, “we are in a learning competition here, and it’s a very very challenging environment”.

But he did suggest a way forward. Grinstein said that the number of BDS activists was growing “among progressive circles” more than in any other area, and so it is only “through progressive groups we can win.”

“Who can win the fight in the progressive circles for us? Only progressive groups,” he argued. “Our diversity must be made into our asset. Unless we have a broad tent we cannot win. We need Democrats and Republicans.”

Reut has long advocated appealing to “progressive” groups to make the pro-Israel case.

The 2010 Reut strategy called for “driving [a] wedge between soft and hard critics” of Israel. In this way, Reut aims to isolate the Palestine solidarity activists whom it terms “delegitimizers” – those who support BDS.

Earlier this year Reut put a renewed emphasis on this tactic, with a strategy document advocating “a big tent approach that accepts progressive critics of Israel,” The Jewish Daily Forward reported in February.

This manifested itself again earlier this month. The Jewish Labour Movement – a pro-Israel group within the UK’s main opposition party – presented a lecture on “left anti-Semitism, the Middle East and the Labour Party,” by left-wing Guardian columnist Owen Jones.

Jones went ahead with the lecture on 2 April, despite strong criticism.

The group’s annual general meeting also took place the same night, and was welcomed by Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn.

At the talk, Jones attacked Jewish anti-Zionist Jackie Walker and said she should be expelled from the Labour Party.

The Jewish Labour Movement was last year at the forefront of a manufactured campaign to falsely portray the Labour Party under Corbyn as a cesspit of anti-Semitism.

The group’s director Ella Rose was caught on camera in an undercover investigation by Al Jazeera fantasizing about assaulting Walker.

The footage led the Labour Party to carry out a cursory investigation into her conduct, before exonerating her in what complainants dubbed a “whitewash.”

The Electronic Intifada’s reporting on the investigation led to a lawyer acting for the Jewish Labour Movement sending a threat warning the publication to “desist from behavior that it considers to be bullying of its director, a young Jewish woman.”

Rose was a former officer at the Israeli embassy, as The Electronic Intifada revealed in September.

As shown in the undercover footage, that report led to Rose expressing a wish that its author would “die in a hole.”

The new strategy, jointly developed by Reut and the Anti-Defamation League, a major American Israel lobby group, demands “an all-out assault on leading critics of Israel, sometimes using covert means” while embracing “soft critics” of Israel on the left such as Jones.

Deep divisions

The anti-BDS summit in New York highlighted some of the inherent contradictions within Zionism.

Grinstein spoke of the “achievements of Zionism” and of the need to be respectful of a diversity of pro-Israel opinions, or there is a “zero chance of victory.”

“What we really need in our community is much more mutual respect,” Grinstein said, while both left- and right-wing Zionism should emphasize a “unity of cause.”

Grinstein was the final speaker of the day, making his point after others had taken a more belligerent tone against liberal Zionism.

The event drew some headlines after members of liberal Israel lobby group J Street were heckled for saying they opposed “the occupation” of the West Bank.

At one panel, two young J Street student activists spoke out against both BDS and the occupation of the West Bank, claiming there was no contradiction in such a position.

Republican panelist Alan Clemmons, a South Carolina state representative and leading local anti-BDS activist, claimed there was “no illegal occupation” in the West Bank.

All Israeli settlements are illegal under international law.

Clemmons – a self-described Christian Zionist – also told one of the students, a young man wearing a Jewish skullcap, that he represented an “anti-Semitic organization.”

Clemmons was loudly clapped and cheered by an audience that appeared to be mostly college and high school students attending with teachers.

Clemmons repeated his accusation in the Wall Street Journal a few days later.

Not included in his Journal article was Clemmons’ fundamentalist religious rationale for supporting Israeli colonization of the West Bank: that the land is an “eternal inheritance” given by God to Jews alone.

Afterwards, J Street said that “the approach to Israel advocacy that we saw on display at the summit is leading to a disastrous dead end.”

This disharmony was a fitting conclusion to an event sponsored by an Israeli government and a Zionist movement that are not only increasingly extreme and belligerent towards Palestinians, but also towards the mildest dissent from within.

