Peace for the World

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

Friday, May 19, 2017

‘Lucky’: A moving South African Film about the Transforming Society

The film ends with an optimistic scene: the pastor opening the door and taking care of Lucky. He gives a glass of milk on Lucky’s request. Lucky wants more sugar. Daddy warns, ‘too much sugar is not good.’ Now they are united


by Laksiri Fernando- 

( May 19, 2017, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) I first thought of watching the movie on NITV (National Indigenous Television – Australia) last night (18 May 2017), because ‘Lucky’ was also my pet name, as a child. But when I was watching, it turned out to be quite a learning experience as it was about post-apartheid South Africa. One exceptional observation was that there was no ‘white’ to be seen. The reason is not any ‘apartheid’ on the part of the author/director, Avie Luthra, but the context is a remote Zulu village and a provincial town.


The Story
Lucky is a ten-year old Zulu boy (performed by Sihle Dlamini) who wants to pursue schooling in the town after his mother dies of a terrible sickness. He was very keen in learning English. Perhaps this was his mother’s wish inculcated in Lucky’s mind. He is left with little money and an address in the town of his uncle (mother’s brother). Money was sufficient to get a ride to town. The address was helpful to locate the uncle’s ramshackle apartment.
What pictures throughout the movie is still prevailing poverty or hardship and underdevelopment with human relations which have become almost inhuman. The last ailment is however not the trait of the young boy, Lucky, with immense enthusiasm and kindness to others. That is the hope that any transforming society has for the future.
Uncle does not have even a cassette player in his apartment. Lucky’s urge is to listen to a message that his mother has left in a cassette tape before she died in a hospital in town. In the dilapidated apartment building, there is an old Indian lady, Padma, quite a character in the whole film. In seeing the struggle of this old grandma, Lucky’s heart also melts. He fetches the lady drinking water. That is how the relationship starts. At the same time, he has the pragmatic urge to use her cassette player to listen to his mother’s message. This is fulfilled although Padma was naturally suspicious of the ‘black boy’ and doesn’t want him to come closer. Her antipathy is also governed by the age-old notions of ‘untouchability’ of the Hindu caste system.
The episodes in this regard are quite humorous nicely acted by Jayashree Basvaraj as Padma.
Mother’s Message
In the cassette message, mother says, Lucky’s father is dead. She has apparently given enough money to the uncle, sufficient for Lucky to attend school which uncle vehemently denies. That is how the quarrel begins between the uncle and the nephew. They themselves facing hardships, uncle’s new partner is more vicious than the uncle. Lucky goes after the old lady for solace, which becomes a nuisance to her. At the same time, her heart starts to melt. He follows her to a restaurant which the old lady frequents to have meals. The young Indian woman who owns the restaurant throws a new vision to the story.
‘Is he a nuisance?’ she asks. ‘This is new South Africa, we should be more tolerant,’ she advises Padma.
The restaurant-lady also reveals that carers of orphans can get a handsome grant from the government now to look after them. This is a new welfare policy after Apartheid. This strikes Padma’s imagination, not because of money, but because there is now a viable avenue to help Lucky. Padma also has a story of her own which is revealed to Lucky later in explaining the pictures of a family photo album. She has had a handsome, but a stubborn son like Lucky, whose story is not completely revealed in the film. It is not important. What is important is this lonely lady receives motherly affection from Lucky although belonged to a different race. This was not possible in the strictly segregated apartheid South Africa.
After receiving a government grant, Padma sends Lucky to a good school, but not for so long. The uncle intervenes, greedy of the government grant. He with his partner lady, even physically attacks Padma to get hold of the custody of Lucky or rather the government grant. Her hand is cut. Lucky flees the situation and becomes a vagabond for a while. This part of the film perhaps is aiming at showing the still prevailing deprived conditions in South Africa however with emerging hopes and progress. The role of the police and the government officers are depicted in favourable image. The rule of law is emerging. Yet, some unruly behaviour of gangsters continues. South Africa still is a society in transition.
Looking for Farther
After finding Lucky again, Padma takes Lucky to his home village in search of roots and solutions, on her own expense. Now she is closely enmeshed with this boy’s fate. What is revealed during the visit is the visit of Lucky’s father to the village recently who is apparently a special pastor now performing burial rituals in a distant suburb. Did Lucky’s mother lie to him in the cassette message that he was dead? It is an enigma in the story. Padma now realising her last days, wanted to handover the boy to his father. They find him, but he denies the fatherhood. His story is different. He claims that Lucky’s mother was pregnant when they met and became wedded. But is that a reason to deny responsibility for this young boy?
‘Denial of responsibility’ is a common ailment of a conflict-ridden society. Lucky questions it. All are enmeshed in terrible conflicts, internally and externally. ‘Why do you earn money by singing hymns to the dead?’ He questions his apparent father. Pastor is also confused. He says, ‘dead is our only console.’ ‘Do we meet them after our death?’ Lucky asks. Pastor assures that it is the case, if they are good, and repeats that ‘your mother was a good woman.’ This is apparently an indigenous belief in South Africa and in many countries.
Still there is no resolution to the boy’s fate. Padma goes to the extent of selling her much-treasured gold jewellery and offering the whole wealth to Lucky. ‘My days are numbered,’ she says. Lucky doesn’t want to take her money, however. They were staying at a small hotel during the journey. Lucky finally decides to leave the kind grandma and knocks at the step-father’s door. Who knows, he must be lying! He must be my father! It was a taxi driver who told Lucky once that ‘elders often lie, mostly for their survival.’ Lucky understands.
The film ends with an optimistic scene: the pastor opening the door and taking care of Lucky. He gives a glass of milk on Lucky’s request. Lucky wants more sugar. Daddy warns, ‘too much sugar is not good.’ Now they are united.
An Assessment
I have seen many good films on NITV, but this is one of the best. The story of losing/missing mother or father must be (or must have been) common to many indigenous youngsters in Australia and elsewhere. That must be why the National Indigenous Television (NITV) has selected it. It is also a universal theme among the poor. Lucky however never gives up. It might be an excellent inspiration for any youngster to follow Lucky, whatever the circumstances.
I understand that this was first released in July 2012 in South Africa and have several international awards to its credit now. The dialogues of the film are in Zulu, Hindi and English with necessary English subtitles and there is a possibility that I got some dialogues or episodes inaccurate, for better or worse. The film runs for 100 minutes with soothing music, I understand by Philip Miller. Avie Luthra should be immensely congratulated for this excellent story and production.

