As Trump woos China’s Xi, Dalai Lama has to wait on the sidelines

(File) The Dalai Lama. Source: Reuters/Anuwar Hazarika--Lobsang Sangay. Source: Tibet.net.
Trump interacts with Xi at Mar-a-Lago state in Palm Beach, Florida, US, on April 6, 2017. Source: Reuters/Carlos Barria

5th May 2017

WHEN Donald Trump was elected in November, the Dalai Lama said he was keen to meet the incoming US president, but since then Trump has cosied up to China’s leader Xi Jinping, making it less likely the man Beijing deems a separatist will get an invite to the White House anytime soon.

The United States has long recognised Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China, and does not back Tibetan independence. But that has not deterred all the recent US presidents before Trump from meeting the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader.

The United States is widely seen as the last major Western power that has still held meetings with the Dalai Lama despite Beijing’s objections that such encounters foment separatism.

SEE ALSO: India: The Dalai Lama insists people, not China will decide the fate of his office

In past meetings, the US had consistently voiced support for the protection of human rights of Tibetans in China, and called for formal talks between Beijing and the Dalai Lama and his representatives.

A State Department spokeswoman and a White House official referred Reuters to the Dalai Lama’s office when asked whether the Tibetan spiritual leader and his representatives had asked for a meeting with Trump and whether any such meetings were planned.

The Chinese foreign ministry didn’t immediately respond to a faxed request asking whether Beijing had asked Trump not to meet the Dalai Lama.

“His Holiness was supposed to go (to the US) in April, but it was postponed,” Lobsang Sangay, head of the Tibetan government-in-exile, told Reuters.

That trip has been delayed until June due to a hectic schedule in the preceding months that had left the Dalai Lama physically exhausted, Sangay said, adding that Washington DC wouldn’t be part of the June itinerary.

The office of the Dalai Lama hasn’t reached out to Trump to arrange a meeting yet, he said.

The Dalai Lama is taking a more considered approach with regard to any meeting with Trump, said a source with knowledge of the thinking of the winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize.

The unpredictable US president upset protocol in December when weeks before being sworn into office he took a telephone call from the leader of self-ruled Taiwan, which China regards as a renegade province, only to last week rebuff Taiwanese suggestions of another call.

In the interim, Trump has met and phoned Xi, and says he has built a strong relationship with the Chinese leader.

He called Xi “a friend of mine” who was “doing an amazing job as a leader” in an interview with Reuters last week, and praised him for trying to rein in nuclear-armed North Korea. In return, the Chinese president has invited Trump to visit China this year.

In mid-2008, then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown met the Dalai Lama, to the anger of Beijing. Months later, the British Foreign Secretary at that time David Miliband ditched Britain’s near century-long position on Tibet, describing it as an “anachronism”, and explicitly recognised Tibet as part of China.

Based on treaties signed at the turn of the 20th century by British-administered India and Tibet, Britain had previously said it would recognise China’s “special position” in Tibet on the condition that Tibet was given significant autonomy.

SEE ALSO: China protests to US over Dalai Lama presence at Obama event

Silence from Trump

Chinese troops took control of Tibet in 1950 in what Beijing calls a “peaceful liberation”. Nine years later, the Dalai Lama fled to India after an abortive uprising and set up a government in exile, which China does not recognise.

China sees the Dalai Lama as a dangerous separatist in a monk’s robes, even though the Dalai Lama says he wants autonomy for his homeland, not outright independence. There have been no formal talks between Beijing and the Dalai Lama’s representatives since 2010.

International rights groups and exiles say China stamps on the religious and cultural rights of Tibetans, accusations denied by Beijing. China says its rule has ended serfdom and brought prosperity to a once-backward trans-Himalayan region.

SEE ALSO: China wants Taiwan to shut doors to Dalai Lama

Trump has been silent on Tibetan issues.

“The main change is that the US approach on Tibet seems likely to become more transactional and therefore less consistent,” said Robbie Barnett, director of the Modern Tibetan Studies Program at Columbia University.

“It seems set to become more a question of contingency, dependent on how he calculates his relationship with China at any one moment.”

Earlier this week, Democratic US Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts called for a new US policy towards Tibet to safeguard the identity of the Tibetan people and hold China accountable for human rights abuses.

The prime minister of the Tibetan government-in-exile said he is still hopeful that the United States will continue to support Tibetan issues and push for talks between the Dalai Lama’s representatives and Beijing.

But he said they were prepared for any upsets.

“We are Buddhists, we believe in impermanence. You just go with your karma and whatever happens, happens, because we have seen the worst, the occupation of our country,” said Sangay, who is planning a trip to Washington at the end of May. – Reuters

How late-night comedy went from political to politicized

Under Trump, the stakes have been raised – and Samantha Bee, Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert have been leading the way to take on the president

Stephen Colbert, Samantha Bee and Jimmy Kimmel. In recent weeks, there’s been a shift in tenor in the late-night hosts’ monologuing. Composite: ABC & Getty Images

Charles Bramesco-Friday 5 May 2017

The most reactive facet of the most reactive form of popular media, the very idea of late-night TV arose from a need for instant commentary on the day’s events unencumbered by journalistic scruples. The likes of Carson, Leno and Letterman transcended their roles as talk-show hosts when sinking their incisors into that night’s top stories, taking potshots at the left and right as needed. But in recent weeks, as the full enormity of the threat posed by a Trump administration has come into view, there’s been a shift in the tenor of late-night’s monologuing. What was once innocuously political has become more urgently politicized.

