Speech at the Launch of Testimonies of Silent Pain

PROFESSOR MAITHREE WICKRAMASINGHE on 05/26/2017

It gives me great pleasure to join you – young women and men writers – as you launch your work in the anthology ‘Testimonies of Silent Pain’.

I will be speaking in English. As Professor in the Department of English, I am a firm believer in the potential of Sri Lankan English as a link language that could build bridges among the different speech communities in the country.

Allow me to begin my speech by thanking ‘The Social Architects’, for inviting me to be present on the occasion. It is, indeed, a privilege to be here. I have had the opportunity to skim read a couple of personal stories – though only in Sinhala, I grant, but I believe that these powerful pieces have the capacity to provide an interface – for the meeting of diverse minds, and hearts and spirits. I would like to congratulate TSA for this initiative as well as their other work in the field of ethnic and religious reconciliation.

A couple of days ago we marked eight years since the end of the war.

It is often claimed that time is a great healer. But I would like to question whether this is so for everyone?

Yes, certainly for some people – both in the divides of the South and the North, the war seems to have become a distant, though scarring memory. Life has gone on, been lived, people have moved to new cities, countries and continents; found new jobs and livelihoods, married and had children, begun to treasure and relish life once again.

But for others, specially those who have been directly affected in the North and East, those amongst the two fighting forces, and those lacerated by battle and bombardment, the war still remains a festering abscess. Life remains a daily struggle: to deal with loss – the loss of life, of family and loved ones; of occupations, positions, possessions, inheritances, and heritage. And most crucially, the loss of self – in body and mind.

Consequently, many Sri Lankans still remain deeply conflicted and wounded – given histories of intolerance and prejudices, insecurities of sporadic political violence, unaddressed structural inequalities, as well as frequent failures in governance to stem xenophobic campaigns – especially against the Tamils, Muslims and Christians of our country.

While there can be no return to cherished experiences and precious moments, we can however attempt to ensure that such injustices, injuries and atrocities do not take place again in this country – ever.

There is no doubt that the government has the greater responsibility to ensure that the requisite legal frameworks, policy implementation mechanisms, modalities and conditions are put in place – for peace to be sustainable, for truths to be expressible and acceptable, for justice to be transitional, and for reconciliation to be meaningful.

Moreover, the government has the onus to institute a new political culture that values free speech and diversity in opinion and dissent; that is proactive in preventing ethnic and religious violence, and that is able to hold fast to such aspirations – despite powerful forces and challenges of corruption and nepotism and militarization and commercialization and politicization.

And we are all aware of a number of initiatives by the government itself, as well as INGOs, NGOs and groups such as TSA towards meaningful reconciliation and sustainable peace.

However, we are all equally aware of other active forces that are working towards fulfilling their own venal self-interests, political agendas, quasi- religious aims, and parochial objectives – at the expense of peace and harmony.

In such a situation, we all have an equal responsibility in nationbuilding – even those of us who are not in government and who are not working in the field.

Remember, we all have the potential for self-initiative, for proactivity, and for resistance. Perhaps not on a grand scale but certainly at the level of the individual and the personal. In other words, when it comes to lasting peace and genuine reconciliation, do not forget that,

• we have the power, as individuals, to anticipate and be preemptive in what we say, do and practice;
• we have the power, as individuals, to advocate and self-initiate changes that are just and inclusive;
• and most importantly, we have the power, as individuals, to question and speak out;
• and to rise up and resist fear-mongering, prejudice and injustice as and when they occur.

If you really think about it, it only calls for everyday, ordinary, individual action – not only to prevent a culture of impunity but also to institute a culture of accountability.

Once again, congratulations and thank you.

Wake up stupid! It’s neo-populism

The left is in uncharted waters

by Kumar David-May 27, 2017, 5:02 pm 

Till recently I was the only person in this serendipitous Isle plugging away at the significance of the neo-populist surge. Even for a laid back country this was odd. Familiar populism of yesteryear, an old hat, is a poor departure point for interpreting a new phenomenon. Internationally too I was early in picking up its global portent. We need to deal with its rise, variants, unfolding manifestations and note when it peaks. It’s new game so sometimes one misjudges; mea culpa. Last week I said Emmanuel Macron’s En Marche was unlikely to win big in the June 11 (preliminary) and 18 (final) French legislative elections. My reading now is that it will win 240 to 290 places in the 577 seat assembly. Allow me the flexibility to think on my feet and retune from time to time.

