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

Saturday, May 27, 2017

Sergey Kislyak reported to his superiors in December that Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, asked him about setting up a communications channel between the transition team and the Kremlin using Russian facilities in the United States. (Video: Alice Li,McKenna Ewen/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

'We Have an Obligation to Speak About Donald Trump's Mental Health Issues... Our Survival as a Species May Be at Stake'

"Malignant reality is taking hold" in American politics, says psychiatrist Bandy Lee, who held a conference on Trump's mental health.
Photo Credit: Daniel Juřena / Flickr

HomeBy Chauncey DeVega / Salon-May 26, 2017

President Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to the United States and the world.

He has reckless disregard for democracy and its foundational principles. Trump is also an authoritarian plutocrat who appears to be using the presidency as a means to enrich himself and closest allies as well as family members. Trump’s proposed 2018 federal budget is a shockingly cruel document that threatens to destroy America’s already threadbare social safety net in order to give the rich and powerful (even more) hefty tax cuts. His policies have undermined the international order and America’s place as the dominant global power. It would appear that he and his administration have been manipulated and perhaps (in the case of Michael Flynn) even infiltrated by Vladimir Putin’s spies and other agents. The world has become less safe as a result of Trump’s failures of leadership and cavalier disregard for existing alliances and treaties.

Donald Trump’s failures as president have been compounded by his unstable personality and behavior. It has been reported by staffers inside the Trump White House that he is prone to extreme mood swings, is cantankerous and unpredictable, flies into blind rages when he does not get his way, is highly suggestible and readily manipulated, becomes bored easily and fails to complete tasks, is confused by basic policy matters and is unhappy and lonely. And despite bragging about his “strength” and “vitality” during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump appears to tire easily and easily succumbs to “exhaustion.” Trump is apparently all id and possesses little if any impulse control. He is a chronic liar who ignores basic facts and empirical reality in favor of his own fantasies.

Between the scandals and the emotionally erratic behavior, Donald Trump would appear to be a 21st-century version of Richard Nixon, to date the only American president forced to resign under threat of forcible removal. In all, this leads to a serious and worrisome question: Is Donald Trump mentally ill? Moreover, what does Trump’s election reveal about the moods and values of his voters? How are questions of societal emotions and collective mental health connected to the rise of fascism and authoritarianism in America? Do psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals have a moral obligation to warn the public about the problems they see with Donald Trump’s behavior?

In an effort to answer these questions, I recently spoke with Dr. Bandy Lee, a psychiatrist at Yale University who specializes in public health and violence prevention. She recently convened a conference that explored issues related to Donald Trump’s emotional health and how mental health professionals should respond to this crisis. The proceedings from this conference will be featured in a forthcoming book expected later this year.

Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity. A longer version can be heard on my podcast, available on Salon’s Featured Audio page.

How did a person like Donald Trump become president?

My being a psychiatrist, I will inevitably see things from that lens. I also tend to think about the social context that gives rise to the current conditions. For me the big shift in our society has been the increasing inequality, and with that a certain segment of the population will end up suffering from an undue amount of poverty — a relative poverty actually, deprivation, a lack of education, a lack of health care and mental health care. All those things will contribute to worsening of collective mental health.

As a clinician, when you watch Trump’s behavior day after day — his lying and obfuscation, his apparent confusion and anger management issues — what are you thinking?

I’ve been thinking from the very beginning that he exhibits many signs of mental impairment. I recently organized a conference on this at Yale. Afterwards, there has been almost an army of people who have shared with me how they have been wanting to speak about this issue. I did not expect to get such a massive response.

What are your peers’ specific concerns and what are they afraid of?

This situation has come to such a critical level. In fact, a state of emergency exists and we could no longer hold back. We have an obligation to speak about Donald Trump’s mental health issues because many lives and our survival as a species may be at stake.

What are two or three things you could cite about Donald Trump’s behavior that causes you the greatest concern, worry or alarm?

There are certainly the symptoms that he displays. He has a great need for adulation. He is angry if reality does not meet his needs. People have been expecting him to settle into his role and become normal or more “presidential,” but that does not ordinarily happen among those with such personality traits. In fact, what we’re seeing is a creation of his own reality, a reality that will meet Trump’s own emotional needs and the need to impose that reality on others. It is his imperviousness to facts and reality that could place us all at great risk.

On one hand, he can just be cantankerous, moody, angry and a spoiled child. I’ve described him as a man-child or a clown king. But how do we separate that from saying, “OK, there is something going on clinically”?