Dangerous escape from Gaza’s despair

In Gaza, where the unemployment rate is among the highest in the world, some young people are risking their lives to find work in Israel.Abed Rahim KhatibAPA images


The boundary between the occupied Gaza Strip and Israel is clearly perilous.

In March, Yousif Abu Athra, 15, was killed by Israeli artillery fire near Gaza’s southern boundary with Israel.

Two more Palestinian youths, both 19, were nearly killed that same month when they lost their way near the boundary and were fired upon by the Israeli military.

Yet despite such injuries and deaths – and the shoot-to-kill policy Israeli soldiers appear to be operating under in Gaza’s boundary areas – some youngsters are undeterred.

Muhammad Ukasha, 24, is one.

Ukasha is determined to cross the boundary to find work. And his is not an uncommon attitude in Gaza, where after five decades of Israeli military occupation, 10 years of economic blockade and repeated military offensives, unemployment has reached 42 percent – 58 percent among young people – and nearly 80 percent of the population receive humanitarian aid.

No airport, no seaport, and with Gaza’s southern border crossing closed by Egypt since October 2014 and opened with only rare exception, young people in the territory have few alternatives to the dismal situation.

According to Israel, there was a 25 percent increase in the number of Palestinians apprehended each month trying to cross over from Gaza in the months after the most recent military offensive in the summer of 2014. In total, 170 people were caught in similar attempts during the year. Most of those incidents occurred between September and December.

A Palestinian internal security source based in Gaza, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told The Electronic Intifada those numbers have stayed high. The source noted that authorities in Gaza counted 280 attempts – mostly by those under the age of 30 – to cross the boundary in the last three months of 2016. Seventy percent of those attempting to cross, according to the source, were apprehended on the Palestinian side by Palestinian security forces.

Ukasha’s calculation is simple: his needs to overcome any hesitation he might have about risking his life. He lives in the Jabaliya refugee camp in a tin-roofed, two-room house with nine relatives. The family lives in severe poverty, with his diabetic father unable to work. They survive through the charity of neighbors and occasional food parcels distributed by relief institutions.

Gaza’s slow death

Ukasha is confident he’ll find a way to get to Israel; he did it once before. He was arrested then, nearly three years ago, and imprisoned for nine months. But he considered it a success since he was not classified as a security prisoner and worked as a painter inside prison, managing to save some money.

“I’m totally exhausted and I see no real hope in Gaza. Here there is only war and siege. I just want to improve my economic situation to help my family. They are slowly dying. And nobody cares. So I’ll keep trying to get into Israel, even if it costs me my life.”

He is already rehearsing the route in his mind. It is dangerous, he said, counting the obstacles out loud: electric fence; dirt road that is regularly inspected for footprints; huge barbed wire fence and then often hidden military positions.

He is confident he would find a job if he manages to cross, even if only in prison. “Either way, I am happy. And if I am killed?” The young man smiled. “Dying in these circumstances is better than the slow death of life in Gaza.”

In the last few months, according to the same internal security official, there has been an ongoing willingness of youths to risk their lives by attempting to cross the boundary. According to internal security, 41 youths were stopped by Palestinian forces trying to infiltrate across in the last two weeks of March alone.

Samir Zaqout, a field researcher with Al Mezan, a human rights group in Gaza, said his research suggests the numbers are increasing, with his organization documenting dozens of cases of children below the age of 18 trying to get across.

The increase, he said, “comes due to siege, poverty, unemployment. Sometimes it’s for personal reasons.”

By hook or by sea

Routes into Israel do not just go overland.