In previous pieces in this column I have talked, maybe too much, about Trump, Brexit, the Philippine’s Duterte, France’s Macron and Le Pen, and India’ Modi; so no more today. Most of you I think glance at my column occasionally and will miss the continuity, sorry. If I had resources and time I would put it all together in a booklet; right now I have neither. My scope today is:

a) A crumbling left-populist regime in Venezuela, visibly mutating into a dictatorship.

b) Victory of President Hassan Rouhani with 57% in Iran’s May 19 election while pro-poor populist and Islamic hardliner Ebrahim Raisi polled 38%.

c) Opinion poll indications that Labour will suffer a setback on June 8 in the UK.

d) My updated view that the opportunities opening up before a unified left in Lanka are better than I had previously judged.

Venezuela

This once oil rich nation which struck out on a revolutionary-populist path is now crumbling. The Nicolas Maduro government controls nothing, not the economy, not parliament, not the streets, not the masses and control of the army is eroding. What do you expect! The annual rate of inflation has risen to750% (no, I have not added a zero), food riots, an exodus of a million to Columbia and Brazil, hospitals sans medicine and anaesthetics (thousands cross the border to Brazil and Columbia seeking treatment). Now Maduro is attempting to rewrite Chavez’s 1999 Constitution and grab absolute power. He used the puppet supreme court to strip the legislature of power but this was reversed by intervention of the Organisation of American States.

How did a successful country of the early 2000s, the country of the Bolivarian Revolution which brought welfare, education, opportunity, upliftment and liberation to millions living in poverty, suffer a debacle? Combining the reserves in Lake Maracaibo, the Gulf of Venezuela and the Orinoco Basin, it is not Saudi Arabia that has the world’s largest oil reserves, it is Venezuela! During the early and middle Chavez years when oil prices approached $150 a barrel, the country was awash. Chavez bathed the nation in welfare, education, housing, mass vaccination, food distribution in slums, public health and dental care and sports training for the poor. He formed neighbourhood committees and organs of grass-roots democracy. He poured money to sustain socialist friends such as ailing Cuba.

This was the great Bolivarian Revolution that socialists of the world hailed, but only a few like yours faithfully pointed out that its foundations were on shifting sands. Chavez spent like there was no tomorrow; he did not invest any of this great wealth in the long-term economy. Investment in agriculture, fisheries and industry was ignored. When oil prices plunged below $50 the edifice crumbled and debts ballooned; there was nothing to eat and nothing to buy anything with.

The moral is simple and important and not well learned by superficial Sri Lankan ‘Chavists’. Not only populist regimes steeped in conventional capitalism, but socialist-populist regimes too can be bloody stupid.

States crumble for systemic reasons (the 1930s, stagflation in 1970s and 2008-now) but they may also go belly-up if governance is in the hands of bloody-fool regimes – e.g. Marcos, Berlusconi, Mbeki-Zuma, Mugabe. Economic calamity is not only ordained in capitalist genes - it can be man-made. Capitalism is prone to periodic catastrophic crisis, but not every cock-up is systemic.

The same is true of some left-populist and ‘socialist’ regimes; they may be astonishingly stupid and no conclusions of methodological significance can be drawn there from. I am flabbergasted by the stupidity of the Chavez and Maduro regimes, especially the latter. Imagine a breadwinner who showers abundance for a few years, soon to leave his family destitute because extravagance leaves it penniless! The Venezuelan disaster is not a case from which generic conclusions can be drawn.

Iran

Rouhani won by a comfortable 19% but Raisi polled a remarkable 38%; both very significant numbers. Iran may be a continent away from France but exhibited parallelism; a liberal candidate put together a class coalition which bested a radical neo-populist challenge by about 60:40. The class mix of both winning coalitions included the elite, urban middle classes, internationalists and much of the new working class like tech workers. (Mistakenly dubbed middle-class though the surplus value it generates is appropriated by capital as is the lot of blue-collar workers).