Israel and Sri Lankan Islamophobia

This article leads to the question whether the Israeli propaganda organization Hasbara, which has plenty of funds at its disposal, is using Backlash and Kettikaran as its agents for the promotion of Islamophobia in Sri Lanka. There are interesting common factors between them.

by Izeth Hussain- Apr 22, 2017

Apr 21, 2017

( April 22, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian ) The attacks against this writer practically every week, which have gone on relentlessly over a very long period, have evidently been meant to stop this writer’s articles from being published. But the articles continue to be published in the Island, the Colombo Telegraph, and the Sri Lanka Guardian and there are no signs that the attacks will have their desired impact on any of the Editors. Consequently this writer can safely ignore the attacks. Unfortunately there has been another dimension to the attacks that cannot be ignored: Islamophobia shown in varying degrees of contempt and hatred towards Islam and the Muslims as a whole. The writer’s analysis led to the conclusion that Tamil Islamophobic racism was much worse than that of the Sinhalese. It afflicts only a minority of the Tamils but it can be terribly lethal if the LTTE rides again. Fortunately, however, after 2009 moderate and pragmatic Tamils have had the political ascendancy and can be trusted – the writer is convinced – to defuse Tamil Islamophobic racism and keep it in check.

Alas, there is yet another dimension to the attacks that requires analysis: Israeli promotion of Islamophobia in Sri Lanka. There is good reason to believe that the present Israeli Government would want to promote Islamophobia on a world scale. Its settlement policy in the West Bank is blatantly expansionist and is making a two-state solution virtually impossible. Israel will therefore have to work out a strategy to prevent the colored Arabs from gaining a demographic ascendancy over the white Israelis, a strategy that entails the apartheid system that is being installed, and is already worse than that of South Africa according to Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who should know. The apartheid Israeli state cannot endure unless it is backed or at least tolerated by the West. Ideally Israel would want the West also to institute the apartheid system in which the colored immigrant hordes are subjugated and kept safely in their place. It would result in a world order as envisioned by Hitler and also by one of the founding fathers of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, who projected Israel as a white fortress withstanding the threatening colored Asiatic hordes. It is a neo-Nazi vision in which the colored peoples, particularly the Muslims, are to be regarded as lesser breeds. That is the deep meaning of the Islamophobic movement that is sweeping the world today. It has its devotees, passionate devotees, in Sri Lanka also.

There could be a reason why this writer in particular could be targeted by the Israelis. Shortly a after he left the Foreign Ministry around 1990, notoriously a victim of the UNP’s ferocious Islamophobic racism, he was invited by one of the two leading Muslim institutions of the time to give a talk on the Palestine problem. It was very well attended by leading Muslim politicians of the time. The talk lasted for over an hour, it was videotaped, and a version was serialized in the Sri Lanka Guardian. After the talk several Muslims asked Dr. Kaleel whether he could do something with the material provided towards effecting the closure of the Israeli Interests Section at the American Embassy – which question was known to be under consideration at that time. His reply was that he would definitely do something about it. He had given an edited copy to President Premadasa who had watched it in full and decided to close down the ISS. (At this point the Tamil Islamophobes will raise one of their sky-splitting earth-sundering yells “LIAR”). It is relevant also to mention that one of the questions raised at the conclusion of the talk was whether the Israelis had been behind the last-minute abortion of his appointment as Ambassador to Paris.

The above certainly establishes that Israel could have a motive for spreading Islamophobia on a global scale but what evidence is there to show that the writer has been targeted? The evidence has to be of a hypothetical and circumstantial order but it seems pretty convincing. After the concerted attacks by the LTTE stopped, further attacks by two, three or more Tamils have continued practically every week. For the most part those Tamils were venting their Islamophobic hatred, but the attacks by two Tamils have been of a different order and require explanation. Backlash has been attacking articles by this writer over a very long period, declaring every one of them as no better than excrement – his favorite metaphor has been “verbal diarrhea”. He suddenly revealed that something unusual was afoot: he corrected this writer’s erroneous memory over an article he had written twenty five years ago. How was it that someone who regarded the articles as excrement should have so vivid a memory of them over a quarter century? Some sort of institutional backing for Backlash was clearly suggested.