Ahmad Mousa tried to swim across the boundary. The 22-year-old was spotted by soldiers at a military position near an Israeli naval base 800 meters from the boundary. They shot him in both legs.

He was taken to an Israeli hospital and then, he told The Electronic Intifada, intensely interrogated: “Where are you from, why did you come, whom are you working with, what is your [political] party, where are your weapons, what is your mission?”

The questions kept coming, Mousa said, but in the end, satisfied that he came only to seek work, they imprisoned him for two months before sending him back to Gaza.

Mousa suggested there were dozens of others like himself that he knew of personally. Mostly, he said, they were caught trying to cross and sent back. Sometimes they were apprehended in the towns and villages within 20 or 25 kilometers of Gaza where many of them sought work.

And sometimes, they succeeded, at least for a while.

Ghassan Abed, 32, smuggled himself across the boundary just after the 2008-2009 military offensive on Gaza. He evaded capture for a long time, working first in construction in Tel Aviv for three years and then as a fisherman in Jaffa for a Palestinian family for another 15 months.

He was only arrested after someone informed on him. After a spell in prison, he was sent back to Gaza in late 2013.

He has no regrets. With the money he saved, he managed to build a decent life in Gaza. He is now married with two children.

“If I hadn’t done it, I may never have had the opportunity to build a family here.”

Official concerns

The authorities in Gaza are aware of the phenomenon and say they are working to protect youth from the danger of being shot or captured and coerced into becoming spies. Eyad al-Buzom, spokesperson for the ministry of interior, said the ministry had noted an increase in the number of attempts at sneaking across the boundary.

“The number is increasing and most [of those trying to cross] are between the ages of 17 to 28,” he said. He rejected, however, that the issue had become a major concern, describing those who try to cross as “poorly educated youths” who “dream of a better life.”

The ministry has set up a special security unit to increase control of the boundary area and prevent youths from trying to cross into Israel. But this is not only for their own safety. In addition to exposing themselves to harm, their actions also pose a national security problem, the spokesperson said.

“Israel is using those people to collect information about everything in Gaza, especially members of the resistance, tunnels, weapons and every possible bit of information they might find.”

The task of securing the boundary is not an easy one, however. The boundary unit receives special training, al-Buzom said, but the job sometimes makes it a target for Israeli soldiers.

“Everybody must take seriously the responsibility to prevent this from happening, starting with the person himself, his family, and ending with the government, which must help these people find jobs and live with reasonable standards.”

Sinai route

The most dangerous route is via the Sinai. This route is usually only undertaken by more experienced people familiar with the Sinai desert. Generally, these people are between 30 and 40 years of age, 
according to one smuggler who spoke to The Electronic Intifada on condition of anonymity.

This journey starts in the commercial tunnels – some still operate under the Gaza-Egypt border despite an Egyptian clampdown – and runs through the Sinai desert. There, in the sandy wilderness, those who are desperate enough then cross the border into Israel and head for an area called al-Dhahrieh, a small town in the Naqab desert.

Hazem, who did not want to give his full name, is from the northern Gaza Strip. He undertook this journey in 2012. But the 23-year-old wound up spending 16 months in an Israeli prison after he was tracked down by soldiers in an army jeep just before reaching al-Dhahrieh.

Hazem walked for two straight days through the desert with a local guide, who abandoned him on the third day.

“I paid $1,000 to make this journey. I had business in Israel, but was not allowed to enter through Erez,” he said, referring to the checkpoint on Gaza’s northern boundary.

Today, he suggested, the journey is rare: both Israeli and Egyptian authorities have ramped up security in the area.

Hamza Abu Eltarabesh is a journalist and writer from Gaza.
Why Israel needs a Palestinian state

More than ever, land for peace also means land for democracy


The legacy of the six-day war

May 20th 2017

THE victory of Israel over the Arab armies that encircled it in 1967 was so swift and absolute that, many Jews thought, the divine hand must have tipped the scales. Before the six-day war Israel had feared another Holocaust; thereafter it became an empire of sorts. Awestruck, the Jews took the holy sites of Jerusalem and the places of their biblical stories. But the land came with many Palestinians whom Israel could neither expel nor absorb. Was Providence smiling on Israel, or testing it?

For the past 50 years, Israel has tried to have it both ways: taking the land by planting Jewish settlements on it; and keeping the Palestinians unenfranchised under military occupation, denied either their own state or political equality within Israel (see our special report in this issue). Palestinians have damaged their cause through decades of indiscriminate violence. Yet their dispossession is a reproach to Israel, which is by far the stronger party and claims to be a model democracy.

Israel’s “temporary” occupation has endured for half a century. The peace process that created “interim” Palestinian autonomy, due to last just five years before a final deal, has dragged on for more than 20. A Palestinian state is long overdue. Rather than resist it, Israel should be the foremost champion of the future Palestine that will be its neighbour. This is not because the intractable conflict is the worst in the Middle East or, as many once thought, the central cause of regional instability: the carnage of the civil wars in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere disproves such notions. The reason Israel must let the Palestinian people go is to preserve its own democracy.