The parallelism in the opposition is more striking. The underprivileged know that the system in France or Iran (or America or Brexit Britain) is rigged in favour of the privileged and realises that the political establishment is incapable of responding to the grievances of ordinary people. The web is awash with statistics; the 1%, the 99%, Wall Street bankers, trillions in off-shore sinecures, kick-backs and tax avoidance. This in the eyes of ordinary citizen is ‘The System’. In France the traditional working class backed Le Penn, in Iran unemployed young people, the poor and those bypassed by the benefits of partial sanctions lifting, swelled Raisi’s38%. This is a new angle on the class struggle.

Often but not always (Duterte is one such exception) neo-populists are xenophobic or ultra-nationalist - say Le Pen’s anti Muslim/immigrant refrain or the red-necked racism of Trump’s support base. Raisi is identified with hard-line Islamism and the Revolutionary Guard but how closely he empathises with jihadism I don’t know. Interestingly, ethnic/religious extremism is one of the first things neo-populists jettison under pressure. The French National Front is licking its wounds and pondering its programme; if you buy his utterances in Riyadh, Trump has been smitten by the sons of the Prophet; Raisi has seen the light and declares the Iran nuclear deal acceptable; Modi is vetting Hindutva inclinations to morph into a reform and reconstruction oriented popular-populist.

The intellectual minus for those unwilling to put aside old-hat populism and understand neo-populism as a new phenomenon is that their discourse becomes sterile; historical not original.

Britain’s Labour Party

God forbid! But apart from uncharacteristically exhorting the almighty we are staring into the abyss of a Labour defeat on June 8.(Recent polls show the Tory lead declining and it is too early to say whether the Manchester bomb will influence voting). The main reason for the swing to the Tory’s is that Brexit seems cast in stone and the electorate buys Theresa May’s plea for a strong negotiating position. The other reason is that Corbyn and Labour have not adequately grasped neo-populism and failed to develop a flexible and savvy campaign. Labour may be wiped out in Scotland, decimated in Wales (the land of Kier Hardy and Aneurin Bevan) and may lose in some of its strongholds in the Midlands and Northern England.

I do not have sufficient words left to foist gratuitous advice on Labour about how it should do its business but a tactical voting pact with the Lib-Dems, Greens and in Scotland with the SNP would be a good starting point. Now I have to shift to my favourite stomping ground, Lanka.

It’s a favourable wicket you stupids!

I will not repeat for the hundredth time that unification is the only way forward for the left. Sectarianism is a congenital disorder; Lanka’s small-sect left leaders repel each other like monopolar magnets. But my target today is the JVP. The principal culprits for the absence of left unity are not the minuscule sects but the JVP which has the size and clout to make things happen. If the JVP wished to it could boldly set about working on unification and it could achieve much in a few months. But from its origin the JVP has been isolationist, sunk in never-never land, shunning left collaboration. It is paying the price; perennial dwarf status compared to the big bourgeois parties. Well how then are left and right populists doing so well all over the world?

Personality is another minus. Whatever their faults Trump, Modi and Duterte are larger than life, fired by boundless ambition. Anura Kumara is not; he is laidback, easy going, an unlikely bidder for power. Wijeweeera, conversely, was ambitious to a fault and eschewed unity because he thought the JVP could go it alone; AK is apathetic because he shuns the limelight, a pity. The next general election will be a break-out opportunity for a unified left. This government may get the constitution through but the UNP is unlikely to achieve much on the economy. Sirisena’s ramshackle contraption will remain in the doldrums; the JO is shunned by Sinhala progressives, minorities and global powers. The West and China want none of it – did you read about the tongue lashing Modi gave Mahinda Rajapaksa? There are spaces opening up, it is time to grab opportunity by the forelock, but the left needs imagination, boldness, leadership and unity.

Indian Challenge on Sri Lanka — An Indian Viewpoint

New Delhi must work closely with the present dispensation in Colombo and occupy as much of the strategic space as it gets in the fiercely contested region

by Ashok K Mehta-May 27, 2017

May 27, 2017

( May 27, 2017, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in Sri Lanka this month for the international Vesak Day, the Buddhist country’s most revered day, at a time when China’s footprint is ubiquitous in the south of the country and anti-India sentiment high. Colombo refused Beijing permission to dock a submarine this month; a similar event in 2014 had outraged New Delhi. But immediately after Modi left Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe departed to attend China’s One Belt One Road event, which India boycotted.

