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, June 9, 2017

A Shop A Day Continues: Muslim-Owned Shop Torched In Mahiyanganaya

Even as two weeks passed since police claimed they had deployed several units to arrest Bodu Bala Sena’s (BBS) Galagoda Atte Gnanasara who reportedly continues to be in hiding to evade arrest, yet another Muslim-owned shop ‘Rich Shoe Palace’ was torched on Friday night in Mahiyangana.
This is at least the fourth Muslim owned business to be torched within this week alone. The shop was owned by a Muslim businessman from Batticaloa’s Kattankudy. Over the past one week, Muslim owned shops in Dematagoda, Maharagama and Nugegoda have been set on fire.
Despite even calls from the diplomatic community to take action against the increasing attacks on the Muslims, the government continues to soft peddle the incidents, and is yet to openly even condemn the attacks against the minority community.
On May 25, the police headquarters said that it had deployed several units to arrest Ganansara, however two weeks later, they are yet to apprehend him and the police claim that as he is in hiding, they are helpless.
Incidentally the attack on the latest Muslim owned shop in Mahiyangana comes almost a year after Gnanasara threatened to repeat the Aluthgama riots in Mahiyangana against the Muslims. Addressing a Satyagraha on June 21, 2016 to protest against the arrest of two youth from the area, Gnanasara told the IGP to take action against the senior police officers in the area, as they are not working in accordance to the wishes of the Buddhist clergy. “If you can’t handle them, tell us, we will take care of them. We only need about 50 people to take care of them, and we are not scared to go behind bars,” he said. Gnanasara in his speech added that if his group didn’t receive a favourable response from the IGP and the government, the BBS will not think twice to commence ‘phase 2 of the Aluthgama’ mayhem.

Wijayadasa Rajapakshe is protecting Gnanasara - IGP

Image may contain: 4 people, including Imthikaf Hussein, people smiling
Jun 09, 2017

When a powerful minister in the government inquired from IGP Pujith Jayasundara as to why Bodu Bala Sena General Secretary Galagodaatte Gnanasara Thera was not being arrested for having submitted fake medical certificates to the court of appeal and evaded courts, the police chief said, “Sir, how can Gnanasara be arrested? Our justice minister Mr. Wijayadasa Rajapakshe is protecting him.”

The IGP said further, “Big-shots in the government strike various deals. In the end, we are blamed for everything. If we are allowed to do our duty without any interference, we know what to do.”

He told the minister that the attack on a Muslim business place at Maharagama was over an insurance matter. However, after he was shown by the businessman the relevant CCTV camera footage, the minister told the IGP to arrest the persons responsible. Accordingly, the suspects were arrested yesterday.

Arsonist who burnt down Muslim shops in Maharagama arrested ; secret meetings of Gnanassara and Wijedasa exposed; Gota the intermediary (video)


LEN logo(Lanka-e-News - 09.June.2017, 2.45PM) An individual who is associated with the organization  inciting  religious hatred and stoking hate crimes across the country by setting fire to several Muslim shops in Mahragama and Wijerama by hurling petrol bombs was arrested by the police intelligence division officers at Maharagama on 8 th at dawn.
The suspect was arrested following identification made through CCTV cameras installed in the vicinity of the shops that came under attack.
The suspect is 33 years old Wanniarachige Kasun Kumara residing at 67 , Pasal Mawatha , Maharagama  employed at a restaurant located at Maharagama – Dehiwala Road .He is a life member of the Bodhu Bala Sena organization.
The CCTV cameras had recorded this criminal prowling in the night on a bicycle and setting fire to closed shops. (CCTV photograph herein depicts an incident at Wijerama)
A shop at High level road , Maharagama on 22 nd May; a pharmacy   at Wijerama on 24th  ; a Cushioning shop at Wijerama again on 6 th June ; and another shop at Maharagama on 7 th were set fire to  by this suspect. As a result huge damage has been caused to the shops.
The police intelligence officers of Western province and Mirihana are interrogating the suspect to elicit information in order to determine on whose instructions this culprit committed these crimes  aimed at plunging the country into a racial holocaust .
Meanwhile based on reports  reaching Lanka e news inside information division , the maniacal  monk Galagoda Athe Gnanassara bent on unleashing racial  violence in the country had met with notorious  turncoat , black coat , parana coat  crook   Wijedasa Rajapakse , Colombo district M.P  and minister of justice secretly on many occasions during the recent past .
On every occasion it is former defense secretary Gotabaya Rajapakse  a byword for murder and mayhem  who had informed Wijedasa Rajapakse of Gnanassara’s arrival to meet him, according to reports.  On some occasions , Wijedasa had even not attended parliament because Gnanassara was coming to meet him. Anyone who wishes to verify the veracity of these revelations can examine the calls exchanged via the phone at the home of Wijedasa , and get confirmation.
In spite of so many complaints made to the Police , Gnanassara who is wantonly trying to plunge the country into a holocaust through his rowdy conduct and vituperative hate speeches while  wearing the saffron robe and disgracing  his own religion , has still not been taken into custody . Neither the minister in charge of the police force nor the IGP had entrusted the CID with the responsibility to take this monk into custody who is committing outrageous sacrilege and inciting racial violence openly to the detriment of the entire country 
---------------------------
by     (2017-06-09 09:49:44)