In times of great crisis, political comedy as usual can take on an unattractive pall of triviality. An average week’s topical material would engage with important political developments, but in a harmlessly jocular capacity. Even when punchlines took aim at a specific figure, they were little more than wisecracks, a way for the viewer to vicariously blow off some steam by sharing frustration with this lawmaker or that. The lack of any impactful, dare we say radical ideology was a function of network-mandated nonpartisanship; while most late-night fixtures leaned to the left, they could always be relied on to mock with equal opportunity. The Republicans got painted as dim-witted bullies, but the Democrats were ineffective and ineffectual – you choose which one’s more embarrassing.

That all-in-good-fun status quo can no longer stand, not when the stakes for the American people include the gutting of healthcare or the looming possibility of nuclear war. In an interview earlier this year, comedian Kate Berlant expressed her frustration with the limits of humor to spark change, saying:
“Talking about things is not the same as doing them. I’m waking up to the reality that we haven’t done enough, and have to do so much more, so maybe that might separate us from the fun of making art.” With the tangible consequences of Trump’s political doctrine now coming to pass, late-night diatribes have taken on a more actionable bent.

Jimmy Kimmel reveals newborn son’s surgery in healthcare plea – video

Jimmy Kimmel struck a chord with audiences earlier this week when he delivered a tearful monologue detailing the recent birth of his son and the complications that followed after a nurse discovered the infant had been born with a potentially fatal heart disease. The moving display concluded with a plea for reason, Kimmel’s final statement being that healthcare absolutely must remain affordable and available to those who need it. Though he emphasized that he didn’t intend the speech as a partial call to arms – “This isn’t football, there are no teams, America is the team, so let’s not let their partisan squabbles divide us,” Kimmel implored – his words drew a harsh blowback from ultra-conservative types on social media, who took the monologue as propaganda in support of socialized healthcare. 2017: a year in which the opinion that no infant should be too poor to live registers as controversial.

FacebookTwitterPinterest

With a variety of stunts translating words to deeds, other faces from late-night have consciously courted the politicized side-taking that Kimmel tried to shrug off. The most over-it woman on late-night, Samantha Bee recently mounted her Not the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, an evening-long combination of out-and-out roasting and free exchange of political ideas. The broadcast nearly out-rated the event it parodied, drawing more viewers in the coveted 18-to-49 demographic, but more importantly Bee donated all proceeds from ticket sales to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Last Week Tonight’s John Oliver put his money where his mouth is and purchased ad time on Fox & Friends to reach out to Trump about the dangers of passing his proposed healthcare plan. Stephen Colbert elevated invective to public rabble-rousing when he likened our sitting commander-in-chief’s mouth to a “cock holster” for Vladimir Putin, and while LGBTQ advocacy groups objected to his faintly homophobic phrasing, that was nothing compared to the mass-rage aneurysms he inspired on the right. What ultimately amounted to name-calling may not share the righteous spirit of civic engagement, but anything inspiring the #FireColbert hashtag must be a step in the right direction.

While members of Congress cast votes in direct contradiction to the best interest of their constituents, the much-vilified “media elite” has done what it can to serve as the people’s mouthpiece. One-liners and impressions, no matter how withering, no longer carry the weight to enact meaningful change. A couple administrations ago, Jon Stewart never missed a chance to take the hot air out of Dubya – but he solidified his place in the pantheon with the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, a physical follow-through on his espoused viewpoints. Actions, as ever, deafen words.

France’s Presidency Is Too Powerful to Work

Emmanuel Macron will likely be the next occupant of the most powerful office in the democratic world. He'll also be its next victim.

BY ROBERT TOMBS-MAY 2, 2017

On April 23, many French people were profoundly relieved by the victory, in the first round of the presidential elections, of Emmanuel Macron, a man against whom most of them had voted. To see the French presidency fall into the potentially dangerous hands of the far-right is, in theory, no small matter. President Macron (as it will almost certainly be) will hold an immensely powerful office — what is, on paper, perhaps the most powerful office in the democratic world. Yet the chances of him being able to wield that tremendous power with any semblance of effectiveness are, if we are to gauge by recent history, slim. Macron might not only be the next French president but also the French presidency’s next victim.

The French presidency today is a unique institution. It was created as a reaction against the failings, real and perceived, of the parliamentary-controlled governments of the preceding Third (1870-1940) and Fourth (1946-58) Republics. These two systems had themselves been reactions against the autocratic regimes of Napoleon III (1851-70) and Marshal Pétain (1940-44) — but French conservatives criticized both republics for weakness, instability, and lack of leadership. For years, they hankered for a regime that would again give authority to a powerful leader, whether monarch or soldier, who would embody national unity, keep political factions under control, and provide strong long-term direction. The disasters that befell France in 1940 (invasion by Nazi Germany) and in 1954-62 (a colonial war in Algeria that threatened to engulf the whole country) seemed to prove the inability of a “weak” parliamentary republic to guarantee national survival.