Eight years after vanquishing the Tamil Tigers, Sri Lanka has not witnessed a single instance of terrorism. Instead it is flourishing, maintaining a steady growth rate of 5.5 per cent of GDP, which had taken off at eight per cent soon after the war. In Modi’s vision: transition from terrorism to tourism, Colombo faces three main problems: Political stability, revitalising the economy, and fulfilling its commitments to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution in Geneva on reconciliation with Tamils. Last month, during the visit of Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, India had expressed that “these would be completed in two years”.

Engineering the defeat of the invincible Rajapaksa regime was as big a feat as Rajapaksa destroying the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). India played a role in achieving both objectives. Rajapaksa has blamed India for his ouster. New Delhi’s clout in Colombo has been restored especially after its hands-off-cum laidback policy following the expulsion of the Indian Peace-Keeping Force and Mahinda Rajapaksa’s defiant embrace of China. Rajapaksa is down but not out, as his big May Day rally at Galle Face Green demonstrated. He remains popular with the masses in the south for building expressways, ports, airports and high rise buildings. Cut-outs of Rajapaksa, his pictures on trucks and on wartime posters along with his brother, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and former Army Commander, Sarath Fonseka, war victors, are still visible. Rajapaksa’s early return seems unlikely as long as the marvel of the coalition of the ruling parties in the National Unity Government sticks in the face of the joint opposition led by Rajapaksa.

The presidential and parliamentary elections are due only in January and August, 2020. But cracks are visible within the unity Government even as the local elections are now two years overdue. This is best illustrated by contradictory statements made by members of the Government. (Sri Lanka Freedom Party) Minister Chaminda Weerakoddy asserted recently that the existing Constitution would be amended, not replaced; while Cabinet spokesperson, Rajitha Senaratne (United National Party) announced there will be a new Constitution, reaffirmed by a referendum. President Maithripala Sirisena is holding tripartite talks on the Constitution (which Rajapaksa opposes) with Wickremesinghe and leader of Tamil National Alliance R Sambanthan.

The biggest challenge for the Government is reviving the economy. Opposition protests on price rise are an almost daily occurrence and an embarrassment for the Government, though at the heart of the problem is the high indebtedness to China during the profligacy of the Rajapaksa regime. Like potatoes and onions in India, rice and coconut prices are serious political destabilisers in Sri Lanka. Although the Government is importing rice, people have pinned their hopes on the pro-West Wickremesinghe to use his magic wand to turn around the economy. The revival of the EU Trade and Tariff concessions called GSP plus, worth $200 million annually, will be a shot in the arm for the economy. Managing the eight billion dollars to $10 billion debt to China at eight per cent interest rate will require political trade-off. Hambantota Port is one such stake that is being re-negotiated in the face of protests in the south, with China Merchant Port Holdings, which was expecting an 80 per cent share on long lease. The proposed award of Hambantota to China has landed the Government in court for enabling debt for equity. Further civilian protestors who had occupied two merchant vessels, had to be evicted by the Sri Lanka Navy. Overall, with just 10 m depth, Hambantota is not a deepwater port and is, therefore, ‘not strategic in calibre’. On Hambantota, Sri Lanka had made the first offer to India twice during 2003-05; around the same time, 15 Trincomalee oil tanks were leased to India for 35 years.

Sri Lanka’s strategic location in the Indian Ocean is akin to a massive aircraft carrier straddling the crucial Channels 4 and 6. All seven East-West gateways to the Indian Ocean crisscross the sea lanes of communication, 10-12 nautical miles from the country’s southern coast. Across the Indian Ocean, 100,000 ships transit annually carrying two thirds of the world’s oil shipments, one-third of bulk cargo and half the world’s container traffic pass through its waters.

Seventy per cent of India’s containers and almost 100 per cent of its containers bound for the US are trans-shipped through Colombo harbour. This is mainly due to the strict port security measures introduced by the US after 9/11. The mega ports initiative was aimed at enhancing detection capability for special nuclear and other radioactive material on containerised cargo. The problem is, India has no deep water (23 m) ports for bulk cargo containers. It is building a deep water port at Vizhinjam in Kerala but that will be insufficient to handle its burgeoning trade and economy. Colombo port’s expansion by China has created a fourth pier which has been offered to India for development — the three others being with Sri Lanka, Singapore and China. The offer by Colombo of Trincomalee harbour to India for its economic development is a strategic balance for Beijing’s overwhelming presence in Hambantota and Colombo. This has provoked a negative response as Rajapaksa has called it a betrayal of Lanka’s national asset.