The Trump card

Unexpectedly, there may be a new opportunity to make peace: Donald Trump wants to secure “the ultimate deal” and is due to visit the Holy Land on May 22nd, during his first foreign trip. The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, appears as nervous as the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, seems upbeat. Mr Trump has, rightly, urged Israel to curb settlement-building. Israel wants him to keep his promise to move the American embassy to Jerusalem. He should hold off until he is ready to go really big: recognise Palestine at the same time and open a second embassy in Jerusalem to talk to it.
The outlines of peace are well known. Palestinians would accept the Jewish state born from the war of 1947-48 (made up of about three-quarters of the British mandate of Palestine). In return, Israel would allow the creation of a Palestinian state in the remaining lands it occupied in 1967 (about one-quarter). Parcels could be swapped to take in the main settlements, and Jerusalem would have to be shared. Palestinian refugees would return mostly to their new state, not Israel.

The fact that such a deal is familiar does not make it likely. Mr Netanyahu and Mr Abbas will probably string out the process—and try to ensure the other gets blamed for failure. Distracted by scandals, Mr Trump may lose interest; Mr Netanyahu may lose power (he faces several police investigations); and Mr Abbas may die (he is 82 and a smoker). The limbo of semi-war and semi-peace is, sadly, a tolerable option for both.
 
Nevertheless, the creation of a Palestinian state is the second half of the world’s promise, still unredeemed, to split British-era Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. Since the six-day war, Israel has been willing to swap land for peace, notably when it returned Sinai to Egypt in 1982. But the conquests of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were different. They lie at the heart of Israelis’ and Palestinians’ rival histories, and add the intransigence of religion to a nationalist conflict. Early Zionist leaders accepted partition grudgingly; Arab ones tragically rejected it outright. In 1988 the Palestine Liberation Organisation accepted a state on part of the land, but Israeli leaders resisted the idea until 2000. Mr Netanyahu himself spoke of a (limited) Palestinian state only in 2009.

Another reason for the failure to get two states is violence. Extremists on both sides set out to destroy the Oslo accords of 1993, the first step to a deal. The Palestinian uprising in 2000-05 was searing. Wars after Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005 made everything worse. As blood flowed, the vital ingredient of peace—trust—died.

Most Israelis are in no rush to try offering land for peace again. Their security has improved, the economy is booming and Arab states are courting Israel for intelligence on terrorists and an alliance against Iran. The Palestinians are weak and divided, and might not be able to make a deal. Mr Abbas, though moderate, is unpopular; and he lost Gaza to his Islamist rivals, Hamas. What if Hamas also takes over the West Bank?

All this makes for a dangerous complacency: that, although the conflict cannot be solved, it can be managed indefinitely. Yet the never-ending subjugation of Palestinians will erode Israel’s standing abroad and damage its democracy at home. Its politics are turning towards ethno-religious chauvinism, seeking to marginalise Arabs and Jewish leftists, including human-rights groups. The government objected even to a novel about a Jewish-Arab love affair. As Israel grows wealthier, the immiseration of Palestinians becomes more disturbing. Its predicament grows more acute as the number of Palestinians between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean catches up with that of Jews. Israel cannot hold on to all of the “Land of Israel”, keep its predominantly Jewish identity and remain a proper democracy. To save democracy, and prevent a slide to racism or even apartheid, it has to give up the occupied lands.
Co-operation, not collaboration

Thus, if Mr Abbas’s Palestinian Authority (PA) is weak, then Israel needs to build it up, not undermine it. Without progress to a state, the PA cannot maintain security co-operation with Israel for ever; nor can it regain its credibility. Israel should let Palestinians move more freely and remove all barriers to their goods (a freer market would make Israel richer, too). It should let the PA expand beyond its ink-spots. Israel should voluntarily halt all settlements, at least beyond its security barrier.
Israel is too strong for a Palestinian state to threaten its existence. In fact, such a state is vital to its future. Only when Palestine is born will Israel complete the victory of 1967.

If you work for Trump, it’s time to quit

After the Comey firing and the Russia intel leak, the I’m-taking-one-for-the-team ship has sailed.

The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus explains why lashing out might not be the best legal move for President Trump. (Adriana Usero/The Washington Post)

Rick Wilson is a Republican consultant and a Daily Beast columnist.

I’ve been a Republican political consultant for almost 30 years, and I’ve dispensed a lot of private advice. But now it’s time for me to reach out publicly to my fellow Republicans working in the Trump administration.

We really need to talk.

Whether you’re a 20-something fresh off the campaign trail, or a seasoned Washington insider serving in the Cabinet, by now you’re painfully aware that you’re not making America great again; you’re barely making it to the end of the daily news cycle before your verbally incontinent boss, the putative leader of the free world, once again steers the proverbial car into a ditch. On every front, you’re faced with legal, political and moral hazards. The president’s job, and yours, is a lot harder than it looked, and you know the problem originates in the Oval Office.