Charles de Gaulle, the Catholic conservative soldier who had led wartime Free France and helped bring about its liberation in 1944, had long wanted to transform the system, and in 1958, he finally got his chance. France was in the midst of a national crisis brought about by the bloody war of decolonization in Algeria. The Fourth Republic had collapsed while de Gaulle had been absent from politics for a decade. He made his comeback on the condition that he would finally be granted what he had long desired: sweeping power to create a new constitution in his own image. It deliberately concentrated power and prestige in the president, whom de Gaulle viewed as a “national arbiter,” and downgraded the role of Parliament and political parties. The faithful Gaullist Michel Debré, who supervised the text, called it a “republican monarchy,” and it has loomed over French political life ever since.

This “monarch” has huge powers — far greater than, for example, those of an American president.

This “monarch” has huge powers — far greater than, for example, those of an American president. He (all have, so far, been men) is literally irresponsible, in that neither Parliament nor any other institution can dismiss, impeach, or force him to resign. He appoints the prime minister, is commander in chief of the armed forces, and chooses the holders of a vast range of offices, including in the judiciary, the administration, the military, and state industries. He can also exercise near-dictatorial powers in times of emergency. These powers are further enhanced by limits on the role of Parliament; the president can, on his own authority, dissolve the legislative body and call for referendums. Parliament’s power to oppose governments or amend legislation is restricted. It can only overthrow a government after a vote of no confidence, in strictly limited circumstances. Moreover, if the government itself declares any of its legislation a “question of confidence,” it can only be defeated by a vote of censure within 24 hours — otherwise, the laws are automatically enacted without a vote. In practice, the president exercises even greater powers than the constitution specifies: He generally runs the government with the prime minister as his subordinate and takes personal control of foreign and defense policy.

François Mitterrand, himself later a ruthless user of presidential power, originally attacked this Fifth Republic institution as a “permanent coup d’état” — and indeed, it was intended to bypass selfish lobbies and ignore factional opposition. Undeniably, the system has had considerable achievements. It allowed de Gaulle to extricate France from the Algerian bloodbath, most dramatically by giving direct orders to the troops over public radio. Moreover, his Fifth Republic became the first political system since the French Revolution to be almost universally accepted. It has enabled political power to pass peacefully from the right to the left, and vice versa, without any attempt by extremist parties to disrupt the process or undermine the system. Unlike some of its right-wing predecessors under earlier regimes, even the National Front insists that it works only within the system.

But as the provider of strong and decisive government — its essential task in the eyes of its founders — the republican monarchy has been at best a partial success and one that, as the decades go on, has been more effective at undermining its own authority than asserting it.

The French presidency seemed to function well enough in its early years, though even de Gaulle, national savior and hero that he was, departed from power in 1969 more ignominiously than any other president so far. Still, however one judges the successes and failures of his immediate successors — Georges Pompidou, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, and Mitterrand — France’s government worked, broadly speaking, as well as or even better that those of its European neighbors. But for the last generation, this has been decreasingly true. Elected on promises of great changes, all presidents, whether right- or left-wing, have failed to deliver.

Why this failure? The fundamental problem is the “republican monarchy” itself, which both warps the processes necessary for effective democratic governance and holds those who assume the office to near-impossible standards, ensuring that they inevitably leave the nation disappointed.

The presidency dominates the political game in France; in doing so, it also sucks the life out of other great institutions of the state. Parliament and consequently the political parties are devalued. The great departments of government, such as the prime minister’s office, finance, foreign affairs, and defense ministries, are in practice subordinate to the president’s advisors, ensconced in the Élysée Palace. There have been many cases of major decisions being taken by the Élysée before the relevant ministries have even been informed. The president’s unaccountability, and his isolation within his bubble of power, causes a repeated pattern of political failure: Policies are frequently decided by the president without significant consultation, then, in the absence of an effective legislative body to channel criticism within the system, are instead abandoned in the face of public outcry, including strikes and resistance in the streets. This, in turn, enhances both the French reputation for mass militancy and the sense that the country is in crisis. Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy, and François Hollande all promised sweeping change and all ended despised and impotent.

But the problem of the republican monarchy goes beyond structural hurdles to good governance.

But the problem of the republican monarchy goes beyond structural hurdles to good governance. The office of the president — created by and for a legendary figure — demands too much of a normal politician. He is required not just to lead a party or form a government but to embody national unity, to set national strategy, and to symbolize the dignity of the nation, both to itself and to the world. Yet he is, at the same time, a politician. The president cannot be removed, but as soon as he is elected, he becomes the target of opposition and discontent, obsessed with his ratings and prospects for re-election. The two competing demands do not complement one another; they mean that the president can never be, as de Gaulle intended, a leader of the whole nation, standing above party politics. This results in outcomes like that of Hollande, who was, for almost the whole of his tenure, the most unpopular president on record, with his approval ratings falling to an astonishing 4 percent.