Speaking at the 34th session of UNHRC at Geneva, Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera sought two more years to implement Sri Lanka’s commitments made by co-sponsoring the consensus resolution in September 2015, calling for credible judicial process to probe alleged rights abuses. The Colombo model of transitional justice is based on four pillars: Accountability, reparation, truth-seeking including office of missing persons; and a new Constitution. The problem of foreign judges may be overcome by posting international observers. The bottom line: No military officer is likely to be tried for human rights violations. The UNHRC rights chief has said Colombo is scared of acting against its Army.

India has regained some of the strategic space it lost to China during the war and post-war periods, but the Americans too have occupied some of that space at India’s cost. For New Delhi, keeping Mahinda Rajapaksa — and China — at bay, pushing the Government on addressing Tamil grievances and ensuring the longevity of the Government are the inter-connected challenges.

(The writer is a retired Major General of the Indian Army and strategic affairs expert)

Hunger strike ends, prisoners declare victory

Palestinians in Gaza City celebrate after hundreds of Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails suspended a 40-day hunger strike on 27 May. The end of the strike, which coincides with the start of Ramadan, came after marathon negotiations between Israeli prison authorities and strike leaders.Ashraf AmraAPA images-Palestinian women hold portraits of relatives held in jails and have gone on hunger strike in East Jerusalem (AFP)

Ali Abunimah-27 May 2017

After 40 days without food, hundreds of Palestinian prisoners have suspended their hunger strike in Israeli jails.

The end of the strike came after 20 hours of intense negotiations between the strike’s leaders, including imprisoned Fatah figure Marwan Barghouti, and the Israel Prison Service, according to a statement issued Saturday morning by the prisoners solidarity committee.

The committee hailed the agreement as a “victory for the Palestinian people and the prisoners in their epic defense of freedom and dignity.”

It added that Israel was forced to negotiate after realizing that the prisoners “were ready to continue until victory or martyrdom and that the use of oppression, violence and other violations failed to weaken them, but rather strengthened their resolve.”

The statement says Israeli authorities accepted some of the demands of the prisoners, but does not provide details.

However Israel Prison Service sources told the Ma’an News Agency that the agreement, reached between Israel, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and the Palestinian Authority, would grant prisoners a second monthly family visit to be funded by the PA.

“The move effectively reinstated the number of family visits that were traditionally provided to Palestinian prisoners, before the ICRC reduced the number of visits they facilitated last year from two to one visit a month, sparking protests across the Palestinian territory,” according to Ma’an.

But the Israeli prison spokesperson reportedly “declined to comment on whether any of the other demands were met.”

Strike-breaking efforts

Some 1,500 prisoners began their hunger strike on 17 April to demand improvements in conditions and an end to solitary confinement, heavy restrictions on family visits and administrative detention – prolonged imprisonment without charge.

They also called for Israel to ease restrictions on the entry of books, clothing, food and other items from family members.

Israel quickly resorted to harsh punitive measures in its effort to break the strike, including transferring prisoners between prisons, subjecting leaders to solitary confinement, blocking visits by lawyers and confiscating personal belongings.

As the strike continued and the health of many prisoners sharply deteriorated, Israel increased psychological pressure: media reports suggested Israel would resort to the dangerous and medically unethical practice of force-feeding and Israeli ministers publicly smeared Marwan Barghouti in an apparent effort to discredit him and break the strike’s unity.

By Friday night, 834 prisoners remained on hunger strike, according to the Tel Aviv newspaper Haaretz, and 18 remained hospitalized.

Solidarity

Activists in Palestine and around the world have organized solidarity actions with the hunger strikers. Many posted on social media about taking the “salt water challenge” – symbolically drinking only salty water, as the hunger strikers do, to raise awareness about their struggle.

The last mass hunger strike occurred in 2014, when hundreds of prisoners protested the use of administrative detention. Before and since, individuals have waged individual hunger strikes, in some cases reaching three months.

The end of this strike coincides with the beginning of Ramadan. Some prisoners had announced the intention to fast by refusing even salt and water during the hours of sunrise to sunset. This could have placed their already weakened bodies in even graver danger, and sharply increased pressure on Israel.