5.5 kg of heroin found floating in northern waters

5.5 kg of heroin found floating in northern waters

logo
June 10, 2017 
Sri Lankan Coast Guard personnel onboard ‘CG 41’ attached to the Northern Naval Command, during patrol, detected a suspicious bag abandoned in the seas about 10 Nm off Kankesanthurei on Friday (09). 
Further investigations into the incident carried out by the Navy disclosed that there were 5.5 kg of heroin stocked in the bag in 5 packages.
The apprehended bag of heroin was handed over to the Kankesanthurei Police for onward investigations, Sri Lanka Navy said.

Gaza Palestinian shot dead by Israeli soldiers: ministry


An Israeli army spokesperson accused Palestinian demonstrators of burning tyres and throwing stones
Palestinian protesters chant slogans during a protest against the blockade on Gaza, near the border fence east of Kahn Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip (AFP)

AFP-Friday 9 June 2017
A Palestinian was killed by Israeli gunfire during clashes in the northern Gaza Strip on Friday, said the health ministry of the Islamist movement Hamas which runs the territory.
"Aeid Jumaa, 35, was killed and six other Palestinians were wounded during clashes along the Gaza border (with Israel) north of Jabalia," ministry spokesman Ashraf al-Qudra said.
An Israeli army spokeswoman, contacted by AFP, said hundreds of Palestinian demonstrators had burned tyres and been throwing stones the length of the security fence between Israel and Gaza.
"Our forces had to arrest suspects to prevent damage to the security fence," she said, but was unable to confirm the casualties from gunfire.
A wave of unrest that broke out in October 2015 has claimed the lives of 269 Palestinians, 41 Israelis, two Americans, two Jordanians, an Eritrean, a Sudanese and a Briton, according to an AFP tally.
Israeli authorities say most of the Palestinians killed were carrying out knife, gun or car-ramming attacks.
However, others were shot dead during protests or clashes, while some were killed in Israeli air strikes on Gaza.
The violence has subsided in recent months.

The shock of defeat in 1967


Israeli soldiers celebrate the capture of the Old City of Jerusalem from Jordan on 11 June 1967. (Bettmann/Getty Images)

Mahdi Abdul Hadi-6 June 2017

In 1967, I was 23 years old and attended the second year of law school in Damascus. My father was a judge and two of our neighbors were lawyers. I used to enjoy listening to their discussions on legal and political issues. In the month preceding the June war, one could sense the increasing tension in the air and that some regional conflict might be ahead. As a result, most of my colleagues and I decided to return home to our families in Jerusalem even before the official summer holidays, fearing that we might be unable to do so if the situation in the region did escalate.

My family’s house was next to Orient House which served as the headquarters of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the 1980s and ‘90s, until it was shuttered by Israel in 2001. During the week of the war, neighboring families stayed with us in the salon of our house, which was one of the largest in the area, for safety reasons, sharing all facilities with us.