The other fact suggesting institutional backing is what might be called the tactic of the bucket attack. The logic behind the attack is not of the slightest consequence since what matters is the attack itself, which consists of scooping up the contents of the bucket and letting them fly at the target. The following are some examples. Backlash was asked why he has been reading this writer for years and decades when the articles are no better than excrement. He has also been asked how come editors continue to publish the writer’s excrement. He has given nothing but facetious replies. The reason is that fact and argument don’t matter since what matters is only the successful flinging of the bucket contents at the chosen target. That is also clear from the latest example of his bucket attack. He spent some weeks abroad and now finds that the editors still continue to publish this writer, leaving him and others no alternative but “to grin and bear”. He cannot expect to be taken seriously. But he can tell his foreign backers that he is earning his keep by again flinging bucket contents at the writer.

The other brilliant bucketeer is Kettikaran, who has been attacking this writer with hatred and rage over a very long period. Some time ago he inadvertently blurted out that he wished that he didn’t have to read me at all. What could that mean except that he was reading me under compulsion? Who was compelling him and why? Was it some institution? Recently in exchanges with this writer and a Sinhalese in the Colombo Telegraph he suddenly became placatory in language that seemed typical of Christian fundamentalists, who in general are notoriously pro-Israeli and Islamophobic. It was such Norwegian groups that are alleged to have funded the BBS.

In addition, just like Backlash, he specializes in the bucket attack in which fact and reason don’t matter at all. He continues to allege that this writer advocated famine as a method of subduing the Tamil rebels when in fact he advocated the precise opposite – as will be shown beyond dispute by getting to Google and clicking on “Izeth Hussain’s reply to K.Arvind – 2006”. He now alleges that the incriminating article by this writer was reproduced in the CT, which is a bare-faced lie. He has been asked to provide the details, which have not been forthcoming, but he can be confidently expected to go on repeating the lie ad nauseam. Some time ago a Tamil reader wrote approvingly of Goebbels’ theory of the big lie, according to which a lie that goes on being repeated comes to be believed. That might have been true in Nazi Germany where there was no freedom of expression. Do these Tamil idiots think that the big lie can prevail against this writer in Sri Lanka where he can easily refute the lie?

This article leads to the question whether the Israeli propaganda organization Hasbara, which has plenty of funds at its disposal, is using Backlash and Kettikaran as its agents for the promotion of Islamophobia in Sri Lanka. There are interesting common factors between them. Both have been attacking this writer over a long period, both have given indications that they have some sort institutional backing, and both use the identical tactic of the bucket attack in which fact and reason have no place at all. How do the bucket attacks serve the interests of those two nondescript Tamils? In no apparent way at all because this writer continues to be published and continues to be read. But we can expect the bucket attacks to continue. Why? They don’t serve the interests of those two Tamils but they could serve the interests of Islamophobes who believe that the best that can be done against this writer is to keep throwing dirt at him in the hope that some of it will stick. That will serve their fundamental purpose which is to project one message: All Muslims are dirt.

More than 50 Afghan soldiers killed by Taliban suicide attackers at army base

Men disguised themselves as army personnel and passed first security gate before one blew himself up at second gate and another attacked dining facility

Afghan national army troops arrive near the site of an ongoing attack on an army headquarters in Mazar-i-Sharif in northern Afghanistan on Friday. Photograph: Anil Usyan/Reuters

Sune Engel Rasmussen in Kabul and Spencer Ackerman in New York-Friday 21 April 2017

More than 50 Afghan soldiers have been after killed Taliban suicide attackers disguised as army personnel targeted a national army base in northern Afghanistan, in the worst single attack on the country’s security forces in recent years.

According to Zulmay Wesa, commander of 209th corps in Balkh province, a group of suicide attackers manning at least two Afghan national army vehicles managed to pass the first security gate on Friday afternoon.