Israelis rally for Palestinian state, end of occupation

Israeli opposition Labour party leader Isaac Herzog attends rally, throws support behind two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Israeli left-wing supporter holds banner during demonstration against 50 years of occupation titled "Two States - One Hope", on Saturday in Tel Aviv (AFP)

AFP-Saturday 27 May 2017

Thousands of Israelis rallied on Saturday in Tel Aviv in support of a Palestinian state ahead of the 50th anniversary of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land.

Banners bearing the slogan "Two states, One Hope" featured in the demonstration organised by supporters of a Palestinian state, including the Israeli NGO Peace Now.

NGO head Avi Buskila said the rally was a protest against "the lack of hope being offered by a government perpetuating occupation, violence and racism".

"The time has come to prove to the Israelis, the Palestinians and the entire world that an important segment of the Israeli population is opposed to occupation and wants a two-state solution," he added.

View image on Twitter

 Follow

ᴊᴀᴄᴋ ᴍᴏᴏʀᴇ جاك 

✔@JFXM

15,000 Israelis are protesting Israel's military occupation tonight in Tel Aviv's Rabin Square, calling for a two-state solution.

3:27 PM - 27 May 2017

 
•  2929 Retweets
 
•  3232 likes

Twitter Ads info & Privacy

A message of support from Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas was read out at the rally.

"It is time to live together in harmony, security and stability," Abbas was quoted as saying.

"Our duty towards future generations is to conclude a peace of the brave."

Israeli opposition Labour party leader Isaac Herzog attended the rally and threw his support behind a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In 1967, Israel seized the West Bank and east Jerusalem from Jordan during the Six-Day War with neighbouring states.

It later annexed east Jerusalem in a move never recognised by the international community.

Israel proclaims Jerusalem as its united capital, while the Palestinians claim the city's eastern part as the capital of their future state.

More than 400,000 Israelis live in settlements on the West Bank that are considered illegal under international law and a major obstacle to Middle East peace.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government is widely seen as the most right-wing administration in Israeli history and is pressing settlement expansion despite international concern.

Some government members have openly advocated annexing the West Bank.

The Cynical Conspiracy War on Egypt’s Christians

The Muslim Brotherhood isn’t behind the callous mass murder of Copts, but it’s certainly fanning the flames of hatred.

BY ERIC TRAGER-MAY 27, 2017

When news broke of Friday’s devastating attack on Coptic Christians in Upper Egypt, in which at least 28 were murdered and 23 injured aboard a monastery-bound bus, prominent Egyptian Islamists offered a predictably libelous response: The Egyptian government was behind the attack, they alleged, and Christians got what they deserved.

“We wonder about the beneficiary of igniting Egypt and putting it in the midst of bloody incidents leading to the unknown,” read the Muslim Brotherhood’s statement. “How did the attackers know that there was a bus carrying children, women, and innocent souls,” the statement asked rhetorically, implying that the government had coordinated with the terrorists.

The Brotherhood isn’t alone in pushing this conspiracy theory. Ayat al-Oraby, a New York-based Islamist who boasts over 400,000 Facebook followers and lobbied Congress earlier this month, added a sectarian rant to the mix. “The whole issue,” she wrote, “is [meant] to establish superficial oppression against Christians in Egypt, and try to export the image that they are persecuted.” She added that Coptic Pope Tawadros II is complicit in this nefarious and callous plot.

Prominent Muslim Brotherhood youth Ahmed el-Moghir was perhaps the most explicit. “Whether those avenging Christians’ crimes or the ruling regime is responsible for today’s incident, the result is the same,” he wrote on Facebook. “Christians are paying the price for their alliance with the Egyptian regime, and there is no solution for them but to step back and reconcile with Muslims or their blood will continue to run like rivers and nobody will care.”

El-Moghir’s statement reflects a typical Egyptian Islamist pathology, according to which Christians are primarily responsible for the July 2013 overthrow of Egypt’s first elected president, Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi, and for the severe repression of the Brotherhood that followed. In reality, the Coptic pope was only one of many, mostly Muslim figures — including the sheikh of Al-Azhar University, the leader of a Salafist party, non-Islamist politician Mohamed el-Baradei, prominent youth activists, top military leaders, and others — who stood with then-Defense Minister Abdel Fattah el-Sisi when he announced the coup. But because the Brotherhood equates its mission with Islam, it regards Morsi’s overthrow as an anti-Muslim act driven by non-Muslims and their allies. So, if jihadis were responsible for Friday’s attack in Minya, then they were merely avenging, in el-Moghir’s words, “Christians’ crimes” — namely, the coup and its aftermath.