You hate that people are shying away from administration jobs in droves: Just this week, in rapid succession, Sen. John Cornyn and Rep. Trey Gowdy withdrew their names from consideration as replacements for former FBI Director James Comey, the guy your boss fired. Whatever department you’re in, it’s a safe bet that it’s a whispering graveyard of empty appointments and unfilled jobs.

I know: Many of you serving in Cabinet, sub-Cabinet and White House roles joined Team Trump in good faith, believing you could help steady the ship, smooth the rough edges and, just maybe, put some conservative policy wins up on the board. You could see that President Trump’s undisciplined style was risky, but you hoped the big show playing over at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. would provide you with cover to work steadily and enthusiastically on the administration’s legislative priorities. Some of you even bought into the ‘Merica First new nationalism. Many of you quietly assured friends in the Washington ecosystem that Trump would settle into his job — after all, just a few days after taking office, he assured us, “I can be the most presidential person ever.”
The Washington Post's Devlin Barrett explains the Justice Department's decision to appoint Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate possible connections between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. (Peter Stevenson,Jason Aldag,Whitney Leaming/The Washington Post)

You figured Trump would turn his political capital into big wins, and that his lack of interest in policy details would let you and your friends in Congress set the agenda. Sure, you knew you’d have to feed Trump’s ego and let him take a victory lap after every success, but you also thought you might claim a smidgen of credit for a popular infrastructure bill, a big tax cut, repeal of Obamacare or a host of other “easy” lifts. Because we’re all ambitious, right? It’s okay to admit it.

Instead, your president botched Trumpcare 1.0 and contributed little as Speaker Paul Ryan managed to ram public-relations nightmare, Trumpcare 2.0, through the House at the cost of much political blood and treasure. Instead, Trump’s fumbles have left many members of Congress ducking town hall meetings like they’re in the witness protection program. The tax bill and the rest of Trump’s agenda are deader and more pungent than six-day-old fish. Maybe your particular bureau is still afloat, but you’re really not doing much except playing defense and wondering which of your colleagues is leaking to The Washington Post.

You learned quickly that your job isn’t actually to serve the nation, manage your agency or fulfill the role you ostensibly play according to the White House org chart. In reality, you spend most of your time fluffing Trump’s ego. Either that or you’re making excuses for not being a more aggressive suck-up. If you’ve been ordained to appear on television as an administration surrogate, you know by now that your task isn’t to advocate for your agency or issue, but to lavish the president with praise.


Now, you see the daily train wreck; you see a White House in turmoil and a president drawing an ever-tighter circle of family and corporate vassals around himself. You worry that the scandals and legal troubles, which have been rumbling on the horizon like a summer thunderstorm, are drawing nearer. You should worry.

Every day you get up, slide into the seat of your Prius or Tahoe (and if you’re senior enough, exchange a few polite words with your driver) and check Twitter. Whatever it is that you’re feeling, it doesn’t feel anything like Morning in America. It feels like some faraway kleptocracy where the center hasn’t held, the airfield and radio station have fallen to the rebels, and the Maximum Leader is holed up in his secret bunker waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Soon (and by soon, I mean now) you’ll have to make a choice. You’ll have to decide whether I’m here to help has morphed into I’m helping this president dismantle the republic. In D.C., principle is as rare as hen’s teeth, but, GOP friends, I’m here to help you.

You already know you can’t save the president because he doesn’t want to be saved. You already know there’s not another, better version of Trump getting ready to show up. You’re smart. You’re loyal. You’re sniffing the wind like a gazelle, nose filled with the scents of predators. You don’t want to break from the pack too soon, but there’s greater risk in waiting too long.

When regimes collapse, dead-enders are the most fascinating to watch — the ones who end up with the profitable concessions and sought-after mistresses. You know already, though, that’s probably not you. So, ask yourself: When this regime falls, do you want to be among those who said “not me,” or do you want to go out like a Baath Party generalissimo?

Sticking with Trump to the bitter end and pretending the unfolding chaos is just “fake news” won’t save your reputation as the walls close in. It won’t ease the judgment of history. It won’t do anything to polish up your future Wikipedia entry.

Cutting ties with a man who is destructive to our values, profoundly divisive, contemptuous of the rule of law and incontrovertibly unfit to serve in the highest office in the land just might. Do it now. 

One Hundred Years That Shook the World

There are many who have claimed the legacy of the revolutions of 1917.  There will be many more who will attempt to do so in the future.  The reality though, is that that legacy is not a thing of the past, but is part of an ongoing struggle to define and change the human condition. 

