Peace for the World

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

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Stories of Gaza’s obliterated families

Nora Barrows-Friedman-3 May 2017

In the aftermath of Israel’s 2014 attacks on Gaza, reporter Ala Qandil and photojournalist Anne Paq collected personal stories of Palestinians whose families were devastated by Israel’s violence.
“It’s not only [about] the moment of the attack, it’s not only [about] the war, it’s about before and after,” 

Qandil told The Electronic Intifada podcast.

Qandil and Paq are the co-creators of Obliterated Families, a multimedia project that shares the stories of 10 families – through images, video and text – amongst dozens of families that Qandil and Paq visited over more than a year.

People were eager to share their experiences, Qandil said.

“Of course we were cautious with approaching families, and worried that we might be bringing more trauma, we might re-open wounds,” she explained, “but people really wanted to have someone listen to their story.”

Qandil said that one family recounted nearly a century of their “constant dispossession, constant struggle, attempts to rebuild and continue, and also [to] stay.”

Paq explained that they wanted “to show the diversity of cases and also in terms of location. We wanted to ensure that all of the Gaza Strip was represented, which makes a point – that all of the Gaza Strip was bombed during the 51 days of bombings,” she said.

“There was no place that was safe,” Paq added.

Anne Paq photographs a family. (Courtesy of Obliterated Families)


A member of the Activestills photography collective, Paq recently won the grand prize in the editorial documentary category of the International Photographer of the Year Awards for images that are central to the Obliterated Families project.

Early iterations of the project were published by The Electronic Intifada in January and July of 2015.
It has since grown into a comprehensive web documentary produced by Paq and Qandil, with the involvement of dozens of other media professionals, and is also available as a downloadable exhibition kit.

Qandil and Paq are currently touring the US with Obliterated Families through early May. For more information, visit the American Friends Service Committee website.

“White and Black: Political Cartoons from Palestine”

A brand-new collection of political cartoons by Mohammad Sabaaneh, White and Black: Political Cartoons from Palestine, depicts Palestinian life and struggle amidst the brutality of Israel’s occupation.

From White and Black: Political Cartoons from Palestine (Mohammad Sabaaneh, Just World Books)


In a podcast interview with Marguerite Dabaie, Sabaaneh said the density of his drawings was a reflection of Palestinian life.

“This crowded cartoon reflects our lives in Palestine, the limited land, and our limited city,” he told the podcast. “My blank paper looks like [Palestinian] cities surrounded by limits and I should put everything in this limited area.”

Sabaaneh is currently on tour across the US.

Listen to guest host Marguerite Dabaie interview Mohammed Sabaaneh, as well as Nora Barrows-Friedman’s conversation with Anne Paq and Ala Qandil via the media player above.

Music break: “Tightening our Strength” by Revolution Makers, Gaza
Theme music by Sharif Zakout

Israel's cabinet submits bill to declare 'Jewish nation state'


Cabinet drafts bill declaring Israel as 'national home of the Jewish people' and degrades Arabic from official language status
Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu (Reuters)


Sunday 7 May 2017
Israel's cabinet breathed new life on Sunday into efforts to anchor in law the country's status as a Jewish state and revokes Arabic's "official language" status, in legislation Palestinians have described as an obstacle to peace.
A ministerial committee approved a revised version of a bill first proposed in 2011 that declares the "State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people," its author, Avi Dichter of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing Likud party, wrote on Facebook.
The legislation still has to go through further drafting by the justice ministry and pass several votes in parliament in what could be a lengthy process.
But the cabinet-level step, two weeks before a visit by US President Donald Trump, could help Netanyahu shore up relations with far-right members of his government and underpin his campaign to press Palestinians to recognise Israel as the "nation-state" of the Jewish people.
Netanyahu has demanded this acknowledgment as a condition for reviving Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that collapsed in 2014 and which Trump has pledged to pursue.
The bill states that "the national language is Hebrew" and downgrades Arabic to "special status," but adds that "its speakers have the right to language-accessible state services".