When they were stopped at the second gate, one of the attackers blew himself up, and the rest entered the base, Wesa said. They went straight to the mosque where ANA soldiers were praying, and opened fire.

“After prayer we went outside and saw an army vehicle with three to five people in. They came out and opened fire with Kalashnikovs,” said a bodyguard at the base, asking not to be named.

Elsewhere on the base, at least one attacker went on a shooting rampage in a dining facility, according to an American security official. He also confirmed that “probably more than 50” had been killed in the attack.

The US military confirmed that coalition personnel were present at the Mazar-i-Sharif base, but there were no reports of casualties.

In a statement, the US military in Afghanistan condemned the attack. 

“The attack on the 209th Corps today shows the barbaric nature of the Taliban. They killed soldiers at prayer in a mosque and others in a dining facility,” US commander John Nicholson said in the statement.

The attack comes a month after militants disguised as doctors stormed an army hospital in the capital, Kabul, and killed at least 38 wounded soldiers and doctors.

It is the deadliest Taliban attack since April 2016, when suicide bombers killed more than 60 people in an attack on an intelligence headquarters in central Kabul. That attack was the deadliest in an urban area since the beginning of the war in 2001.

Mazar-i-Sharif is one of Afghanistan’s safest cities but home to large military facilities, which also house some foreign troops. 

In November, the German consulate in the city came under attack when a truck strapped with explosives rammed into the compound, killing six and injuring over 120, all Afghans.

Donald Trump said little about Afghanistan during his election campaign but is currently conducting a policy review toward America’s longest war.

His national security adviser, army Lt Gen HR McMaster, himself an Afghanistan war veteran, visited the country last weekend and met with President Ashraf Ghani.

In January, Nicholson requested thousands more US troops to aid the Afghan security forces, which suffered more than 6,785 deaths and more than 10,000 injured in 2016.

The commander called the high levels of casualties a “major concern” and attributed them to poor leadership and an overreliance on static checkpoints.

Indian techies, IT firms fret as Trump orders U.S. visa review

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks before signing an executive order directing federal agencies to recommend changes to a temporary visa program used to bring foreign workers to the United States to fill high-skilled jobs during a visit to the world headquarters of Snap-On...REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

By Sankalp Phartiyal and Rahul Bhatia | MUMBAI-Sat Apr 22, 2017

For Grishma, an Indian software designer, President Donald Trump's review of the visa programme for bringing highly skilled workers into the United States comes at a bad time.

Fresh from gaining a master's degree in Europe, and with an offer of employment from a well-known U.S. design firm, she was well on her way to fulfilling the ambition of many young Indian IT workers - a dream job in America.

But as she waits in the H-1B visa queue for the green light, she is caught in a bind.

"It's a weird time to be applying, with all the scrutiny," said Grishma, who gave only her first name for fear of jeopardising her chances of getting a visa.

The United States has already suspended the "expedited processing option" for applicants, under which she may have received a visa in weeks.

More broadly, uncertainty over the review announced this week has unsettled Grishma and many others like her.

She will have to wait until at least around August to learn her fate, but having accepted the U.S. job offer she is not in a position to apply for positions elsewhere, including in Europe.

"It's pretty debilitating," Grishma told Reuters. "I'd like to start work to mitigate the financial damage."

Trump's decision was not a huge surprise, given his election campaign pledge to put American jobs first.

But the executive order he signed, though vague in many areas, has prompted thousands of foreign workers already in the United States or applying for visas to work there to re-think their plans. Companies who send them also face huge uncertainty.

The concerns are particularly acute in India, where IT firms like Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys Ltd and Wipro Ltd are top beneficiaries of the H-1B visa programme, using it to send computer engineers to service clients in the United States, their largest overseas market.

COMPANIES AND STAFF REALIGN

Experts say Trump's order to review visa processes is aimed at firms like TCS, Infosys and Wipro, which from 2005-14 snagged around 86,000 H-1B visas, roughly equivalent to the number of H-1B visas the United States issues in total each year.

Two industry sources said Infosys, India's No. 2 information technology (IT) services company, is applying for just under 1,000 H-1B visas this year, which one of the sources said was down from 6,500 applications in 2016 and some 9,000 in 2015.