One does not make the other mutually exclusive. In fact, one can both be immature and a jerk, dangerous and ill-intentioned. In other words, bad as well as mad. It’s really the combination that makes it so toxic and unpredictable that we felt that there was a need to speak out.

How should the “Goldwater rule,” the ethical requirement not to diagnose a person you have not examined, be balanced with mental health professionals’ responsibilities as American citizens and members of the global community?  

In  an ordinary situation where matters were not so intense, we could balance out our political activism and separate that from our professional goals and actions. But when there is such a grave mental disability that is affecting the public sphere, the political sphere, such as in the current position of power, then those lines get blurred. Given that all human health exists in an ecological system, there is no rule that politics will never enter the sphere of health or the mental health profession. Right now we’re seeing that it does.

When we have a president who asks, What is the point of having nuclear weapons if we cannot use them?, who urges our government to use torture or worse against prisoners, who urges his followers at political rallies to beat protesters up so badly that they’ll be taken out in stretchers, and suggests that his followers could always assassinate Hillary Clinton if she were to be elected president, there is something very wrong. All this attraction to violence, threats of violence, boasts of his own violence and sexual assaults, and incitements to violence — all these have an effect.

As a clinician, how do you figure out the causal arrows? Is Trump causing an increase in violence or is his presidency a reflection of deeper cultural problems in America?  

Certainly it’s not a one-way path. It happens both ways in that we have elected a president who was somehow very attractive to his voters. But then he stokes and amplifies certain elements in the population that in turn create more conditions for violence and danger.

Why do you think more of your peers have not spoken about these concerns? Are they afraid of professional consequences? Personal threats of violence?

One of my colleagues said this was not the way she wished to spend her life — in other words, to spend the rest of her life paying for an expression of her opinion by fighting lawsuits, by fighting for her license. There was a fear of having her license taken away. Yes, the fear was present then and it is present still now, such that when I was editing this book, I had two co-editors who initially signed on, but the more they heard about the possibility that their license could be in danger, that they could somehow be targeted for this, they pulled out.

How did you overcome that fear and anxiety? It’s easier to be a bystander to history. It’s easier to say, “I’ll let somebody else do it.” Instead you actually chose to do something.
In my case, it became a grave enough emergency that my conscience would not let me rest in peace if I did not do something about it.

As a psychologist, as a human being, as a citizen, why do you think some people choose to be bystanders and others decide to act?

Bystanders do make a lot of difference. Human rights abuses could not happen if bystanders spoke up or did not approve.

On a practical level, how do you think a president should be psychologically evaluated before taking office? What do you think the actual remedies could be for dealing with Donald Trump now? Can we invoke the 25th Amendment, so that if enough people diagnose this man and there is enough of an outcry he will be removed?

I think by sounding the alarm about his mental instability and position of power that some kind of consensus as to a process would be developed. As for the 25th Amendment, I don’t think that’s really a psychiatrist’s domain. But that is certainly one avenue that has been proposed and it’s the only one that would be possible in terms of a case of mental impairment. I think what needs to happen next is a collaborative discussion among people of different fields. We could speak to the president’s mental impairment, the effects of that impairment and the dangerous situation we’re in. Other people could speak to the best political and procedural way to do something about that finding. Those would be lawmakers and politicians.

What do you think the United States is going to look like after Donald Trump leaves office?  
He has exacerbated the pathological patterns of our culture. What would happen if the presidency continues? I think more damage will be done. In fact, the latter part of the book consists of some of the effects of his policies, including repealing the Affordable Care Act, his immigration policies, his tax laws and his military policies. All these things could have ramifications and reverberations throughout —his environmental policies, his educational policies. In fact, Dr. Robert Jay Lifton said at the conference that Trump’s style of governing could be described as “anti-governing.” I believe we’re at a crossroads.

We can either amplify and encourage Trump and his followers’ pathology, or we can stop it and look for ways that are more life enhancing, healing, corrective. When you see a person falling into illness, the deeper the illness grows, the less aware they will be of their illness. The more insistent they will be on destructive ways rather than ways that are healing and constructive. At a later point, doctors and hospitals will be the thing that they will avoid at all costs. That is why sometimes physicians have to hospitalize against the person’s will or put them on a stretcher. The reason why the law allows that, that society allows that is because they feel better and then they thank you for it.