It says that "every resident of Israel, without distinction of religion or national origin, is entitled to work to preserve his culture, heritage, language and identity," and that "the state may allow a community, including members of the same religion or national origin, to have separate communal settlements".
Palestinians say accepting Netanyahu's call could deny Palestinian refugees of past wars any right of return. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has characterised such "nation-state" legislation as putting "obstacles in the way of peace".
In meetings in Israel, Trump will discuss how he plans to broker peace between Israelis and Palestinians, a goal that has evaded many previous administrations. He is also scheduled to meet Abbas during the trip.
Critics have described the proposed legislation, which also declares that the "right to self determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people" as impinging on the rights of its Arab minority, who make up some 20 percent of the population.
Read more ►
Opponents said that the bill designates only Hebrew as the country's official language, although it requires government services and forms to be available in Arabic as well.
"The nation-state law is tyranny by the majority and 'legally' turns us into second-class citizens," Arab legislator Ayman Odeh wrote on Twitter after the cabinet committee's decision.
Dichter called the move "an important step in entrenching our identity, not only in consciousness of the world but primarily in our own minds".
The revised legislation appeared to soften previous language that would have given Jewish values prominence in law-making and judicial decisions.
Centrists in Netanyahu's government have argued that a "nation-state" bill is unnecessary, noting the 1948 Declaration of Independence has already proclaimed a Jewish state.
They have accused him of pandering to right-wingers, and past versions of the legislation failed to make it through parliament. 

Palestinian shot dead

Meanwhile, a Palestinian attempted to stab Israeli police at an entrance to Jerusalem's Old City on Sunday before she was shot dead, Israeli authorities said.
Police said the assailant approached officers while pulling out a knife at Damascus Gate, one of the main entrances to the Old City and the site of a number of such incidents in recent months.
No further details were given on the Palestinian's identity or age. No injuries were reported among Israeli police.
A wave of unrest that erupted in October 2015 has claimed the lives of 262 Palestinians, 41 Israelis, two Americans, one Jordanian, an Eritrean, a Sudanese and a Briton, according to an AFP count.
Most of the Palestinians killed were carrying out knife, gun or car-ramming attacks, Israeli authorities say.
Others were shot dead during protests or clashes, while some were killed in Israeli air strikes on the Gaza Strip.
The violence has greatly subsided in recent months.