by Ron Jacobs-
( May 18, 2017, Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian) China Miéville is best known for his fiction.  His novels weave intricate worlds of fantastic architecture, complex politics and intimate personal relationships into tales that combine intrigue and the mundane; the lofty and the subterranean; and fear and its opposite.  The results of these efforts serve as metaphor for the current reality and as fictions sometimes too amazing to be believed.  His latest work shares all of these phenomena that make Miéville’s fiction so unique.  However, the tale he tells in this work, titled October: The Story of the Russian Revolution is not fiction, but historical fact.  This in itself makes it profoundly more breathtaking, and equally fantastic.  It is a story of the year 1917 in revolutionary Russia.
As any student of Twentieth Century history knows, the year of the Russian revolution was one of those years that changed the course of human history.  World War One—an imperialist quarrel that ended up being an incomprehensible exercise in human slaughter and a precursor to another even deadlier conflict—was in its final throes.  Troops were dying, mutinying, and just walking away from the horror that was their war.  Civilians young and old struggled to survive; some became angels of mercy while others turned into barely human monsters.  In between these two extremes were the bulk of European and Russian humanity.  The nobility, generals and the bourgeoisie in all nations involved in the conflict were angling on how to keep their positions, their lands and their wealth.  Revolutionaries watched, waited and organized; they knew their moment was nigh.
Given its momentous place in human history, there are numerous histories of the Russian Revolution told from a multitude of viewpoints.  The three-volume set written by the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky is probably the most complete and certainly the most inspiring of all of these histories.  It goes almost without saying that the revolution itself has been disparaged by capitalists and their cheerleaders ever since that first moment in February 1917 when the soviets took over in Petrograd.  Even more damaging then the aspersions of the capitalist media though, was the counterrevolution launched against the revolutionary government and the subsequent machinations of that government which caused its mutation and ultimate dissolution barely eighty years later.
As I noted above, China Miéville just published a new history of the Russian Revolution’s first year—1917.  It is a fast-paced history that weaves in and out of the debates and discussions in the soviets, the various revolutionary and leftist political parties, the military and the provisional government.  At the same time, the readers is presented with vignettes of actions in the streets, at the battle front, in the apartments where Lenin is hiding and conspiring with other Bolsheviks for the revolutionary overthrow of a provisional government leaning further and further to the right.  As Miéville’s story unfolds, the momentousness of the history being told reveals itself in a manner similar to a new wave film.  The movements of individual revolutionaries, aristocrats, fearful but boisterous generals, wavering liberals, and angry worker and peasant masses play across the screen of the reader’s mind with a passion and clarity that defies rhetoric as surely as the revolution defied the arrogant assumptions of the Tsar and his sycophants.
There are many who have claimed the legacy of the revolutions of 1917.  There will be many more who will attempt to do so in the future.  The reality though, is that that legacy is not a thing of the past, but is part of an ongoing struggle to define and change the human condition.  The fact of its existence as history serves as both a lesson and an inspiration.  Miéville’s book serves both functions.  Perhaps more importantly, it also serves as an introduction to the Russian revolution for those who might otherwise ignore it.  This latter group probably includes many fans of Miéville’s fiction; readers unaware of his socialist leanings and possibly apolitical in the extreme.  October is short on analysis, which is not a critique of the text.  Indeed, this is a work of historic journalism.  It’s as if John Reed, author of the classic piece of revolutionary journalism, Ten Days That Shook the World, woke from a decades-long sleep to tell the story of 1917 once again.  Although there is less personal detail, the sweep of Miéville’s story is equal to Reed’s in its breadth while matching it in passion.  It is Reed’s contention that the masses of workers, peasants and soldiers were at the front of the revolution.  One hundred years later, Miéville’s telling agrees.

Exclusive: Putin's ex-wife linked to multi-million-dollar property business

FILE PHOTO: Vladimir Putin (L) and his wife Lyudmila attend a service, conducted by Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill, to mark the start of his term as Russia's new president at the Kremlin in Moscow, May 7, 2012. REUTERS/Aleksey Nikolskyi/RIA Novosti/Pool/File Photo--FILE PHOTO: Russian President Vladimir Putin and his wife Lyudmila sit in front of the Taj Mahal while touring city of Agra, October 4, 2000. REUTERS/Pawel Kopczynski/File Photo
People walk along a street past Vozdvizhenka 9 building 2 in central Moscow, Russia, April 20, 2017. Picture taken April 20, 2017.REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov/Files--Cars drive past Vozdvizhenka 9 in central Moscow, Russia, April 19, 2017. Picture taken April 19, 2017. REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov/Files--FILE PHOTO: A general view shows the Spasskaya Tower and the Kremlin wall in central Moscow, Russia, May 5,2016.REUTERS/Sergei Karpukhin/File Photo--A woman crosses a street in front of Vozdvizhenka 9 in central Moscow, Russia, April 19, 2017. Picture taken April 19, 2017.REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov/Files

By Svetlana Reiter | MOSCOW- Fri May 19, 2017

The former wife of Russian president Vladimir Putin helped create and now supports a foundation that owns a historic Moscow property generating millions of dollars from tenants, a Reuters examination of property records has found.

The building was renovated with help from associates of Putin, and the rental income is paid to a private company owned by a person whose name is the same as the maiden name of Putin's former wife, corporate records show.

The rent comes from Volkonsky House in central Moscow, which was an aristocrat's home in pre-Soviet times and is now owned by The Centre for the Development of Inter-personal Communications (CDIC). Lyudmila Putina helped set up the non-commercial foundation, according to a report in state newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazeta and two sources who worked with the centre. Lyudmila was Putin's wife from 1983 until their divorce, which was announced in 2013.