It is difficult to say what has changed between the Mitterrand presidency and today: It may be simply that the rot was there all along and that it is France’s underlying problems that have grown worse, putting more demands on its politics. Regardless, most agree that France today seems stuck in a state of stagnation, even decline. Most people are clearly discontented. A functioning political system — and none, of course, is perfect — needs ideally to create a consensus in the country or at least present it with coherent and realistic choices. France’s system is patently failing to do that: The four leading presidential candidates in the first round, all self-proclaimed rebels, proposed a range of nonconsensual, divisive, and even extreme programs, all of which could only potentially be carried out because of their personal powers as president. The first-round result, in turn, was decided by a small margin within a confused and disillusioned electorate. Under such circumstances, future protests in the street are almost guaranteed.

After the second round of the election, on May 7, the Fifth Republic will face an unprecedented test. De Gaulle’s “republican monarchy” was assumed to be supported by a popular consensus and backed by a strong and docile party in Parliament. The next president can count on neither. A President Marine Le Pen might try to use the powers of the “republican monarch” to force through a divisive program, but this would precipitate a dangerous national crisis, with the clear danger of serious violence in the streets.

In the more realistic scenario of a President Macron, he will be a moderate committed to playing by the rules, but he, too, is likely to struggle. Though there will be a pro-Macron surge, it would be miraculous if he won a parliamentary majority in June. So he may be forced from the beginning of his term to accept either “cohabitation” with a conservative prime minister, which would hamper his chances of uniting the country, or a coalition with the Socialists and other left-wing parties, which reject his core program of economic liberalization. Moreover, Macron is strongly pro-European Union in a country where criticism of the EU is rapidly growing: Of the 11 first-round candidates, only two (Macron and François Fillon) were unambiguously pro-EU. Whatever happens, much depends on the untested Macron showing remarkable capacities for leadership and guile. Macron promised as the first-round results came in that he would turn a “new page in our political life.” That he has such intentions is clear. But the record of recent “republican monarchs” shows that their power to shape events is often an illusion.

Photo credit: FRANCOIS NASCIMBENI/AFP/Getty Images

Can start up India projects solve jobless growth issue?

by N.S.Venkataraman-May 4, 2017

( May 4, 2017, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) Day in and day out , Modi government has been claiming that India is now one of the fast growing economies in the world and cites several reports by international agencies in support of it’s claim. While the statistics are impressive, there is huge concern in the country, particularly amongst the youth and the underprivileged section of society that job opportunities have not increased for them and they are not part of growth story of India.

The gap in the disparity of income is steadily increasing and the economic and industrial growth are not generating jobs to the level of need. While the production figures and annual sale turnover of the enterprises in different sector have increased, the growth in employment level in them are showing declining trend. The production increase and profitability increase are happening due to factors of technology, automation and computerization, which mean that the number of hands needed become less.

This scenario is now the biggest challenge before the Modi government. It has to find some way to ensure that the growth in the economy would move in tandem with the employment generation at various levels.

Obviously, Prime Minister Modi is conscious of this under current of anxiety amongst the people.

Keeping this need in view, Modi government has launched schemes such as Start up India , Make in India, hoping that it would lead to build huge enthusiasm amongst the first generation entrepreneurs, promote many employment opportunities and lead to massive growth at the base level.
It has also taken special measures to develop skill amongst the people. But, such steps are not yielding the expected results and it does not look that positive results would happen too soon.

In a vast country like India with steady increase in population growth at alarming level, it is just not possible for the government and organized sector to generate adequate employment opportunities for the rapidly increasing youth population.

The only way is to promote large number of tiny and small scale enterprises which need not invest much in technology and automation and would generate employment opportunities in a big way. With Start Up India projects, thousands of such tiny and small scale enterprises are required to be promoted all over India, particularly in small towns and rural areas.

When large enterprises are set up , they are supposed to lead to the setting up of many ancillary and small scale industrial units and service oriented organisations around them, stroking chain of developments , industrial/economic activities and employment. But, this is not happening, as the need of such large enterprises are increasingly being met by import rather than from the domestic small and tiny scale units.

Obviously, there is lack of adequate level of skill amongst the small scale entrepreneurs to set up projects in tune with the global standards and the need of the large sector. However, it should be made possible for the small and tiny scale units set up under Start up India projects to meet such needs.

At the same time, it needs to be pointed out that several road blocks still exist for the tiny and small scale units , where the Start up India projects are expected to be set up to meet the needs. This is a serious issue that Modi government has to attend urgently.

The fact is that Modi government has largely played it’s role and the role of the state governments and local bodies are extremely important to ensure that Start Up India projects are facilitated to operate without hurdles. On the other hand, the level of nepotism and corruption in the government machinery at the state government level and local bodies really lead to delays and harassment of the small scale units.

The Start up India entrepreneurs should also introspect about their shortcomings and how to overcome the problems instead of complaining about the various external factors.

There is challenge and opportunities facing the Start up India projects and it remains to be seen whether youth of India would overcome the challenges and seize the opportunities to meet the expectations of the nation from the Start up India entrepreneurs.