That is why simply respecting the choices of the electorate when the electorate is not entirely well can spiral into situations like fascism. Remember fascism is not necessarily an ideology. It could be on the right or the left. It is also an emotional experience to a certain political structure, and people will cling to it regardless of how destructive it is to their lives, regardless of what path it takes them toward. The pull is emotional, not ideological or even rational. It’s a situation that needs intervention, healing and treatment. The way to do that is to improve societal conditions.

Why do Trump’s voters continue to support him even when his and the Republican Party’s policies will hurt them economically and in other ways as well?

Because it’s an emotional compulsion. It’s an emotional reaction. It’s not anything rational. Trying to reason with them will not help. It’s really the conditions that have to change. Malignant reality is taking hold. It’s a kind of pathology cohesion that normalizes corruption, violence and harm, and there will come a the point where we’re no longer disturbed by it. At that point, all kinds of human rights violations, wars and loss of life become possible. Mental health professionals have to become witnessing professionals who continually point out this dynamic and call it out for what it is, so that it does not become normalized.

The Trump administration, and I might argue to a large extent the Republican Party, has been leading up to a need to impose a distorted reality and a kind of imperviousness to facts onto others. Facts and evidence almost do not matter. What matters is the emotional commitment to either an ideology or what they believe will make America great again, restore their position, or give them the kind of pride or self-esteem that they feel they have lost.
 
Chauncey DeVega is a politics staff writer for Salon. His essays can also be found at Chaunceydevega.com. He also hosts a weekly podcast, The Chauncey DeVega Show. Chauncey can be followed on Twitter and Facebook.

Cowards attack the vulnerable


Whether it is violence of all kinds, including cybercrime and/or suicide terror, attacks on Innocents, the public now demand relentless surveillance at best and condemnation at worst.

by Victor Cherubim-
( May 27, 2017, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) At school it was the bully who attacked the most vulnerable student. At University it was the fresher who was most ragged. At work it was the keen worker who was the butt end of attack and discrimination.
It is often a tiny minority, mostly cowardly minded “selfies” who fall prey to show themselves off as “leaders of the pack” and who succumb in the end to the Machiavellian ambitions of “behind the scene” more cowards.
It is these cowards who are shielded behind a brick wall of cowardice camouflage and cover up, who are the causes of a catalogue of terror. Communities in some parts of Britain are more prone than others in fostering the sense of alienation that “can act as a conveyor belt to mass slaughter.”
The malaise of our times
Recently we experienced cyber bullying, demanding money ransom of critical medical records in the NHS. The so called “curse of social media” has tempted millions around the world to share private information which is conveniently used as blackmail by criminals.
Shameful pages on social media, altered intimate associations ,images, photos and even videos of physical bullying posted with the sole intention of victimisation, character assassination, sharing of personal and private information for harassment or even for ransom have been overlooked as “freedom of expression.”
The politics of self interest and sometimes group interest reign supreme with little or no regard to moral scruples, conniving at and virtually supporting a serious erosion of ethics. The victim has become the innocent onlooker unable to do much against these shameful and cowardly acts.
Too little, too late
Whether it is violence of all kinds, including cybercrime and/or suicide terror, attacks on Innocents, the public now demand relentless surveillance at best and condemnation at worst.
Preventing suicide terror is now an urgent matter of great consequence around the world, not only to security forces, forsenic experts and military strategists. Even scientists are scrambling in different directions to find solutions.
We know of metal detectors, sniffer dogs, we now hear of “distributed biological sensors” bees, moths, even rats specially trained to pick up vapours.
We are also told about “the geometry of crowds” and the behaviour of belt, suicide and other terrorists and how to avoid mass casualties.
Some say it is too little too late, but sensitively handling the causes and the consequences of cowardly crime is a serious matter.. The more the world is interconnected, the more it brings risks to humans, in the abuse of freedom of movement, in social media fraud, cyber security and terror.
Who is winning the race?
We see two uncompromising sides pitted against each other. On the one hand we have competent, capable and caring men and women of the security services, police and ambulance personnel, to protect the public, the innocent citizens.
On the other hand we have the cowardly terrorists, the cyber criminals; organisations consisting of invisible and “anonymous persons” who will operate either in cyberspace or at concerts and who perhaps are paid “mercenaries”.
We need to bring an end to these callous acts of crime against humanity. Most of these crimes are targeted against women and children. The more difficult we make the job of cyber crime or the more vigilant and educated the public is of the risks of terror in cities around the world, the more likely we are on the road to fewer casualties and cowardly acts by misguided mercenaries.