But far from being in cahoots with the Egyptian government, as Muslim Brothers allege, Egyptian Christians are increasingly beholden to rulers who have failed to protect them time and again. After all, Friday’s murderous rampage is merely the latest in a series of terrorist attacks — the most severe of which have been claimed by the Islamic State — against Egypt’s Christian community: The Islamic State killed 25 in a Cairo church attack in December, drove over 100 Christian families from northern Sinai after a series of attacks in February and March, and killed 49 Christians in two church bombings on Palm Sunday in April. According to the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, terrorists have attacked Christian institutions or individuals over three dozen times in the past six months, killing 121 and injuring 168.

This is not random violence, but part of a malevolent political strategy.

This is not random violence, but part of a malevolent political strategy. As George Washington University’s Mokhtar Awad noted, the Islamic State believes that its anti-Christian terrorism will destabilize Egypt, much as its predecessor organization’s attacks on Shiites in Iraq fomented instability in that country.

To be sure, the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t directly responsible for these attacks. But the Brotherhood’s anti-Christian incitement contributes to an environment that legitimizes them. Indeed, Brotherhood leaders routinely portray Christians not as victims of violence, but as beneficiaries of an Egyptian government that has brutally repressed the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups.

The sectarian propaganda isn’t subtle. In an April Facebook post, for example, Muslim Brotherhood leader Gamal Heshmat falsely claimed that Egyptian President Sisi had cancelled Islamic education in mosques, adding parenthetically “even as Christian religious education in Sunday schools continues.” In another post earlier that month, Heshmat claimed that “Jewish and Christian religious extremists” who “rule the world” were responsible for destabilizing Islamist-led governments. Along the same lines, following the Palm Sunday attacks, Brotherhood leader Abdul Mawgoud el-Dardery blamed Christians for the “crisis” and indicated that the violence would only end when Christians aligned with “Muslims,” by which he seemingly meant Islamists.

At other times, the Muslim Brotherhood portrays Christians as aggressors. Its political party tweeted a photo of Christian clerics walking past a tank during Pope Francis’s April visit to Cairo, and declared the Egyptian military the “church militia.” Following the Palm Sunday attacks, Muslim Brotherhood youth figure Amr Farrag promoted the conspiracy theory that the Coptic pope had advance knowledge of the attack and left the church before it happened.

More common, Brotherhood leaders simply depict Christians as enemies. “A Jew [meaning Sisi] rules Egypt for Israel’s sake and tries to divide it, while Egyptian Christians insult Islam and Muslims,” Muslim Brotherhood leader Ashraf Abdel Ghaffar wrote in April.

These comments amount to blatant incitement to violence — especially considering the tenuous empathy for Egyptian Christians’ fraught position within some quarters of the country. In a television 
interview following the Palm Sunday attacks, the nephew of a female Muslim security guard slain in the bombing shared his aunt’s discomfort in guarding the church: She wondered whether God would accept her prayers if she prayed in a church, and whether she would be considered a martyr if she died there. Of course, she ultimately did her duty, and her nephew shared her story as evidence of Egypt’s unity. “Those who died were Christians who were praying and Muslims who were praying,” he said. “I would like to strongly assert to ISIS that … we were not finished off.”

The Brotherhood’s sectarian incitement, however, is intended to make Egyptian Muslims think twice about guarding churches — much as the Islamic State’s brutality makes them think twice for security reasons. And while President Sisi has denounced the terrorists’ attempt to “hit at our cohesion,” his government’s ineffectiveness in protecting Christians have left them to the mercy of this horrific one-two punch.

MOHAMED EL-SHAHED/AFP/Getty Images

Rodrigo Duterte jokes to soldiers that they can rape women with impunity

‘If you had raped three, I will admit it, that’s on me’ Philippines president tells soldiers on Mindanao island where he has imposed martial law

 Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is known for making offensive comments Photograph: HANDOUT/Reuters

Saturday 27 May 2017

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has sought to reassure soldiers who might be accused of committing abuses under martial law and jokingly said that if any of them were to rape three women, he would personally claim responsibility for it.