Killer Drones in the Empire State

by Norman Solomon- 
( May 7, 2017, Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian)  At dusk I stood on a residential street with trim lawns and watched planes approach a runaway along the other side of a chain-link fence. Just a few dozen yards away, a JetBlue airliner landed.
Then a United plane followed. But the next aircraft looked different. It was a bit smaller and had no markings or taillights. A propeller whirled at the back. And instead of the high-pitched screech of a jet, the sound was more like… a drone.
During the next half-hour I saw three touch-and-go swoops by drones, their wheels scarcely reaching the runaway before climbing back above Syracuse’s commercial airport. Nearby, pilots were at the controls in front of Air Force computers, learning how to operate the MQ-9 Reaper drone that is now a key weapon of U.S. warfare from Afghanistan to the Middle East to Africa.
Since last summer the Defense Department has been using the runway and airspace at the Syracuse Hancock International Airport to train drone operators, who work at the adjoining Air National Guard base. Officials say it’s the first time that the federal government has allowed military drones to utilize a commercial airport. It won’t be the last time.
No longer will the pilots who steer drones and fire missiles while staring at computer screens be confined to remote areas like the Nevada desert. With scant public information or debate, sizable American communities are becoming enmeshed in drone warfare on other continents. Along the way, how deeply will we understand — in human terms — what the drone war is doing to people far away? And to us?
***     ***     ***
The takeoffs and landings of military drones at the Syracuse airport get little attention in New York’s fifth-largest city. Already routine, the maneuvers are hardly noticed. In an elevator at a hotel near the airport, I mentioned the Reaper drone exercises to an American Airlines flight attendant who had just landed on the same runway as the drones. “I had no idea,” she said.
The Reaper drones using the Syracuse runway are unarmed, the Air Force says. But when trainees go operational, their computer work includes aiming and launching Hellfire missiles at targets many thousands of miles away.
Despite the official claims that drone strikes rarely hit civilians, some evidence says otherwise. For example, leaked classified documents (obtained by The Intercept) shed light on a series of U.S. airstrikes codenamed Operation Haymaker. From January 2012 to February 2013, those drone attacks in northeast Afghanistan killed more than 200 people, but only about one-sixth of them were the intended targets.
Even without a missile strike, there are traumatic effects of drones hovering overhead. The former New York Times reporter David Rohde has described what he experienced during captivity by the Taliban in tribal areas of Pakistan: “The drones were terrifying. From the ground, it is impossible to determine who or what they are tracking as they circle overhead. The buzz of a distant propeller is a constant reminder of imminent death.”
As civic leaders in Syracuse and elsewhere embrace the expanding domestic involvement in day-to-day drone warfare, clear mention of the human toll far away is almost taboo. Elected officials join with business groups and public-relations officers from the military in extolling the benefits and virtues. Rarely does anyone acknowledge that civilians are maimed and killed as a result of the extolled activities, or that — in the name of a war on terror — people in foreign lands are subjected to the airborne presence of drones that is (to use Rohde’s word) “terrifying.”
Such matters are a far cry from Syracuse, where the local airport’s role in drone warfare is visible yet virtually unseen. My random conversations with dozens of Syracuse residents in many walks of life turned up scant knowledge or concern about the nearby drone operations. What’s front and center is the metropolitan area’s economic distress.
Unlike the well-financed Air National Guard base, the city’s crumbling infrastructure and budgets for relieving urban blight are on short rations. When I talked with people in low-income neighborhoods of Syracuse — one of the poorest cities in the United States — despair was often unmistakable. A major study by the Century Foundation identified Syracuse as the city with the highest concentrations of poverty among African Americans and Hispanics in the United States. Locally, the latest influx of federal largesse is for the drone war, not for them.
***     ***     ***
A group called Upstate Drone Action has been protesting at the Air National Guard base on the outskirts of Syracuse with frequent vigils and persistent civil disobedience. A recent demonstration, on Good Friday, included nine arrests. The participants said in a joint statement: “What if our country were constantly being spied upon by drones, with some of us killed by drones? What if many bystanders, including children, were killed in the process? If that were happening, we would hope that some people in that attacking country would speak up and try to stop the killing. We’re speaking up to try and stop the illegal and immoral drone attacks on countries against which Congress has not declared war.”
The last couple of months have not gone well for authorities trying to discourage civil disobedience — what organizers call “civil resistance” — at the base. In early March, a jury in the Dewitt Town Court took just half an hour to acquit four defendants on all charges from an action two years ago that could have resulted in a year behind bars for disorderly conduct, trespassing and obstruction of government administration.
Later in March, citing a lack of jurisdiction, a local judge dismissed charges against four people who set up a “nativity tableau” in front of the main gate at the Hancock Air Force Base two days before Christmas last year. In a press release, Upstate Drone Action said that the activists had been “protesting the hunter/killer MQ-9 Reaper drones piloted over Afghanistan by the 174th Attack Wing of the New York National Guard” at the base.
***     ***     ***
The U.S. drone war is escalating in numerous countries. A year ago the head of the Air Combat Command, Gen. Herbert Carlisle, told a Senate subcommittee that “an insatiable demand” was causing U.S. drone operations to grow at a “furious pace.” That pace has become even more furious since President Trump took office. In early April a researcher at the Council on Foreign Relations, Micah Zenko, calculated that President Trump had approved an average of one drone attack per day — a fivefold increase from the rate under the Obama administration.
Upstate New York is leading the way for the Pentagon’s plan to expand its drone program from isolated areas into populous communities, which offer ready access to workers. One hundred and sixty miles to the west of Syracuse, just outside the city of Niagara Falls, an Air National Guard base — the largest employer in the county — is in the final stages of building a cutting-edge digital tech center with huge bandwidth. There, pilots and sensor operators will do shifts at computer consoles, guiding MQ-9 drones and firing missiles on kill missions. The center is on track to become fully operational in a matter of months.
At the main gate of the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, a sergeant from the public-affairs office was upbeat about the base “operating the MQ-9 remotely piloted aircraft.” At city hall the mayor of Niagara Falls, a liberal Democrat, sounded no less pleased, while carefully sidestepping my questions about whether he could see any downsides to the upcoming drone role. A local businessman who chairs the Niagara Military Affairs Council — a private organization that has long spearheaded efforts to prevent closure of the base — told me that getting the drone mission was crucial for keeping the base open.
In such ways, functioning locally while enabling globally, the political economy and mass psychology of militarism do the work of the warfare state.
Norman Solomon is the author of “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” He is a co-founder of RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. This article was first published by ExposeFacts, a program of IPA. Published by ExposeFacts.