WHO says India reports cases of Zika virus

FILE PHOTO: Aedes aegypti mosquitoes are seen inside Oxitec laboratory in Campinas, Brazil, on February 2, 2016.  REUTERS/Paulo Whitaker/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: Aedes aegypti mosquitoes are seen inside Oxitec laboratory in Campinas, Brazil, on February 2, 2016. REUTERS/Paulo Whitaker/File Photo

 Sun May 28, 2017 

India has reported cases of the Zika virus, the World Health Organization said, adding that efforts should be made to strengthen surveillance.

The WHO said that on May 15 India's health ministry reported three confirmed cases from the western state of Gujarat. Cases were detected during testing in February and November last year, while one was detected in January this year, according to the statement, which was released on Friday but did not gain public attention until Saturday.

A federal health ministry official said states were following standard protocols and there was "nothing to worry" about. The ministry had in March cited one confirmed case of Zika - from January of this year in Gujarat - while answering a question in India's parliament.

"These findings suggest low level transmission of Zika virus and new cases may occur in the future," the WHO said in the statement on its website.

"Zika virus is known to be circulating in South-East Asia Region and these findings do not change the global risk assessment."

In its most recent outbreak, Zika, which is mainly a mosquito-borne disease, was identified in Brazil in 2015 and has been spreading globally.

When the virus infects a pregnant woman, it can cause a variety of birth defects including microcephaly, where the baby's head is abnormally small.

(Reporting by Aditya Kalra; Editing by Tom Lasseter and Andrew Bolton)

80% of Urban Areas Have Unhealthy Amounts of Air Pollution—Here's How You Can Limit Your Exposure

Airbone pollution kills 5.5 million people a year -- you can limit your exposure
By Robin Scher / AlterNet-May 26, 2017

HomeRegardless of individual efforts, pollution is all around us. For some, this fact leads to a certain defeatist attitude when it comes to making more of an effort to protect the environment. But what about making more of an effort to protect your health?

Research published last year shows that over 5.5 million people die prematurely each year due to air pollution around the world. Compiled by the Global Burden of Disease project, this statistic reflects a growing trend found in particular in the developing economies of China and India. The problem has become so bad that the World Health Organization now estimates air pollution is a greater threat to global health than the Ebola virus or HIV, with 80% of urban areas experiencing air pollution levels above what’s considered healthy.

As for the cause for this concern? The project’s researchers primarily point to the emission of small particles from power plants, factories, vehicle exhausts and the burning of coal and wood. Dan Greenbaum, who works for the Health Effects Institute in Boston, explained to the BBC that on a “bad air pollution day” in Beijing or Delhi, “the number of fine particles (known as PM2.5) can be higher than 300 micrograms per cubic meter.” Putting that in context, Greenbaum continued, “the number should be about 25 or 35 micrograms."

Before we get to the ways we can reduce our exposure to particulate matter, we first need to know exactly what PM is. PM, according to the California Environmental Protection Agency, is “a complex mixture of small solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air." Allergens such as pollen, mold spores, dust mites and cockroaches can also cause PM. In China alone, the hazardous health effects of exposure to PM account for up to 360,000 deaths a year, according to the project, from causes like heart disease to respiratory problems and cancer.

Like most types of pollution, this is a problem best addressed through government policy. As Michael Brauer, a researcher from the University of British Columbia, explained to the BBC: "In the U.S., we know that for every dollar spent on air pollution improvements, we can get between a $4-$30 benefit in terms of reduced health impacts."

Waiting for government intervention, though, could take a while. Ultimately, the responsibility falls on each of us to make the necessary changes needed to combat the adverse effects of air pollution on our health. To help with this, below are some simple ways to help reduce exposure to airborne pollution.