It was not clear whether the sharp reduction in 2017 was in direct response to Trump's presidency, although the company has said for some time it wanted to cut dependence on "fly-in" staff.

TCS, Infosys and Wipro said they would not share data on the number of H-1B visas they had applied for this year.

With fewer visas going to Infosys, more might become available for smaller IT companies and big U.S. tech companies, like Facebook and Microsoft Corp, that typically send in fewer H-1B applications each year.

U.S.-based immigration lawyer Murali Bashyam, managing partner of Bashyam Spiro LLP which advises and works with small to mid-sized Indian IT firms, said clients had been in contact seeking clarity, while the number of visa applicants had fallen.

"I think the reason for that is they get the sense that it's going to get so much tougher to comply with all of the changes ... that it might not be worth their money," he said.

"There is a fear that radical immigration changes are coming, and if those radical immigration changes come then it could completely change the way IT staffing companies do business."

Bashyam said the number of people on H-1B visas already working in the United States who were considering returning to their home country had risen.

An engineer working at Cisco, who has been in the United States since 2011, said that three months ago he would not have considered returning to India.

But the review of the visa system, and any rule change that revoked the right for his wife to work in the United States on a dependent visa, could force him to change his mind.

"If that happens, then I would definitely be interested in going back to India. Even though I'm secure, I don't want to be in a situation where my wife cannot work," said the engineer, who declined to be named.

"Those who have heavily invested here, who've bought houses, property and are still on visas, are afraid."

"I'M LOOKING EASTWARD"

According to Bashyam, some Indians on H-1B visas were cancelling plans to return home to visit their families in case they had problems getting back into the United States.

"With everything that's going on, travelling outside the U.S. is the biggest fear for a lot of the H-1B workers working in the IT staffing industry," he said.

And the uncertainty is not limited to IT.

Trump's campaign rhetoric around tighter visa rules has led some Indian students considering studying abroad to look beyond the United States, which typically draws in over 100,000 Indian students annually.

One Canadian official said the number of student visa applications for certain courses in Canada had spiked over 250 percent since Trump's election win in November.

Akshay Baliga, a management consultant with a H-1B visa that is valid until 2018, said he was not considering returning to the United States for work any time soon.

"As a professional I'm looking eastward," said Baliga, now based in India but who earlier studied and lived for years in America.

(Additional reporting by Sunil Nair in BENGALURU and Euan Rocha in MUMBAI; Editing by Mike Collett-White)

No, Mr. President, you can’t do what you want

April 19, 2017 President Trump signs the Veterans Choice Program Extension and Improvement Act in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post

By E.J. Dionne Jr. Opinion writer April 19

Two issues are paramount in American politics. The first is whether President Trump will get away with his arrogant dismissal of the public’s right to a transparent government free of corrupting conflicts of interest. The second is whether those who would hold him to account remain focused, mobilized and determined.

They are related. There are many reasons to stand against Trump, but the one that should take precedence — because it is foundational for decent governance — is his autocratic assumption that he is above the expectations that apply to us normal humans.

Should Trump separate himself completely from his business interests, as presidents had been doing for more than four decades? His implicit message is always: No, I can do what I want.

Should he release his income-tax returns so the public can see where conflicts might exist — including whether he will benefit from his own tax proposals? No, he says, I can do what I want.

Should he continue former president Barack Obama’s practice of making the White House visitor logs public so all can know who might be influencing his policies? No, he says, I can do what I want — including shutting down access to those logs and telling citizens to go stuff it if they claim any right to know what’s going on in the building they collectively own.

President Trump on April 16 issued two tweets in which he criticized protesters who marched the day before to demand that he release his tax returns. (Video: Bastien Inzaurralde/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Should he stop turning the presidency into a permanent and profitable vacation by spending one out of every five minutes at Mar-a-Lago or nearby golf courses, as The Post’s Philip Bump reported? Should we know the full cost of his gallivanting and how many of the millions of dollars involved are circulating back to his family through the charges Trump’s resorts impose on the government? No, he says, I can do what I want.