Questions remain over Saudi decree easing women's guardianship

Activists remain sceptical over reforms, as it is still unclear what exactly the changes will entail

Women in Saudi Arabia face some of the tightest restrictions in the world (AFP)

Friday 5 May 2017

Saudi women no longer need a man's consent to carry out certain activities, local media reported on Friday, but activists said the royal order does not go far enough.

Saudi Arabia has some of the world's tightest restrictions on women, and is the only country where they are not allowed to drive.

Under the guardianship system a male family member, normally the father, husband or brother, must grant permission for a woman's study, travel and other activities.

But the Arab News said a royal decree issued by King Salman ordered that women are no longer required to obtain a guardian's consent for official services "unless there is a legal basis for this request" under Islamic law.

Read more ►

On breaking free: A Saudi woman on top of the world

Government agencies were advised of this directive, the report said.

Other Saudi media including the Sabq online newspaper, which is close to authorities, have carried similar reports.

Sahar Hassan Nasief, a women's rights activist in the Red Sea city of Jeddah, welcomed royal attention to the issue but said it remained unclear what will change under the decree.

"We still need more. We still need to get rid of the guardianship completely," she told AFP.

Nassima al-Sadah, an activist in the Gulf coast city of Qatif, said she does not think the government is about to end guardianship.

"Maybe they will just reduce it," she said.

But Suhaila Zain Al-Abideen, a senior member at the Saudi-based National Society for Human Rights was more optimistic, and told Arab News that she believes the services covered would include women’s ability to independently represent themselves in court as well as to issue and renew passports and to travel abroad without needing a guardian’s permit.

Last year thousands of people signed a petition calling for an end to guardianship.

'We still need more. We still need to get rid of the guardianship completely'

- Sahar Hassan Nasief, women's rights activist

United Nations special rapporteur Philip Alston, on a visit to Saudi Arabia in January, said the guardianship system needs reform.

Activists say that even female prisoners have to be received by the guardian upon their release, meaning some have to languish in jail or a shelter beyond their sentences if the man does not want to accept them.

Although the government no longer requires guardian permission for women to work, Human Rights Watch said in an earlier report that many employers still demand guardian consent in order to hire a woman.

Some hospitals also require a guardian's approval before carrying out medical procedures, it said.

Activists say that if they have open-minded male family members, getting their consent is not a problem.

South Asian leaders pat Modi for gifting satellite to the region

PM hosts ‘Mini-SAARC summit’ via video-conferencing after GSLV launch.

Suhasini Haidar- MAY 05, 2017

Taking both space diplomacy and India’s outreach to the neighbours into a “new orbit”, Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed a unique joint videoconference of the leaders of all SAARC countries, apart from Pakistan who had declined to join the South Asia satellite programme, shortly after the successful launch of the GSLV GSAT 9.

“The South Asia satellite demonstrates that our collective choices for our citizens will bring us together for cooperation, not conflict; development, not destruction; and prosperity, not poverty,” Mr. Modi told the leaders on the videoconference, including Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani, Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, Bhutan PM Tshering Tobgay, Maldives President Abdulla Yameen, Nepal Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda and Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena. Ambassadors of all six nations were also invited to witness the lift-off at ISRO’s Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota.

The video-conference, which had not been declared prior to the event, was announced by PM Modi as a “surprise” barely moments after he congratulated ISRO scientists for the successful launch on twitter.

“The support and presence of these leaders will add even more joy in the hearts & minds of our region,” Mr. Modi said, adding, “We are a united family of South Asian countries, united in our pursuit of peace, progress & prosperity of our region & the entire humankind.

Speaking by turn the other leaders congratulated India for its technological success as well as Mr. Modi personally for turning his “vision to reality” by seeing the Rs. 450 crore launch through.

 

“I am grateful to PM Modi and the people of India for the very special gift to the South Asian region and compliment the PM and India’s visionary ‘Neighbourhood first’ policy,” said Maldivian President Yameen. “The launch of the South Asia satellite is historic for the world as this is the first time a country has launched a satellite for the free use of its neighbours,” added Bhutan PM Tobgay, calling it an “impressive milestone in regional cooperation.”

Nepal’s PM particularly noted the satellite’s role in developing communications in his country’s mountainous and remote areas. Both Bangladesh PM Hasina and Sri Lankan President Sirisena also praised the potential uses of the GSLV GSAT 9 in meeting developmental needs in the areas of tele-medicine, tele-education, banking and television KU-band broadcasting opportunities.

Mr. Modi had proposed the plan for the shared satellite as a gift to the neighbourhood, during the SAARC summit in Kathmandu in 2014. However, after Pakistan pulled out of the project, it was called the “South Asia satellite” rather than the SAARC satellite.

Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Nafees Zakaria said the country was initially "keen to participate in the project”, but claimed “India was not willing to develop the project on a collaborative basis”.

Referring to Pakistan’s refusal to also join India’s proposal of a SAARC motor vehicle agreement that had stopped Afghanistan from being linked to it, Afghan President Ghani said in his address on the videoconference that “If cooperation through land is not possible, it is certainly possible through sky and we are confident that [South Asia] will integrate.”