In vehicles

The California Environmental Protection Agency describes the “combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel in motor vehicles” as the main contributor to PM in urban Californian environments. The agency suggests the following steps for reducing exposure to PM in vehicles:
  • Try spending less time driving during rush hour.
  • If you are sitting in traffic, close your vehicle’s windows and use the air recirculation/close vents setting. (Make sure to air out the vehicle on occasion to avoid a buildup of exhaled carbon dioxide.)
  • If possible, install a high efficiency particle filter in your vehicle.
  • Avoid portable electronic air cleaners as some of them produce ozone, another form of PM.
  • Avoid leaving your vehicle idling in an enclosed space such as a garage.
  • Don’t smoke in the car, especially when the windows are closed (although seriously, if you're a smoker, opening the windows may not make too much difference).
  • Consider an electric hybrid (gasoline-electric) or other low-emitting vehicle when it comes time to buy your next car.
Prashant Kumar from the University of Surrey explained to Sciencedirect that drivers stopped at traffic lights were exposed to PM 29 times more harmful than those in moving traffic. Kumar offers the following advice: "Where possible and with weather conditions allowing, one of the best ways to limit your exposure is by keeping windows shut, fans turned off and to try and increase the distance between you and the car in front while in traffic jams or stationary at traffic lights."
On the streets
A 2009 University of Leeds study suggested several ways pedestrians could reduce their exposure to PM. As reported in Science Daily, the study offered the following simple suggestions.
  • Bikers or pedestrians should stay a street or two away from main intersections to avoid air pollution concentrations.
  • Avoid parallel side streets. Carbon monoxide is four times higher on parallel side street than on main streets, which is due to a lack of adequate air flow that leads to a buildup of pollution.
  • According to University of Leeds professor Alison Tomlin, PM tends to accumulate on “the leeward side of the street, (the sheltered side) in relation to the wind's direction at rooftop level." So stick to the side with shorter buildings.
In your home
The greatest exposure to PM indoors happens during cooking, according to the California EPA. The agency suggests taking the following measures to improve air quality in your home:
  • When cooking, use exhaust fans that vent to the outdoors. If you don’t have a vent, get yourself a high-efficiency portable air cleaner.
  • Electric or gas stoves and heaters are better than those powered by wood. But if you have a wood fire in your home during winter, make sure the wood is dry and that the drafts in your fireplace or woodstove work efficiently.
  • Get your gas heaters and stoves checked annually by a professional.
  • Never use hibachis, charcoal grills or unvented space heaters indoors.
  • When burning candles or incense indoors, make sure they are placed near outside air ventilation.
  • Avoid smoking indoors at all costs. PM from cigarette smoke sticks to fabrics and carpeting and creates a significant health hazard.
  • Use only natural cleaning supplies, as artificial products often react with ozone to form PM.
  • When generating any form of moisture indoors—showering, cooking or dishwashing—make sure there’s ventilation to avoid the growth of molds and dust mites.
  • Get yourself a smart sensor, a mechanism that monitors air quality and alerts you to dangerous levels of carbon monoxide and other potential PM. Two such devices currently on the market are CleanSpace Tag and Birdi.
Robin Scher is a freelance writer from South Africa currently based in New York. He tweets infrequently @RobScherHimself.

Friday, May 26, 2017

Trials Of Memorialisation Continue In The North-East




A statue of a distressed man, woman, and child commissioned by Father Elil Rajendram in 2016. After obtaining a court order to stay memorial services, Mullaitivu Police stuck the order below the statue.-Father Elil Rajendram commissioned a local artist to carve in stone, the names of up to 500 people who died towards the end of the war. Only around 230 stones were completed before Mullaitivu Police intervened.

Reporting from Mullivaikkal, Mullaitivu

Roar LogoPublished 

The harassment of a Jesuit priest, organising a memorial service to mark the brutal end of the Civil War—where at least 40,000 civilians are estimated to have been killed—has raised concerns over the continuing surveillance of memorialisation efforts in the war-scarred North-East and its effect on reconciliation.

Father Elil Rajendram had been organising an annual inter-faith prayer service at St. Paul’s Catholic Church, near Mullivaikal Beach, since the electoral defeat of the Rajapakse regime in 2015. Last year, Rajendram commissioned a memorial statue for the event. This year, he sought to add stones, carved with the names of those who died towards the end of the war, to the site.

Rajendram, who is a Programme Director at the Adayaalam Centre For Policy Research (ACPR), was questioned by Mullaitivu Police about these monuments on May 16, two days before the memorial service. On the night of May 17, Police obtained a court order prohibiting the memorial service, on the grounds that it was a threat to national security.

Lawyers who volunteered to represent Rajendram launched an appeal at the Mullaitivu District Court, early on May 18, hours before the memorial service was set to commence. After heated debate, the judge ruled that memorial services could continue, provided it was restricted to the church premises and not at the memorial site.

Later that night however, Rajendram received a summons from the Vavuniya Police, as part of an IGP-ordered internal investigation into the conduct of Mullaitivu Police. Despite giving a statement the next day, Rajendram received a third summons on the 20th.

After being contacted by Rajendram’s legal representatives, a senior government official intervened by requesting the Inspector General of Police to cease all harassment of Rajendram and his family in Jaffna. But the situation has continued to escalate.