The Arab Prince Standing Up to Trump

Prince Zeid Raad al-Hussein has emerged as the Middle East's most prominent defender of human rights — both in the region of his birth, and the United States.
The Arab Prince Standing Up to Trump

No automatic alt text available.BY KIM GHATTAS-MAY 2, 2017

If ever there were a sign that the world is upside down, it is that a Muslim prince from an Arab royal family is now one of the leading voices defending human rights on the global stage. At a time when the issue seems to be taking a back seat everywhere, Prince Zeid Raad al-Hussein of Jordan, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, has excoriated Western politicians for their xenophobia and requested an investigation into allegations of torture in Bahrain — even as the United States announced it is lifting human rights restrictions on arm sales to the kingdom.

Before the U.S. election, Zeid stood in front of the U.N. General Assembly in September and decried “race-baiting bigots who seek to gain, or retain, power by wielding prejudice and deceit at the expense of those most vulnerable.”

He explicitly called out Geert Wilders and Donald Trump in another speech, decrying Wilders’s “lies and half-truths, manipulations, and peddling of fear.” He added that his own personal background must be a nightmare for xenophobes everywhere, as a “Muslim, who is, confusingly to racists, also white-skinned; whose mother is European and father, Arab.” And since Trump’s ascension to the White House, Zeid has not shied way from criticizing him, calling the new administration’s travel ban “mean-spirited” and illegal under human rights law. In fact, he was the only prominent Arab voice on the world stage denouncing the ban and speaking out about the impact on Arab communities in the United States while Arab governments stayed mum.

Zeid, a former U.N. peacekeeper in the Balkans and Jordanian ambassador to Washington and an expert of international justice who played a central role in the establishment of the International Criminal Court, is now regularly taking on the populists and demagogues who increasingly dominate the world stage. At the same time, he has blasted several of the most powerful regimes in the Arab world for their human rights abuses — and has been criticized in the region for airing its dirty laundry.

Don’t get me wrong: Plenty of Arabs have fought and died for human rights in the region’s history. And Western countries, especially the United States, have far from a pristine record when it comes to human rights. If you live in the Arab world or Latin America, on the receiving end of American foreign policy, you look at Trump’s embrace and praise of strongmen and autocrats, and you probably feel that at least his words match U.S. actions.

But when big powers throw the defense of values out the window, and stop even paying lip service to it, it emboldens countries with questionable human rights records to stamp out dissent without fear of international consequences. It even raises concerns about accountability and rule of law within the West.
At the Conservative Party conference in October, British Prime Minister Theresa May attacked “activist left-wing human rights lawyers” who “harangue and harass the bravest of the brave the men and women of our armed forces.”

Speaking to me over the phone recently from Geneva, Zeid remains deeply worried about what he sees unfolding in the United States and on the world stage. He has yet to meet anyone from the Trump administration, and while he holds out some hope that the administration will recognize the importance of defending human rights, it’s dwindling fast. Most recently, Trump invited President Rodrigo Duterte, the strongman in the Philippines, who has been accused of ordering extrajudicial killings, to the White House after what the administration termed a “very friendly conversation.”

“No U.S. administration since 1946 has ever spurned the human rights agenda,” he told me. “Let’s hope this is not the first administration to do so.”