Should we know why it is that, according to The Post’s Greg Miller, Trump “appears increasingly isolated within his own administration” in calling for warmer relations with Russia even as almost everyone else in his government issues “blistering critiques of Moscow”? Should he disclose details of his business ties to Russian interests and oligarchs? Should he stop resisting investigations into whether his campaign was complicit in Russia’s interference in the election that made him president? No, he says, I can do what I want.

And then there was Sunday’s referendum in Turkey (whose outcome the opposition says was rigged) that narrowly approved constitutional changes giving President Recep Tayyip Erdogan nearly authoritarian powers. Did Trump express concern about democracy? Nope. He called Erdogan to congratulate him. Why?

Asked about Turkey in a December 2015 interview with, of all people, Stephen K. Bannon — now his chief strategist who back then hosted a radio show on Breitbart — Trump admitted: “I have a little conflict of interest because I have a major, major building in Istanbul.” He also described Erdogan as “a strong leader” and added: “I thrive on complicated.” Should we be able to know how Trump was influenced by his “complicated” Turkish interests, including his “major, major” project? No, he says, I can do what I want.

And a last question: If Hillary Clinton had done any one of the things described above, is there any doubt about what Republicans in Congress would be saying and doing? As long as all but a few honorable Republicans remain silent, GOP leaders will be miring their party in the muck of Trump’s norm-breaking. No, they are saying, he can do what he wants.

This is why only pressure from an engaged and resolute citizenry can convince Republican politicians of the costs of being Trump enablers. Jon Ossoff, the Democratic hopeful in Tuesday’s special election in a very Republican Georgia congressional district, managed 48.1 percent of the vote, just missing the majority he needed to avoid a June 20 runoff.

Those who rallied to Ossoff (including Republicans and independents deeply offended by Trump’s ways) must remain committed between now and June to send a clear message to the president that transcends the usual partisanship: No, you can’t just do what you want in crushing transparency and blurring all lines between your own interests and the public’s.

The Trump administration announced on April 14, that it won't voluntarily disclose the names of visitors to the White House complex, breaking from former president Barack Obama's policy. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

It’s said that Trump always skates away. Not true. Those he ripped off in his Trump University scam stuck with the fight and forced Trump to settle a lawsuit he said (in an untruth typical of his approach) he would never settle. The country’s citizens can prevail, too, if we insist on calling out a self-absorbed huckster who treats us all as easily bamboozled fools.

Read more from E.J. Dionne’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Myanmar: Ceasefire on the Rocks: A Setback to Suu Kyi?

It was clear from the offensive of the Burmese Army that the KIA was no match to them in semi conventional battles where the former used heavy mortars, howitzers and air strikes to take the posts. The KIA hqrs at Laiza was threatened and could have been easily captured, but for some inexplicable reason, the offensive against the KIA was abruptly stopped.

by Dr. S. Chandrasekharan-Apr 21, 2017

Apr 21, 2017

( April 21, 2017, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) The recent attack by the MNDAA on the Army Posts at Laukkai, the headquarters of the Kokang region on 6th March, 2017 was followed by quick and heavy retaliatory attacks by the Tatmadaw (Myanmar Army) on the 10th. This is yet another indication of serious fault lines that exist among the government, the Army and the ethnic militant groups in taking forward the peace process that started with the Nationwide cease fire Agreement of October 2015 and the 21st century Panglong Conference of August 31, 2016.

The peace process in Myanmar can be likened to that of a four-wheel coach where the four wheels represent the ethnic groups along with the militant outfits, the Tatmadaw, the Government of Myanmar led by Suu Kyi and finally – the fourth wheel- China itself. Unless the wheels move together, no progress can be made and the coach can only hobble. This appears to be the state of peace process today.

Of the four actors in the cease fire drama, only Suu Kyi appears to be serious and sincere in reaching out to the ethnic groups while others while mouthing high rhetoric appear to be. moving in different directions. What is missing now is the “Panglong Spirit” displayed by late Gen. Aung San in trying to reach out to the ethnic minorities. It is no surprise that the spirit is in shambles with serious fighting going on in the northwest border of Myanmar.