The successful launch is seen as a success for both the government’s declared objective of working with SAARC countries “minus Pakistan” if it refused to cooperate, as well as an important step in South Asian connectivity just ahead of the major Belt and Road forum in China that India is staying out of, but other South Asian countries have joined.

“This launch tells us that even the sky is not the limit when it comes to regional cooperation,” PM Modi said as he thanked the leaders for joining him in the celebration of the GSLV launch.

How 30 Opioid Pain Pills for Surgery Turn into a Habit

By University of Michigan / Futurity-May 3, 2017

A small number of people—about 6 percent—who had not been taking opioids before an operation, but got them to ease post-surgery pain, are still taking painkillers three to six months later. That’s long after what is considered normal for surgical recovery.

Smokers and those who had a history of alcohol or drug issues were about 30 percent more likely to keep filling prescriptions. People with arthritis were more than 50 percent more likely to do so.

A new study suggests that certain factors make these “opioid-naïve” surgery patients more likely than others to end up refilling their opioid prescriptions for months despite a lack of evidence that the drugs help chronic pain or other long-term issues.

There are more than 50 million surgical procedures in the United States each year. If the new findings hold true for all patients, that would mean about 2 to 3 million people end up taking opioids for months after an operation.

“This points to an under-recognized problem among surgical patients,” says Chad Brummett, the director of the Pain Research division in the University of Michigan Medical School anesthesiology department and first author of the study in JAMA Surgery.

“This is not about the surgery itself, but about the individual who is having the procedure, and some predisposition they may have. And we know that continued opioid use is probably not the right answer for them.”

Brummett and colleagues are working to find better ways for surgical teams to predict and manage the risk of long-term opioid use among their patients.

“These results show the need for education of surgical providers, to understand when it’s time to stop writing prescriptions for opioids, and to refer patients for assistance from a chronic pain physician,” Brummett says. “We need to be asking patients why they think they still need opioids, and what they’re being used for, not just refilling.”

125 pills

The team drew their findings from more than 36,000 non-elderly adults with private insurance who had only one operation in a two-year period from 2013 to 2014. None had had an opioid prescription for the year preceding their operation.

About 80 percent of the patients had minor operations to remove varicose veins, hemorrhoids, appendixes, prostates, thyroids, and gallbladders, or address hand issues—often through minimally invasive techniques. The rest had major operations such as bariatric surgery, hysterectomy, hernia repair, or surgery to address severe reflux or remove part of their colon.

On average, the patients received a prescription for 30 to 45 tablets of opioids in the weeks immediately before or after their operation. Many surgical practices pre-approve such prescriptions for patients during the pre-operative period so they can fill them before they go to the hospital and have them on hand when they get home.

For the 6 percent or so who were still filling opioid prescriptions three to six months after their operation, the average number of total post-surgery prescriptions was 3.3, adding up to about 125 pills. Other research has shown that long-term prescription opioid use raises the risk of becoming dependent on the drugs for non-medical reasons, or moving to illicit opioid drugs like heroin.

Still a new idea

New chronic pain is a known risk of surgery, and some operations do require opioid use for more than a week or so to control acute pain. Surgeons may even worry that if they limit opioid prescriptions, it will lower the patient-satisfaction scores that can affect how much they are paid by insurers, or cause their staff to have difficult interactions with patients.

But Brummett points to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines that state clearly that opioids are not appropriate first-line medications for long-term pain control.

The data came from IHPI’s store of anonymous private-insurance claims data purchased from Optum. 

The comparison group included a randomly selected 10 percent sample of adults who did not have surgery or an opioid prescription in a one-year period. The researchers assigned them a fictional “surgery date” and looked for any opioid prescriptions they filled in the 180 days after that.

“To truly confront our nation’s opioid issues, we need to move upstream, toward a preventive model that focuses on the 80 percent of our surgical patients who are not taking opioids,” Brummett says.

“From our interactions with surgeons and their teams through Michigan-OPEN, it’s apparent that it’s still a new idea to many that the prescription they write for a surgery patient is a potential source for new chronic use and even diversion of opioids.

“Surgeons and their teams want to do the right thing, so we need to help them shepherd patients through the surgical path and help them come out healthier.”

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded the work.

Source: University of Michigan

11th anniversary of Uthayan killings remembered

03 May  2017

Tribute was paid yesterday to the two Uthayan employees killed in a gunfire attack at the newspaper’s office in 2006.

Suresh Kumar and Ranjith Kumar were killed when gunmen stormed the office and opened fire, following the publishing of a cartoon mocking EPDP leader Douglas Devananda.

The Uthayan held a memorial on the 11th anniversary of their murder, as well as paying tribute to other assassinated Tamil journalists.

SOLIDARITY PROTEST CALLING FOR JUSTICE FOR SLAIN MALDIVIAN BLOGGER, YAMEEN RASHEED IN COLOMBO

04/05/2017

On Monday, May 8, 2017, activists, journalists and members of Sri Lankan civil society will gather outside the Maldivian High Commission (25, Melbourne Avenue, Colombo 4,) at 3.30 p.m., to protest against the recent murder of Maldivian blogger Yameen Rasheed.