Although he admits that the current international order is not perfect, he reproaches those who want to tear it down for not thinking through what would replace it.
“When these institutions start to crumble, then the [international] laws go with them, and where does it stop?” he wondered.
“When these institutions start to crumble, then the [international] laws go with them, and where does it stop?” he wondered.

The Trump administration is reportedly seeking to cut $1 billion in funding for U.N. peacekeeping and several hundred million dollars for other U.N. agencies like UNICEF and the U.N. Development Programme. It also just ended funding for the U.N. Population Fund. The impulse of defunding U.N. bodies ignores the leverage gained inside the international organization by being its largest funder. This is not a new debate. Sen. Jesse Helms was a fierce critic of the United Nations and led the effort to cap U.S. contributions to its budget to 22 percent. The enacting of the Helms-Biden Act to reform the U.S.-U.N. relationship in 2001 meant that the United States released millions of dollars in back dues to the organization, which was hailed at the time as a way to strengthen the U.S. role at the U.N. Although working through the United Nations may seem at odds with an “America First” agenda, it can in fact help to advance America’s own goals on the world stage.

But for Zeid, the key message he wants to convey to Western leaders is that while the defense of human rights may seem like a fluffy endeavor of leftist activists, it is in fact the best antidote against extremism. He pointed to the March 22 attack in London, in which an Islamist extremist drove a car into pedestrians near Westminster Palace, killing five people and injuring 50. “No increases in defense budgets or the like would have had any effect on preventing someone like that,” Zeid said. Extremism and intolerance can be more successfully combated by the West and Arab world, he suggested, if their societies showed more consistent respect for everyone’s rights and concerns.

More crucially, Zeid made the case that there is a connection between a country’s respect for human rights and its political stability — a link that explains why and how dictatorships have come undone in the Middle East over the past several years. He cites the overreaction of the Syrian authorities in 2011 to children scribbling anti-government slogans in the southern city of Daraa as an example of how human rights abuses can trigger massive upheaval.

“Had the police not abused these children, then the demonstration wouldn’t have been so widespread and maybe we wouldn’t be where we are right now in Syria,” he said. “Human rights are very often a very sensitive seismograph for problems that can expand into a giant security issue.”

Zeid also worries about the West’s reaction — rather, overreaction — to terrorism. Security policies that limit civil liberties help fuel the very sort of radicalism that these countries are trying to prevent. But Western leaders and politicians tend to be flummoxed when Zeid brings up their human rights failings, he said — not least because the criticism is coming from an Arab.

“It’s a question I often receive: ‘Who on earth do you think you are, lecturing us?’ especially European countries or the U.S. or Canada, or whoever it may be, given my background,” Zeid said.

Whether it’s members of Congress or European parliamentarians, they all assume that when Zeid meets with them, it’s solely to discuss abuses in an African country or the Middle East — i.e., the “global south” — not the treatment of refugees in Europe or the abuse of force by American police officers.
“It’s amazing to see that they hadn’t even thought that the human rights agenda applies to them,” he said.
“It’s amazing to see that they hadn’t even thought that the human rights agenda applies to them,” he said. “I think the relevance of the agenda is that it’s universal.”

Though the Trump administration has not yet criticized him, Zeid has faced the ire of the Russians, who lodged an official complaint with the U.N. secretary-general after his comments about xenophobic populists like Trump and Wilders in September 2016.

“Prince Zeid is overstepping his limits from time to time, and we’re unhappy about it,” said Russia’s then-U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin. “He criticized a number of heads of state, government. He should stick to his file, which is important enough.”

But the fiercest pushback Zeid has faced comes from his own region, the Arab world, where he and his office have called out various governments, from Bahrain to Saudi Arabia, on the use of torture and restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Zeid said he doesn’t pull his punches, pointing out that in 2014 he pointedly criticized his own country for reinstating the death penalty. In 2015, Zeid also issued a report saying the Saudi-led military coalition fighting in Yemen may have committed human rights violations. The Jordanian foreign minister publicly rejected the report and defended the work of the coalition.