Mullaitivu Police have now requested Rajendram to submit a list of all names that were to be carved in stone as part of memorialisation. The list is to be sent to the Terrorist Investigation Department in Colombo, to ascertain whether any were former LTTE cadres.

Courtroom Debate

On the morning of May 18, the NPC conducted its annual memorial event under the searing heat of Mullivaikkal beach, where the last battles of the war took place. Just a few kilometres away, the Mullaitivu District Court was packed with police, activists, religious leaders, and journalists.

Representing Rajendram at court was Guruparan Kumaravadivel, Senior Lecturer at Jaffna University’s Law Faculty and Research Director at Jaffna-based think tank ACPR. Mullaitivu Police’s Assistant Superintendent (ASP), along with around 20 officers, came to present their case. The presiding judge was M. S. M. Samsudeen.

From the outset, the Mullaitivu ASP stated that he had no qualms with memorialisation. “People will misinterpret this incident and tell the international community that the government is against the Tamil people… This event was only banned because of its potential impact on national security,” said the ASP.
The ASP went on to argue that the community should conduct its memorial services away from makeshift monuments. “The ages of those named in the carved stones are between four to eighty-nine… however, those aged between eighteen and thirty-two could easily be LTTE cadres,” the ASP said.

In response, Guruparan argued that the Police had no right to dictate where the community could and could not conduct its memorial service. He also pointed out that following Rajendram’s initial questioning, the police gave approval to conduct the memorial service. “How did it suddenly become a national security issue overnight?” he asked.

Rajendram’s defence submitted that the names carved on stone were sourced from within the community and that no efforts were made to distinguish between religious and political affiliation. The defence also submitted that the Police could not argue on the grounds of national security based on pure speculation.
Said Guruparan, “If the government is arguing that the names on the stones are LTTE, then the government must provide a list of cadres for the community to cross-check the names.”

Institutionalising Memory

Shaken by the entire ordeal, Father Elil Rajendram says, “People need a space to mourn their dead, many of whom never received proper burial rights. Memorialisation is an integral part of reconciliation and transitional justice—issues that this government has publicly committed to.”

Under the Rajapaksa regime, there was an effective ban on memorialisation in the North-East, strictly enforced by the Police and military. Civic space has loosened since the coming of the Yahapalanaya Government, but concerns remain that the fundamental stance of the police and military, as well as politicians in Colombo, has not changed.

Last year, a court order was served, staying a memorial event organised by the Tamil National People’s Front (TNPF), a breakaway faction of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA). TNPF member, Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam told Roar, “The people being harassed change from year to year. Even with regime change, there is a clear attitude the state and the military have towards memorialisation in the North-East.”

It is currently unclear whether the Mullaitivu Police were acting on their own or following orders from higher up. Vavuniya Police DIG Deshabandu Tennakoon was reached out to for comment on the matter but was unavailable, while Police Spokesperson DIG Priyantha Jayakody refused to comment.

Speaking to Roar, Guruparan says, “I can’t imagine a matter as sensitive as this passing without the approval from higher up. In the event that the Mullaitivu Police were acting on their own, the government had more than 24 hours [from Rajendram’s questioning on May 16] to intervene.”

Activists and community members in the North-East—including Rajendram—have questioned why a community-organised memorial event was targeted, while those organised by political groups such as the NPC and TNPF continued unabated this year.

“What Father Elil was trying to do was institutionalise memorialisation with semi-permanent monuments,” explains Guruparan. “This is challenging to the state, which has imposed its own symbolic structures throughout the Vanni, as monuments to the victory of the military in 2009.”

Editor’s Note: TNA Spokesperson M. A. Sumanthiran was also reached out to for comment but was unavailable at the time.

Featured image: A Catholic nun walks through the memorial site adjacent to St. Paul’s Catholic Church hours before the memorial service organised by Father Elil Rajendram.
All images courtesy writer

A Poor House & A Poorer Economy: The Real Cost Of ArcelorMittal Steel Houses For War Affected Communities