The foundation was created in 2002, and in September 2006 Rossiiskaya Gazeta described Lyudmila as a "trustee" of the organisation. In an interview with the newspaper that year, she used the term "we" when discussing the foundation, and three sources currently familiar with the foundation's work said Lyudmila supports a literary prize and publishing arm that the foundation runs.

The CDIC has offices in Volkonsky House, but most of the building is let out to tenants, including two big state banks, documents show.

The tenants pay rent to a company called Meridian, which is 99 per cent owned by a company called Intererservis, corporate and property records reviewed by Reuters in early May showed. Intererservis, according to a state register of corporate entities, has been wholly owned since 2014 by a woman called Lyudmila Alexandrovna Shkrebnyova – which is the maiden name of Putin's former wife.

Reuters was unable to find documents confirming that Shkrebnyova and Putin's ex-wife are the same person. But other connections, besides the name, point to the former first lady and the owner of Intererservis being the same person. A previous general director of Intererservis was Olga Alexandrovna Tsomayeva. Several Russian media reports refer to her as the sister of Putin's former wife. Tsomayeva could not be reached for comment.

In addition, the other 1 percent of Meridian is owned by Tatiana Shestakova, who was the wife of Vasily Shestakov, an old friend and judo sparring partner of Putin, until the Shestakovs divorced in 2013. Shestakova, who also helped create the CDIC, according to the state registry of corporate entities, could not be reached for comment.

The Kremlin property department supervised the renovation work on the Volkonsky House in Moscow's Vozdvizhenka Street, according to rental documents reviewed by Reuters, even though the building no longer belonged to the state at the time.

A source involved in the renovation said Lyudmila Putina, then still the president's wife, visited Volkonsky House to inspect the work. "We all knew that the (Kremlin property) department was constantly overseeing the process," said the source, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity.
 "When Mrs Putin made an inspection visit, they immediately closed down the whole of Vozdvizhenka Street."

The Russian bank VTB, one of the current tenants in Volkonsky House, alone pays more than $2 million in annual rent, according to a tender document posted on a government website in 2015.

Reuters was unable to establish the total income Meridian receives from renting out space in the Moscow property or what it pays to the CDIC foundation. The company's accounts for 2015 show revenues of 225 million roubles ($3.89 million), but do not disclose where the money goes.

Reuters sought comment from Meridian and the CDIC, via letters, telephone calls and visits, but received no reply. The Kremlin press service did not respond to questions about the president's former wife.

The arrangements appear to fit a pattern in Putin's Russia, whereby people close to the president benefit from contracts, loans, grants or assets from state enterprises or entities closely linked to the Kremlin. Reuters has previously reported how Putin's son-in-law, Kirill Shamalov, became a billionaire after marrying a daughter of the president by acquiring a large stake in a leading Russian gas and petrochemicals company. Reuters also reported how Shamalov acquired a substantial property in Biarritz, France, from a close associate of Putin.

Artur Ocheretny, described in Russian media as Shkrebnyova's new husband since 2015, is the chairman of the management board of the CDIC. In 2014, after a low-profile career running a seafood business and an event-organising company, he too became the owner of an Art Deco villa in a suburb of Biarritz, according to local sources. His villa is estimated by estate agents to be worth about 6 million euros.
Ocheretny did not respond to a request for comment passed to him via the CDIC.

HELPFUL FRIENDS

The building at 9 Vozdvizhenka Street is known as the Volkonsky House after its former owner General Nikolai Volkonsky, the grandfather of author Leo Tolstoy. In the 20th century, Sergei Yesenin, a popular poet, wrote some of his works there.

This historic site was later owned by the Russian Foreign Ministry, according to a 1992 presidential decree signed by Putin's predecessor. By 2005, property records show, it had passed to a body called the Centre for the Development of the Russian Language, which later changed its name to the Centre for the Development of Inter-personal Communications.

Reuters was unable to establish on what terms the language centre acquired the building. The agency that handles state property, Rosimushchestvo, did not respond to Reuters questions about the building.

The property was in need of renovation, and around 2005 major refurbishment was carried out. The president's allies stepped in to help. The Konstantinovsky Foundation, which was set up soon after Putin became president to restore the Konstantinovsky Palace near Putin's native St Petersburg, provided financial help, according to its website. The president often uses the palace to host foreign leaders.

Vladimir Kozhin, who from 2000 until 2014 was head of the Kremlin property department, was on the board of the Konstaninovsky Foundation at the time the renovation work was carried out on Volkonsky House. Kozhin remains on the board, which has at least one other associate of Putin on it. Neither the Konstantinovsky Foundation nor Kozhin, who is now a presidential aide, responded to requests for comment.

Yelena Krylova, a spokeswoman for the Kremlin property department, said she had no information about the department having been involved in the renovation.