“I think they look at me in disbelief, believing in a very tribal sense that as an Arab, my job is not to disclose the dirty laundry of Arab governments,” he told me. “I don’t take instructions from any government. I don’t respond well to pressure from any government; neither do any of my staff.”

This has put a strain on his relationship with his home country of Jordan, which he represented both in Washington and at the U.N. (King Abdullah of Jordan is his cousin.) Zeid has spent a total of only three days back home on a private visit since he took up his post in 2014.

“It pains me, because it’s a country that I love and that I represented with pride for many years — not that it’s a country that has a prefect human rights record, clearly not, but it’s a country that I have an attachment for. But now the relationship is quite cool.”

Zeid is in his post until September 2018 and would have to be re-elected by the General Assembly, but he believes his outspokenness will mean there will be little support for him to remain in the job. While he still has his position, however, he hopes he can set an example and inspire other young activists and human rights lawyers in the Arab world, when they see that he not only raises the issue of human rights in the Arab world but also is the only voice defending the rights of Arab communities in Europe and the United States — Arab governments have been shamefully silent about the treatment of refugees in Europe and the U.S. travel ban and the impact it had on their citizens.

“I hope that in the future, you would have a whole generation of young Arab activists, lawyers taking part in this global movement” of fighting for human rights, he told me. “One legacy that I hope I can leave behind is that young people, young lawyers, young activists are inspired by the work our office does.”

ROBERT VOS/AFP/Getty Images

Macron to become next French president after beating back Le Pen and her populist tide

Centrist Emmanuel Macron has won the French presidency. He defeated Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s far-right National Front, a strongly anti-immigrant populist party. Macron, 39, will now become France's youngest head of state since Napoleon Bonaparte. (Adam Taylor, Jason Aldag/The Washington Post)


 France on Sunday shrugged off the siren call of right-wing populism that enchanted voters in the United States and United Kingdom, rejecting anti-E.U. firebrand Marine Le Pen and choosing as its next president Emmanuel Macron, a centrist political neophyte who has pledged to revive both his struggling country and the flailing continent.

The result brought to a close a tumultuous and polarized campaign that defied prediction at nearly every turn, though not at the end. Pre-election polls had forecast a sizable Macron victory, and he appeared to have delivered, with projections issued after polls closed showing him with around 65 percent of the vote.

In a speech to the nation, Macron said the country had “turned a new page in our long history. I want it to be a page of renewed hope and trust.”

The president-elect also reached out to Le Pen voters, saying he could understand their anger, while vowing to defend both France and Europe. “This is our civilization that’s at stake, our way of life,” he said.

Macron was expected to speak again later Sunday night in the grand courtyard of Paris’s Louvre Museum, where news of his win spawned raucous cheers among thousands of flag-waving Macron backers.

The leader of the far-right National Front party thanked her 11 million supporters and said that the country had 'chosen continuity.' (Reuters)

“I feel relieved,” said Valentin Coutouly, a 23-year-old student who described himself as “European to the core” and who was celebrating on a chilly May night. “I think we were all afraid that Le Pen could actually win. We realized in the end that it was possible.” 

At her own gathering at a Paris restaurant, a downcast Le Pen conceded defeat, telling her demoralized supporters that the country had “chosen continuity” and said the election had drawn clear lines between “the patriots and the globalists.”

The outcome — the latest blow in 2017 for far-right movements that had seemed to be on the march last year — will soothe Europe’s anxious political establishment. Across the continent, mainstream politicians had feared that a Le Pen victory would throw in reverse decades of efforts to forge continental integration.

But the outcome instantly puts pressure on Macron to deliver on promises made to an unhappy French electorate, including reform of two institutions notoriously resistant to change: the European Union and the French bureaucracy.

At 39, the trim, blue-eyed and square-jawed Macron will become France’s youngest leader since Napoleon when he is inaugurated this weekend, and his election caps an astonishing  rise. 

With a background in investment banking and a turn as economy minister under a historically unpopular president, he may have seemed an ill fit for the anti-establishment anger coursing through Western politics.

See the scene as the French elect Emmanuel Macron as their new president.