Yameen ran a satirical blog called The Daily Panic and was a vocal critic of government authoritarianism and religious fundamentalism. He also lead the #FindMoyameehaa campaign, seeking justice for his best friend and investigative journalist Ahmed Rilwan (a.k.a. Moyameehaa), who was abducted in 2014, and has been missing since.

Yameen was brutally stabbed to death in the stairway of his apartment building in Male, in the early hours of Sunday, April 23, 2017. He had been receiving death threats from religious extremists since 2014, and had lodged multiple complaints with the Maldives Police Service, who failed to follow up on any of them.

Yameen’s father, Hussain Rasheed, in a recent visit to Sri Lanka, appealed to the diplomatic community to pressure the Maldives government into expediting investigations into the murder of his son, the abduction of Ahmed Rilwan, and other politically and religiously motivated violence and intimidation.

Sri Lankan civil society members have previously condemned the murder in a public  statement.

Join us next Monday (8th) to demand #JusticeForYameen and other victims of politically and religiously motivated violence in the Maldives.

ALL ARE WELCOME to join us in solidarity!

A Thousand Unanswered Questions: The ongoing plight of families of the disappeared

Featured image by Raisa Wickrematunge 

RAISA WICKREMATUNGE on 05/04/2017

The photographs are framed in a variety of ways; gilt-edged, glossy black wood, or laminated. Creased from being held and passed around. Whatever the frame, they are cradled with equal tenderness. These photographs are one of the few tangible mementos the families of the disappeared have of their loved ones. Across the North, these families have begun to protest, calling for answers. Most of these protests have been ongoing for months, in rain and baking heat, for 24 hours.

Groundviews travelled to three of these protests, in Vavuniya, Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu. These are their stories.

This story has been created using Adobe Spark. To view it directly, click here, or scroll below.

Those who enjoyed this article might find “Appeal by families of the disappeared” and “Submissions to Consultation Task Force on missing, disappeared and MIA” enlightening. 

Read More

May Day done with: What Next?

2017-05-05

“Major venues were full of heads. But all heads are empty heads.” My sorry conclusion on crowds at May Day festivals. May Day was undoubtedly a huge three cornered political competition among Sirisena, Wickremesinghe and Rajapaksa. Competition was in filling parks they chose to have their May Day festivals in. The “official” SLFP/UPFA venue at Getambe, Peradeniya was the smallest of all venues. UNP had the fairly large Campbell Park and the surrounding roads to fill.They had State power.They had unlimited money and resources, from whatever source they came. The largest of all venues, the largest in the whole country, the Galle Face was allotted to the Joint Opposition (JO). The JVP was lost within this triangular competition. They count very little now, even in opinion-making in society. The only workers’ rally, that of a collective of 08 leading trade unions, was also lost in the melee.   

Most speakers at Galle Face taunted Sirisena and Wickremesinghe for allotting Galle Face green to them. They said they were given Galle Face green, thinking they would never be able to fill the large green expanse. “How is it now? Like to see the crowd?” they asked. Rajapaksa said, “We are people who can meet any challenge. We met your (government’s) challenge successfully. Now it is our turn to challenge you. Hold local government elections now, if you can,” 
he thundered.   

The bottom line is, Rajapaksa still holds a charisma no other leader in the government or in the opposition can match. Gotabaya, that some professionals and businessmen want to promote, was proved a nonentity.With Rajapaksa’s charisma, he is given the advantage of challenging a clumsy and corrupt government. He obviously has bounced back as the decisive factor in Sri Lankan politics.   
A Face Book (FB) post on the morning after May Day festivals said, “Thank you Ranil, Thank you Maithri, Thank you Sampanthan!” apparently blaming them all for the return of Rajapaksa. Though smacked with frustration and anger, the truth is also what the FB post very sarcastically said.  

What’s this “Yahapalanaya” ?

This “unity” government was politically conceived to meet the geo-political need of the US and its European allies. It served the “power hunger” of the UNP stalwarts. The Tamil constituency too needed to have Rajapaksa ousted from power for very justifiable reasons. Muslim people were pushed to that same square by extremely vulgar anti-Muslim hate campaigners, patronised by Gotabaya Rajapaksa. That led to a common, social understanding to have Rajapaksa voted out on January 08.  

Thereafter, what emerged on 2015 January 09 was an unethical, unprincipled and a bi-polar alliance smuggled in as the “Yahapalana” government. President Sirisena made Wickremesinghe the PM with only 47 MPs in a 225 member parliament. Never a rational choice for a serious, democratic President. This irrational, constitutionally illogical move now hurts President Sirisena day in, day out. He is forced to compete with Rajapaksa in gaining complete control over the SLFP. Presidency of this “yahapalana” government has thus ended up as a tool in the power struggle within the SLFP and nothing more.  