Duterte is notorious for comments often deemed offensive and made the remark as a joke, reiterating that only he would be liable for any backlash over military rule on southern Mindanao island. He has, however, said he would not tolerate abuses.

“If you go down, I go down. But for this martial law and the consequences of martial law and the ramifications of martial law, I and I alone would be responsible, just do your job I will take care of the rest,” Duterte said on Friday, according to a president’s office transcript.

“I’ll imprison you myself,” he said, referring to any soldiers who commit violations, then he joked: “If you had raped three, I will admit it, that’s on me.”

Duterte made the remark in a speech to soldiers on Mindanao island, where he imposed martial law on Tuesday to try to crush Islamic State-linked rebels, who have been battling the military after laying siege to a southern city.

It was not the first time Duterte has made a joke about rape. He caused outrage in the lead-up to his presidential election win last year when he recalled a 1989 prison riot in which an Australian missionary was killed, and inmates had lined up to rape her.

In what was intended as a joke, Duterte said the victim was “beautiful” and as mayor of Davao city where the riot took place, he should have been first in line. He later apologised and said he did not intend to disrespect women or rape victims.

Duterte’s speeches are often loaded with profanity, threats and jokes about taboo subjects, which offend some, but are taken lightly by many Filipinos.

The president’s spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Duterte’s latest remarks about rape.

Duterte’s pledge of support for troops comes as human rights groups and some lawmakers criticise his decision to declare martial law as excessive, and say it could lead to abuses by security forces.

He also joked that he would join soldiers in the fight against extremists if he could, but he had arthritis.

He urged rebels to disarm and hold talks and said anyone not authorised to carry guns would be killed.

“My order to the troops is all people who are not authorised by government to carry arms and they resist, kill them, wipe them out,” he said.

Hong Kong’s autonomy is not a licence to challenge Beijing – China official

A Chinese national flag and a Hong Kong flag fly outside the Legislative Council in Hong Kong, China Nov 7, 2016. Source: Reuters/Bobby Yip

27th May 2017

A TOP Chinese official said on Saturday Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy must not be taken as a licence to confront Beijing, and urged the territory’s government to implement contentious new national security laws.

The comments by Zhang Dejiang, China’s number three official who oversees Hong Kong affairs, highlight growing concerns at Beijing’s top leadership about a fledgling independence or secessionist movement in the former British colony.

They come as Hong Kong, which returned to mainland rule in 1997 amid promises of wide-ranging autonomy under the formula of “one country, two systems”, is set to celebrate the 20th anniversary of its handover on July 1, with Chinese president Xi Jinping widely expected to visit the city.

SEE ALSO: Hong Kong: 9 democracy activists nabbed over 2016 protest – parties

In some of his strongest comments yet, Zhang, the chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, warned in a speech that Hong Kong’s autonomy should not be used as a license to challenge the central government’s authority.

“Under ‘One Country, Two Systems,’ the Central Government and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s power relationship is… not one of power sharing,” Zhang said during an official forum discussing Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, in footage carried by Hong Kong’s Cable TV.

“Under no condition should the high degree of autonomy be used as a guise to confront the Central Government’s authority.”

After the 2014 “Umbrella Movement” protests, where hundreds of thousands occupied the streets for months and demanded full democracy, a nascent independence movement emerged, though it lost momentum after China stepped in last year to effectively disqualify two of the movement’s young leaders elected into legislature.

SEE ALSO: Beijing-favourite Carrie Lam takes victory in controversial HK election

Apart from the independence movement, another group of activists headed by student protest leader Joshua Wong called for self-determination rights for the former colony.

Zhang slammed both movements on Saturday.

“In practice they attempt to turn Hong Kong into an independent or semi-independent political entity, and to secede Hong Kong from the country,” Zhang said.

“We cannot ignore these actions. The (Hong Kong government) should implement their constitutional responsibility under the Basic Law to enact laws over national security, and resolutely halt any behaviour and action that endanger national unity.”

Under Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, known as the Basic Law, the government is expected to toughen up the territory’s existing national security laws, but has held off on doing so since its last attempt in 2003 triggered the first massive street protests after the handover. – Reuters