The 21st Century Panglong Conference started with high hopes on 31st August 2016 with the participation of the stake holders of the government, Parliament, the Burmese Army, 17 ethnic armed organizations, foreign diplomats and the United Nations General secretary. Important participants included the State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi, the commander in chief Gen. Min Aung Liang and key ethnic leaders from KNU and KIO.

Meeting after decades of ethnic conflict and with the Nationwide Ceasefire agreement signed by 8 of not so relevant militant outfits out of 17, it was not expected that the conference would be a resounding success if seen from the ambitious objective of reconciliation and political dialogue. Yet the fact that they met and all of them gave out their stand in a spirit of bonhmie was itself seen as a major breakthrough.

In an effort to reach out to the ethnics, Suu Kyi boldly talked about federalism, a term avoided by many others. There was no debate or discussion except for statements from various stake holders.

Within three months of the Conference-on 20th November, 2016 precisely, a combined force of Northern Alliance consisting of the KIA (Kachin Independence Army), TNLA (Ta’ang National Liberation Army), MNDAA (Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army) and Arakan Army (AA) attacked the army posts in and around the town Muse.

Muse is quite close to the Chinese border and is the main trading route on the highway from Yunnan to Mandalay. Other places attacked in this “limited war” were in Theini, Kutkkai, Namptkham and Nampttu, all in the northern Shan state. In the fighting that ensued, quite a few artillery shells landed on the Chinese side. Over 5000 persons were displaced of whom about 3600 were said to have fled across the border to China.

The Northern Alliance took care to call the offensive as a “limited war” as they were never in a position to take on the Burmese Army. Yet it is not clear why they chose to start the offensive on the Chinese border and that too in a very busy trade centre like Muse that would certainly disrupt border trade and have a negative impact on China’s economic interests.

It is said that the KIA had been under pressure from the Burmese Army for nearly three months before the present offensive and this offensive perhaps was more in retaliation. The KIA along with three others of the northern alliance were not signatory to the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement. It is significant to note that the trouble started soon after the 21st Century Panglong Conference.

In the counter offensive, the Burmese army used heavy artillery and air strikes. By December 19, the Army over ran an important KIA post at Gidon, a place not far from the KIA headquarters at Laiza near the Chinese border. By Jan 8, the Burmese Army also over ran another important KIA post at Lai Hpwang as also other minor posts nearby, thereby threatening to cut through the Kachin territory probably isolating the 3rd and 4th Brigade of KIA from the rest.

It was clear from the offensive of the Burmese Army that the KIA was no match to them in semi conventional battles where the former used heavy mortars, howitzers and air strikes to take the posts. The KIA hqrs at Laiza was threatened and could have been easily captured, but for some inexplicable reason, the offensive against the KIA was abruptly stopped. The only reason could be that it would have provoked China as Laiza was uncomfortably close to the Chinese border.

The Chinese response to the offensive was also curious. The embassy at Yangon soon called for a cease fire urging all parties to exercise “restraint.” Five days later, a meeting with Burmese counterparts, a senior Chinese military official declared that “China will not let anyone destroy the peace and stability in the border region.” On Jan 19, the Northern Alliance leaders visited Kunming at the initiative of Sun Gaoxing, Special envoy of Asian Affairs where the offensive in the Muse region must have been discussed. It was also learnt that the leaders wanted the Chinese government and the UWSA (United Wa State Army) to act as witnesses on any peace talks that would ensue.

The demand for the inclusion of UWSA by the Northern Alliance leaders in the peace talks should not come as surprise either as they depend on them for arms and ammunition. To a direct question by press to the Arakan Army Chief Brig. Gen. Tun Muyat Naing whether the AA is being supplied with weapons by UWSA, the chief admitted that “it was natural to help each other more or less.” The UWSA that is headquartered in Pangshang and closely controlled by China has floated an alternate three stage proposal to the one proposed by the government in the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement. Does it have the Chinese approval? It is not clear.