Chandra Jayaratne
On 9 May 2017, the Cabinet approved the construction of 6,000 pre-fabricated houses for war-affected communities in the North and East. It also approved the construction of 10,000 to 15,000 brick and mortar houses per year.
All available information suggests that the construction of the 6,000 pre-fabricated houses will be awarded to ArcelorMittal and raises many disturbing questions:
  • The many limitations and unsuitability of ArcelorMittal’s prefabricated houses have been well highlighted. Yet, why does the government insist on these houses for war-affected communities?
  • The cabinet decision notes that each house will cost 1.5 million rupees each (without import duties and taxes). Why is the government committing to excessive cost when only last year the Ministry of Resettlement initiated a scheme to build 550 sq. feet brick and mortar houses in the North and East for 800,000 to 900,000 rupees each?
  • Why is the Government opting for imported prefab houses, when brick houses built locally will generate employment, boost local enterprises and benefit the economy?
  • How are the 6,000 ArcelorMittal houses going to be financed and on what terms? Given the present economic and external debt situation and the depreciation in exchange rate, contracting any foreign debt, which was how ArcelorMittal was going to finance its project originally, is contrary to national interest.
  • On what basis has the cabinet decided to award 6,000 houses to ArcelorMittal without a tender? Many domestic construction companies did not qualify for the initial tender owing to the scale of the original project (to build 65,000 houses in 5 years). Why are these 6,000 houses not being retendered?
  • The cost of ArcelorMittal houses will increase substantially if import related duties and taxes are added. Is the government going to waive duties and taxes for ArcelorMittal, effectively subsidising them? Will it also do the same for import of cement for construction of the masonry houses, which will further reduce their costs?
It is now almost two years since the government of Sri Lanka announced its intention to construct 65,000 houses for war-affected communities in the North and East. It is regrettable that this project has yet to commence. The primary reason for this delay is the deeply misguided decision in early 2016 on the part the Ministry of Resettlement to award the entire project to the steel multinational ArcelorMittal to import 65,000 pre-fabricated houses. Significant public outcry and concern amongst a range of experts, officials, and political leaders over the adverse financial, economic, technical, social, and cultural implications of this decision led to several reviews and eventual withdrawal.
On 19 May 2016, we—a multi-disciplinary group of independent professionals and social activists—proposed a detailed, viable and comprehensive alternative proposal to the government. This 50-page proposal would allow the building of 65,000 brick and mortar houses at half the cost of the ArcelorMittal houses with domestic financing options. Despite this, the government did not take decisive steps to change course and initiate a much-needed housing for the war-affected through a socially empowering, financially equitable, and locally appropriate project.
We now call on the government to:
  • Immediately review the decision to award the construction of 6,000 pre-fabricated houses to ArcelorMittal.
  • Take urgent steps to initiate the construction of the proposed 10,000 to 15,000 brick and mortar houses per year in the North and East including by committing the necessary financial resources and initiating a procurement process that is transparent and in national economic interest.
  • Ensure that housing projects are participatory and include social mobilisation, maximise local and national economic benefits and avoid creating indebtedness and other problems associated with previous housing projects.
Our Alternative, in Summary:

Read More

Is Violence Inherent to Human Beings?