Meanwhile, Wickremesinghe as PM is struggling to give his government some rhetorical stability, while his allies outside his party discipline are not willing to go under his command. As SLFP members, they also feel Wickremesinghe’s neo-liberal development model provides no answers to problems in their rural Sinhala constituency. He cannot deliver on the promise of cleaning up governance and on transparency and accountability, while his own men are also into mega corruption. Aiding and abetting most mega corrupt deals, he is now seen taller than the Meethotamulla dump.   
“Yahapalanaya” is thus a disjointed two-part government with one part struggling to grab the SLFP from a man though defeated twice within one year, still commands respect and authority in the party. The other governing half trying to find investments and projects from wherever possible to treat the business community, which they are also a part of.   

Chaotic governance

Two plus years has shown this government does not have a political spine to take decisions. All because the UNP leadership knows nothing more than buying and selling in a free market economy. Their “development” is mere business on borrowed investments that accrues all benefits in the “big city”. The only hyped development proposal the government launched was the US $ 30billion Western Province Megapolis project. That is about a huge city developed in and around Colombo before 2030. That is yet to see the light of day after its launch 01 year and 03 months ago. According to PM Wickremesinghe, the whole country will be lifted up with the Megapolis project, from what he said at its launch. This government is definitely clueless about rural life.  

With no investments or aid coming from Western allies and compelled to follow the Rajapaksa path to Beijing, this Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government had no other option but to accept all Chinese projects they initially condemned as huge corrupt deals, during the 2015 January presidential elections. Having accepted them, they cannot even get those Chinese projects going. Colombo Port City, Hambantota port, Mattala airport are almost stalled. Two years and four months gone, they still try to save themselves by blaming their leaders for massive foreign debts. In fact debts have increased under them.  

The only advantage they could manage from their Western allies was with the US-SL co-sponsored UNHRC Resolution 30/1 in October 2015. That too with the asterisk, ‘conditions apply’. Government managed another 02 year extension this March on the resolution, albeit with strict warnings to abide by the conditions agreed upon. Unable to implement any condition agreed upon in the OISL Resolution 30/1 for fear of losing Sinhala votes, the government has fooled all international organisations and agencies and the Tamil people with Bills passed in parliament, frozen and shelved thereafter. UN Agencies cannot do anything more.  

Rule of law is not one this “yahapalanaya” has been able to establish. Though Supreme Court and Appeal Court appointments go without much political prodding, independence of the judiciary is very much in question as the judicial process is not just about Court Houses. It is also about how independent and efficient the investigations are and how independent and fair the prosecuting authority, the Attorney General’s Department is. Meanwhile, all Independent Commissions have proved worthless. Not worth the tax payers’ money spent on them. Allegations that protesting medical doctors, the petroleum corporation, the university students, CTB and other trade unions are all instigated by the Rajapaksas and the JO, only means this government has no authority and control over State departments and agencies.  

Giving into Rajapaksa

Two years and four months was wasted on this weird coalition government that left the Sinhala constituency at the mercy of racist Rajapaksa politics. It was pretty evident from day one, Rajapaksa was not going to lie idle at Medamulana. It was very clear he would get on to a Sinhala racist platforms. His first public comment after the defeat when his chopper landed in Medamulana, was that he is still the “President of the Sinhala people”.  

It took no time for both Sirisena and Wickremesinghe to oppose their co-sponsored OISL Resolution 30/1, initially making very vague and ambiguous statements. President Sirisena then broke the ice in early July 2016 saying as long as he is President of Sri Lanka, there will be no foreign interventions on war crime probes. That was subsequently endorsed by PM Wickremesinghe too and by now all ministers, leaving Foreign Minister Samaraweera embarrassed and vacillating in international forums.   
The Sinhala Buddhist obsession in the “yahapalana” leadership came out strongly over the past year with many decisions taken by President Sirisena getting endorsed by all ministers including the PM. TNA efforts and pleadings to have all Tamil detainees without any charges released going without answers, a firm ‘no’ by the government on de-militarising of North-East, security forces continuing to occupy private land despite token releases now and then, government’s deaf and dumb approach to “missing persons’ issue” and continuing impunity, when packaged together with the government’s hyped international Wesak Day celebrations, re-gazetting those Sinhala feudal lords who were named as “traitors” by British colonial rulers, as “national heroes”,  patronising extremely racist Buddhist monks who should actually be prosecuted for inciting racial and religious hatred and continual statements made to the effect no “war hero” would be allowed to be “dragged to Courts”, says how Sinhala racist this government is.  

All this is sheer subordination to Rajapaksa’s Sinhala Buddhist politics. The reality is, with Rajapaksa venerated by Sinhala extremism as the saviour of the Sinhala nation, it is no easy task now to overtake Rajapaksa on a Sinhala projection. That was what Rajapaksa consolidated at the Galle face green this May Day. His slogan was liberation of both “workplace and motherland”. His allegation was that this government was selling everything to foreigners. Was giving in, to Tamil separatists through a Constitution that would be smuggled through parliament.  

What would be the “yahapalana” answer to those allegations? Definitely on Sinhala racist promises. But for sure, they cannot meet the challenge of Rajapaksa’s Sinhala projection to hold LG elections however much Sinhala they would want to paint themselves with. 

TNA and Muslim leaders would be the worst off, fooled once again. “Where are we heading?” i you ask me, my candid answer would be, “heading towards an ethno-religious catastrophe” unless we start immediately a serious social dialogue on alternatives.