The UNFC (United Nationalities Federal Council) of which the three of the four of the Northern Alliance (Arakan Army is not a member) are members had put forth a demand that they will not sign the Nation wide Cease fire agreement unless the government concedes the nine point put forth by the Council. The demand includes political dialogue, constitutional amendments and conceding a federal democratic union before the cease fire which no government would agree.

The official Chinese position over the ethnic conflict as declared by them are

1. China does not act as a Judge.

2. All parties to participate in the peace process.

3. All parties to sign the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement

4. China will not force anyone to sign the agreement

5. China had signed the Cease fire agreement as a witness in 2015.

As recently as 6th of March, the MNDAA (Kokang army consisting mostly of ethnic Chinese) attacked some hotels, casinos, police and Army posts at Laukkai, the Headquarters of Kokang at Laukkai. The attacks came as a surprise after all the initiatives taken by the Chinese representative Sun Guoxiang. The response of the Burmese army was swift and more than 20,000 are said to have fled to the border camps in China. A few non Kokang ethnics numbering over 2000 had also fled to Mandalay. The attack of the MNDAA was not by any rogue elements within the MNDAA, but was a well planned and executed operation by their leaders. It is difficult to assume that the Chinese were taken by surprise!

We started with the Kokang incident. This recent incident more than any other, reflects the predicament of all the stake holders in the cease fire diplomacy. Clearly, the Kokang incidents were a set back to the peace process. What is brought out is that Suu Kyi by herself cannot bring forth ethnic reconciliation unless everyone takes ownership of the peace process. All the four actors in the drama- the government led by Suu Kyi, the Tatmadaw, the ethnic militant units and China will all have to be “really” on the same page to take the peace process forward. No quick results can therefore be expected.

Tory MPs face being prosecuted for electoral fraud while they are fighting the upcoming general election campaign

• Jon Stone Political Correspondent @joncstone- Apr 20, 2017Apr 21, 2017

Conservative MPs accused of breaking election spending rules at the last election face the possibility of being prosecuted by the Crown while they are in the middle of fighting their re-election campaigns at this year’s general election.

14 police forces have sent files to the Crown Prosecution Service relating to the Tory 2015 ‘battle bus’ scheme, which it has been alleged led to Tory candidates breaking strict spending limits on elections.

The CPS is currently reviewing the evidence and considering whether to charge the MPs with breaking the election spending limits, which are put in place to prevent those with wealthy backers from gaining an unfair advantage during general elections.

A spokesperson for the CPS confirmed to The Independent on Tuesday evening that any charges would have to be made before the date of the general election, which Theresa May wants to hold on 8 June subject to a vote in Parliament tomorrow. 

This means the CPS's announcement must by law fall while the MPs are campaigning for re-election, before 8 June.

No charges have yet been made against any MP. All 14 police forces who sent files to the CPS last year applied for a 12 month extension to the prosecution deadline, which would have otherwise elapsed last summer.

Channel 4 News reported on Tuesday evening that the CPS is considering prosecution against over 30 individuals with regards to 2015 election expenses.

As a result, a decision has to be made by the CPS by late May or early June, meaning that any charges will land during at least the long election campaign period, and possibly even the short campaign.

Police forces who have sent files to the CPS relating to the spending allegations include Avon & Somerset, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Devon & Cornwall, Gloucestershire, Greater Manchester, Lincolnshire, the Metropolitan, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire and West Yorkshire.

Two dozen Conservatives are understood to be under investigation over claims that they did not include battle bus spending in their local campaign returns. The Electoral Commission is also investigating the allegations in parallel to the police. 

The allegations centre on whether spending on hotels for visiting activists and certain campaign material was incorrectly registered as national spending rather than locally – potentially illegitimately taking advantage of a higher spending ceiling.

A Conservative spokesman said: “We are cooperating with the ongoing investigations.”

There have been suggestions that other parties may have failed to register similar spending in their local areas too.

In theory election results in individual seats could be declared invalid if laws are found to have been broken, though this is not an automatic process.  

In recent weeks some Conservative MPs have hit out at party officials who they say have dodged blame for the fiasco at the expense of MPs’ reputation.