French citizens across the globe vote in tense election that could decide Europe’s future, choosing pro-business progressive Emmanuel Macron over far-right populist Marine Le Pen.

But by bucking France’s traditional parties and launching his own movement – En Marche, or Onward -- Macron managed to cast himself as the outsider the country needs. And by unapologetically embracing the European Union, immigration and the multicultural tableau of modern France, he positioned himself as the optimistic and progressive antidote to the dark and reactionary vision of Le Pen’s National Front.

Le Pen, 48, has long sought to become the first far-right leader elected in Western Europe’s post-war history. Sunday’s vote frustrated those ambitions, but is unlikely to end them. 

By winning around 35 percent of the vote, she nearly doubled the share won by her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, in the 2002 election, the only other time the National Front’s candidate has made it to the second round. The result seemed to cement the party’s long march from the political fringe to the center of the nation’s discontented political discourse, if not the pinnacle of its power.

Struggling with chronically high unemployment and recurrent terrorist attacks, France’s mood on the day of its presidential vote was reflected in the dark clouds and chilly spring rains that blanketed much of the country. 

Nonetheless, the public voted at a rate that would be the envy of many Western democracies: From the chic neighborhoods of Paris to the struggling post-industrial towns of the French countryside, turnout nationwide was expected to reach 75 percent, down slightly from previous votes.

No matter whom French voters picked, the choice was bound to be historic.

The dominant two parties of France’s Fifth Republic were both eliminated in the first round. The center-left Socialists were decimated, brought low by the failure of current President Francois Hollandeto turn around the economy or to prevent a succession of mass-casualty terrorist attacks. 

The center-right Republicans, meanwhile, missed what was once seen as a sure-fire bet at returning to power after their candidate, former prime minister Francois Fillon, was hobbled by a series of corruption allegations.  

The two candidates who remained, Le Pen and Macron, both traced an outsider’s path as they sought residence at the Élysée Palace. 

Of the two, Macron had the more direct route. But his campaign still had to overcome all the usual challenges of a start-up, plus some extraordinary ones — including the publication online Friday night of thousands of hacked campaign documents in a cyber-attack that aroused suspicions of Russian meddling.

The outcome of Sunday’s vote will have profound implications not only for France’s 67 million citizens, but also for the future of Europe and for the political trajectory across the Western world

After a pair of  dramatic triumphs for the populist right in 2016 – with Brexit in the U.K., and Donald Trump in the U.S. – France’s vote was viewed as a test of whether the political mainstream could beat back a rising tide.

Many of Europe’s mainstream leaders -- both center-right and center-left – lined up to cheer Macron on after he punched his ticket to the second round in a vote last month. The endorsements were a break from protocol for presidents and prime ministers who normally stay out of each other’s domestic elections. 

But they reflected the gravity of the choice that France faced. A victory by Le Pen was seen as a possible market-rattling death blow to decades of efforts to draw Europe more closely together, with the country’s new president expected to lead campaigns to take the country out of both the E.U. and the euro. 

Former U.S. president Barack Obama had also endorsed Macron, and the young French politician often appeared to be trying to emulate the magic of Obama’s 2008 campaign with speeches that appealed to hope, change and unity -- while eliding many of the details of his policies. 

The current White House occupant, Trump, was  cagey about his choice, saying before the first round that Le Pen was “the strongest on borders and she's the strongest on what's been going on in France.” He predicted that she would do well, but stopped short of endorsing her.

After Macron’s victory, Trump tweeted congratulations shortly after 3 p.m. Washington time on “his big win today as the next President of France. I look very much forward to working with him!”

On the campaign trail this spring, Le Pen’s rhetoric had often echoed Trump’s, with vows to put “France first” and to defend “the forgotten France.” She also condemned globalist cosmopolitans – Macron chief among them -- who she said did not have the nation’s interests at heart. 

But she had distanced herself from Trump since his inauguration, often declining to mention him by name, and analysts said her association with the unpopular American president may have hurt her among French voters. 

Macron shares almost nothing with Trump except one key fact: Like the New York real estate tycoon, Macron became president of his country on his first run for elective office.