by Laksiri Fernando-
( May 26, 2017, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) This short article aims to answer one significant comment by Dr/Prof Lasantha Pethiyagoda to my previous article titled “Manchester Carnage and the Need to Combat Terrorism and All Forms of Violence”. I thank for the comment.
The comment in full was as follows.
While the writer seems to sincerely believe that violence can be eradicated from human behaviour, he has not researched the fact that violence in human history has always been present and is an inherent feature of the human mind, together as groups or as individuals. Our thoughts are often violent, although we restrain ourselves due to social requirements or in fear of punitive repercussions. What needs to be addressed are the triggers for “terror” type violence and change government foreign policy (for example) that are unjust to hordes of civilians in far-away lands. However, it is impractical to imagine that these policies will be dismantled, given the enormous economic advantages that major (especially free market) countries have enjoyed for many years, at devastating cost to millions of “lesser” people.
I wish to answer his propositions in Q&A form.
Question: Has violence been always present in human history?
Answer: No. There have been peaceful periods in human history including in Sri Lanka. The period of Parakramabahu VI (1410-1467) was one. These periods can be relative, nevertheless significant. The human history has produced the term Pax Romana. Similarly, one can talk about Pax Sinica. The period of Ming dynasty opened up peace in China. Of course, violence has so far been more prevalent than peace. This is the challenge of civilization. It is unfortunate if we (LP included) emphasize the negative than the positive. Steven Pinker (The Angles of Our Nature: The Decline of Violence and Its Causes, 2011) shows the decline of violence today including in Sri Lanka. I am not saying he is completely correct. But the attempt should be to sustain the situation without being critical.
Question: Is violence an inherent feature of the human mind?
Answer: Again no. In 1986, UNESCO convened 20 experts/scientists to deliberate on the matter. They came up with what is called the Seville Statement on Violence. UNESCO General Assembly later adopted it as a resolution. There were five core conclusions as follows.
  • It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors.
  • It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behaviour is genetically programmed into our human nature.
  • It is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behaviour more than for other kinds of behaviour.
  • It is scientifically incorrect to say that humans have a ‘violent brain’.
  • “It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by ‘instinct’ or any single motivation.”
The Statement concluded as follows. “Just as ‘wars begin in the minds of men’, peace also begins in our minds. The same species who invented war is capable of inventing peace. The responsibility lies with each of us.” This resonated what the Buddha said.
Question: Do our thoughts always violent?
Answer: The UNESCO statement comprehensively answered this question. If I go beyond, yes, our thoughts are sometimes (not always) violent. This is more so in the contemporary, competitive and antagonistic, society. We should look for personal and social solutions.
Question: Do we restrain ourselves due to social requirements or in fear of punitive repercussions?
Answer: Yes, certain social requirements prompt us to restraint ourselves. Simply said, that is good. Even if we get angry with our spouse or children at a public place, we usually don’t vent our spleen. There are also ‘punitive repercussions,’ for example, if you hit your wife even at home! In old days, those were not there. Perhaps still in Sri Lanka, you might be able to escape from punishment for ‘wife beating.’
But is that the better method? I hardly think so. Temper control might be even better for your own health, mental peace and happiness. Therefore, proper meditation might be the better way. I am not an expert on the subject, but I have heard, perhaps there is a part of the brain which prompts us to keep grudges, continue hatred and creates violent thoughts. This mostly comes from the subconscious mind. Therefore, the mindfulness meditation or such mental exercises can bring calm to your thoughts.
Question: Could addressing triggers be sufficient to prevent ‘terror’ type violence?
Answer: Addressing triggers are of course necessary. What are these triggers? The views on the matter can be different. Could the ‘grievances’ be the triggers? LP’s questioning/comments direct in that direction. How do these grievances are created? Particularly in the Manchester case, we are still at the early stages of uncovering the facts. If we take Salman Abedi completely as a ‘lone wolf’ (I doubt it), we should know whether he had faced personal discrimination. Was he unemployed? Was he prevented from doing any business? If the triggers are related to government policies and wrongs, of course those should change. I have identified some.
However, as I have stated very clearly, none of these ‘triggers’ justify violent reactions let alone terrorism. This is a broad debate even in human rights. This is about rights and responsibilities of human beings. Lack of rights, should not allow a right to violence, specially under the modern circumstances. In the Manchester case, what we know very clearly is the existence of the IS group and its ideology. To distract a bit, I did my master’s thesis on political violence and the 1971 insurrection. My thesis was against the ‘frustration-aggression theory.’ In treasure this thesis than even my PhD! In my findings, it is not primarily the grievances that trigger political violence but violent ideologies. Therefore, combating violence also should take an ideological, philosophical and educational form. I don’t wish to use the term ‘struggle’ instead of ‘form.’
Question: How far the economic and international policies (free market) of the West responsible for the ongoing confrontations and violence?
Answer: Of course, the economic and international policies have created breeding grounds for violence and terrorism. I have very clearly identified the key elements of them (not all, given the restricted space) as invasions (Iraq, Afghanistan) and effected and attempted regime changes (Libya, Syria etc.) Money, oil and power have been the motives. However, to pin them all to ‘free market’ is not the correct diagnosis in my opinion. It could be easy and fashionable, but not totally correct. That kind of an analysis lacks precision and depth. It is like Kokatath Thailaya. There are countries who have benefitted from ‘free market’ when applied cautiously and preserving the national interests. China and India are two. Even Sri Lanka has benefitted in the past.
If one points out capitalism, as the structural condition of contemporary violence of the states and non-state actors, instead of mere ‘free-market, there is much truth in it. How can we talk about free market without capitalism? But that is a general theory. Moreover, many of our radicals or ‘Marxists’ are so shy to use that word (capitalism) these days, perhaps preferring state capitalism for their own benefit. One reason could be they are talking about and involved in not ‘class struggles,’ but ‘power-struggles.’
In conclusion, let me ignore Lasantha Pethiyagoda’s slight slight that the ‘writer’ (that is me!) has not researched violence in human history. He also seems to think that my advocacy of non-violence is perhaps naïve! Both are clear from his first sentence. My reservation about his comment, in turn, is that while beginning from the premise that ‘violence is inherent to human mind’ in general terms, he then further attributes further justification for specific violence that I was talking about to economic and foreign policies of governments. This is done without a single word condemning violence. I am sure he would, but he has not.