The first phase of work was completed by 2005, according to property documents, and later an extra floor was added. Natalia Samover, a historian who campaigned against the addition, told Reuters: "The building has lost its historical appearance. We no longer have the Volkonsky House, we have an eyesore half a kilometre from the Kremlin."

Volkonsky House now has 5,288 square metres of floor space available for rent, according to the state property register – an area slightly larger than the White House in Washington D.C.
VALUABLE TENANTS

Foundations such as the CDIC can be created for "social, charitable, cultural, educational, scientific and management objectives," according to the Russian Justice Ministry. They can carry out entrepreneurial activity so long as it serves the purpose for which a foundation was created. 

For an undisclosed amount, the CDIC lets most of Volkonsky House to Meridian, which sublets out space in the property. VTB, one of Russia's largest banks, rents 3,011 square metres, according to the 2015 tender document posted on the state procurement website. That document gives the value of the contract as 584 million roubles over a five year period, or $2.02 million per year.

Asked to comment, VTB said in a statement: "We rent these premises for the needs of the retail and corporate businesses of VTB group."

Other tenants include state lender Sberbank; the Severstroygroup construction company, which has won defence ministry contracts; a travel agency; a sushi restaurant; and a Burger King outlet. Sberbank said it had rented space at market rates as part of its branch strategy; Severstroygroup did not respond to requests for comment.

Knight Frank, an agency that specialises in high-end real estate, said that current market rates in the building were about $600 per square metre per year. If all the leasable space in the building were let at that rate, it would generate annual revenue of $3.18 million.

Meridian's income does not appear to go to its main owner, Intererservis, which reported revenues in 2015 of just 2.4 million roubles ($41,478) and a net profit of 1.76 million roubles ($30,417).  

The CDIC's most recent available accounts show that in 2015 its income from all sources was 343,350,000 roubles ($5.93 million). It was not clear what all those sources were.

In 2015 the CDIC spent 262,317,000 roubles ($4.53 million), according to the accounts, of which 3.4 percent was spent on social and charitable help, 6.5 percent on holding conferences and seminars, 22 percent on administrative costs and 29 percent on "other activities." The remaining 39 percent was spent on acquiring fixed assets, stock and other property, and on "miscellaneous" items.

The CDIC did not respond to questions about the sources of its income and how it spent its money.

The Justice Ministry said the foundation had not made annual reports on its activities – as opposed to its financial accounts – publicly available, despite being required to do so by law. The ministry said the foundation had therefore been issued with a warning.

($1 = 57.8610 roubles)

(Additional reporting by Kira Zavyalova; Editing By Richard Woods and Christian Lowe)

Brazil president formally accused of conspiracy against corruption inquiry

Charge marks latest crisis for Michel Temer, with stage set for constitutional battle as president is accused of working to silence witnesses
 Brazil’s president, Michel Temer, has been formally accused of conspiring to silence witnesses in a corruption investigation. Photograph: Evaristo Sa/AFP/Getty Images

Associated Press in Rio de Janeiro-Friday 19 May 2017
Brazil’s embattled political hierarchy has suffered another indignity after the country’s top prosecutor formally accused President Michel Temer of conspiring with his chief coalition partner to silence witnesses and obstruct a corruption investigation.
Temer has lurched from crisis to crisis since he took power last year after plotting the impeachment of his running mate, Dilma Rousseff.
It also sets the stage for a disruptive constitutional battle between the judiciary and the government, adding to tensions that have already sparked violent protests and calls from a former chief justice for people to take to the streets in remove a tainted president.
The attorney general, Rodrigo Janot, said Temer and Aécio Neves –a centre-right senator who was runner-up in the last presidential election – had attempted to disrupt the sprawling Lava Jato (Car Wash) inquiry into bribes and kickbacks from the country’s biggest companies to politicians.
Based on plea-bargain testimonies and secret recordings made by the top executives of the meat-packing company JBS, the president is accused of condoning hush-money payoffs to the jailed former House speaker, Eduardo Cunha.
Janot also alleges Temer (who heads the Brazilian Democratic Movement party) and Aécio (the head of the Social Democratic Party of Brazil) tried to use laws and appointments to disrupt the investigation.
“It is evident that Aécio Neves, in conjunction with – among others – President Michel Temer, has sought to prevent Lava Jato’s investigations from proceeding, either through legislative measures or through the control of the officials who oversee the investigations,” Janot said.
The supreme court has accepted the evidence and authorised the investigation, prompting calls for Temer to resign. At least eight lower delegates have filed motions requesting an impeachment hearing.
Temer was due to address the country on Friday evening. The previous day, the former constitutional scholar proclaimed his innocence and insisted he would not resign. His legal team is questioning the evidence against him.
More details of the testimony by the JTB executive Joesley Batista are due to be released, which could add to the pressure on the president, whose approval ratings were in single figures even before the latest corruption revelations.
The country’s biggest newspaper, O Globo, published an editorial on Friday that urged Temer to step down. On Friday, the former chief justice Joaquim Barbosa added his voice.
“There is no other way out: Brazilians must organize, go to the streets and demand with strength the immediate resignation of Michel Temer,” tweeted Barbosa.