The son of doctors who was raised in the northern city of Amiens, Macron had to teach himself the basics of campaigning on the fly in the white-hot glare of a presidential race. 

Vowing repeatedly during the campaign to borrow from both left and right, he will now have to learn how to govern a country without the backing of any of its traditional parties. 

Instead, he has a movement that he built from scratch, and now faces the immediate challenge of getting En Marche allies elected to the National Assembly. 

That vote, due next month, will determine whether Macron has the parliamentary support he needs to enact an agenda of sweeping economic reforms, many of which are likely to unsettle the country’s deeply entrenched labor unions.

Despite his victory, pre-election polls showed that most of Macron’s supporters saw themselves voting against Le Pen rather than for him. 

That was reflected on the streets Sunday, with voters even in well-to-do and heavily pro-Macron neighborhoods of Paris saying they felt more resigned than excited. 

“On the one hand you have a far-right party that will take us straight to disaster,” said Gilbert Cohen, a retired 82-year-old engineer who cast his ballot amid the vaulted ceilings of Paris’s 17th century Place des Vosges, a former royal residence that was also home to Victor Hugo. “On the other, you have the candidate who’s the only reasonable choice we have.” 

Cohen described Macron as “brilliant.” But, he said, the new boy wonder of French politics “can’t govern by himself.” 

Elsewhere in France, the mood was even more markedly downbeat. In Laon, a small and struggling city 90 miles north of Paris, many voters said they were so disillusioned by the choice that they would cast a blank ballot. 

Others said their disenchantment had led them to Le Pen – and a hope that, despite the polls, she could still eke out a victory that would bring the radical break for France that they crave. 

“We’ve had 50 years of rule from the left and the right,” said Francis Morel, a 54-year-old bread maker who cast his ballot for Le Pen. “Nothing has changed.” 

The mood was considerably more upbeat Sunday night at the Louvre, where Macron supporters gathered in what was once the seat of French kings for their candidate’s victory celebration.

 Stéphanie Ninel, 31, a technician, said she had been at the Louvre since just after lunchtime, braving the chilly weather to snag a prime position in the crowd.  

“I’ve been old enough to vote in three elections now,” she said. “But this is the first time I feel I’ve been able to vote for someone with actual conviction. He’s a new person, and he demands a new politics.”

Stanley-Becker reported from Laon and McAuley from Paris. Benjamin Zagzag in Laon and Virgile Demoustier in Paris contributed to this report.
Indonesia: Over 200 inmates recaptured after prison escape, 234 still at large


2017-05-05T114043Z_1788932758_RC19D71A0200_RTRMADP_3_INDONESIA-PRISON-940x580
An Indonesian soldier guards as a plainclothes policeman (C) detains a prisoner who escaped from the Sialang Bungkuk jail in Pekanbaru, on Indonesia's Sumatra island, May 5, 2017 in this photo taken by Antara Foto. Antara Foto/Rony Muharrman via REUTERS

 
INDONESIAN authorities have confirmed 213 inmates who escaped from an overcrowded prison on Sumatra Island have been recaptured.

According to the Bangkok Post, government officials say the 447 inmates escaped from the Sialang Bungkuk Prison in Pekanbaru on Friday afternoon during a riot caused by bad conditions in the prison.

“So 234 others are still at large,” I Wayan Dusak, the country’s director-general of prisons said.

An Associated Press report states that the prisoners were let out of their cells to perform Friday prayers. They proceeded to break through the prison door and overwhelming the few guards on duty.

Jailbreaks are a common occurrence in Indonesia and there was a series of breakouts in 2013.


Inmates in the Sialang Bungkuk Prison had complained about the way they were treated in the jail and also accused some of the guards of violence towards them.

The male-only prison was able to hold up to 700 inmates but was housing about 1,800 prisoners at the time of the breakout Riau police told Metro TV. Five guards and a porter were on duty at any one time.

Hundreds of police and soldiers have been deployed to hunt for the prisoners.

According to Al-Jazeera, the over a thousand inmates who did not escape had refused to return to their cells unless the head guard was replaced.

Additional reporting from Reuters.