We were glued to the radio, listening to the news bulletins from Radio Cairo, our main source of information. As we were advised by the neighborhood committee not to have lights on in the house, we put mattresses up to cover the windows. I took the risk of leaving the house in the heat of the war just three times in order to collect bread and food from the Ritz Hotel, only a few hundred meters away, which had been left deserted by all its staff.

Like most young men in my neighborhood, I had no military experience nor had I ever joined any resistance organization or training camp. However, there were national activists who established popular committees to provide guidance to civil society on issues such as how to handle any unexpected military presence at their doors. They also warned us to avoid the streets because of the army’s presence. As we were indeed afraid to be hit by stray bullets, we stayed home as much as possible.

Interestingly, in those days we never thought of the war from a wider Palestinian perspective, i.e., we didn’t think of what was happening in Gaza, Hebron or Nablus. Our world shrank to Jerusalem only, and we felt like we were on a ship in the middle of the ocean, isolated and rudderless. There was no flag or leadership behind which to unite. We were left deeply uncertain about the direction in which things were heading. A major concern for everyone was the occupation of the Old City and of its holy places.

Blinded by illusion

It is important to point out the gap between our understanding, perceptions and knowledge of the unfolding events back then, and the knowledge we have today thanks to the many historical documents, official intelligence reports and personal memoirs that have been released and revealed since.

Fifty years ago, we were told – and this was the common belief then – that Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had received information from the Soviet Union about a planned Israeli aggression on Syria. He reacted by closing the Strait of Tiran and alerting the Egyptian army. US President Lyndon B. Johnson had declared his full support for Israel, and we heard that King Hussein of Jordan had rushed to Cairo to sign a defense pact with the United Arab Republic (the union that had been formed between Syria and Egypt in February 1958, but by then only consisted of Egypt).

We marched in the streets of Jerusalem, full of Pan-Arab pride at President Nasser’s speech on defending Syria and being ready for war to nullify Israeli plans. In the last week before the war, we saw Ahmad Shukeiri, then chairman of the PLO, at the Ambassador Hotel in Jerusalem telling local media after meeting with the city’s notables that regaining control over Jaffa and Haifa was only a matter of time. We were awed by national zeal and false portrayals of reality.

Today we can tell the true story of June 1967 and admit that we lived an illusion. We know that the war was not so much the result of Arab aspirations to undo Israel as the result of Israel’s agenda against Nasser and its intention to occupy the West Bank. We know that back then, President Johnson told Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban that Nasser would not launch a war on Israel, and that Menachem Begin, well aware of this, later stated “we must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

From the memoirs of several Israeli generals, we now know that they aspired to annex the West Bank to Israel, claiming they made a historical mistake in 1948 by not conquering “Judea” and “Samaria.” The attack of the village of al-Samu, near Hebron, in 1966, was only a flexing of muscles and a test of Israel’s military apparatus. That attack left some 16 Jordanian soldiers and three civilians dead and, more portentously, led to the demolition of between 40 and 120 houses. One Israeli soldier was killed.

Once Moshe Dayan, defense minister then, launched a preemptive strike, completely destroying the Egyptian and Syrian air forces, it became clear to us that, contrary to all the high expectations, the Arab armies were about to be defeated. We heard on the radio Jordan’s King Hussein appealing to people to “resist the aggression and challenge it with hands and teeth,” but even though Arab media falsely claimed victory over the Israeli forces, it was only a few days later that we experienced the overwhelming shock of defeat.

Many cried and we felt humiliated, but it soon turned out that the worst was yet to come. Right after the war, one of the biggest shocks was when Israeli forces demolished the 135 homes of the historical Moroccan Quarter in the Old City, adjacent to the Buraq Wall, which – according to an age-old religious status quo confirmed by the British in 1930 – was part of al-Aqsa mosque.

The Palestinian families living in the Moroccan Quarter were evicted so that Israel could build a square around the Buraq Wall, on the ruins of the demolished homes. The area is now known as the “Western Wall Plaza.”

Another setback was the resignation of President Nasser, who took full responsibility for the defeat. Not only Egyptians, but people across the Arab world called on Nasser to stay in office and lead a new chapter in the liberation of Palestine from occupation and cleaning the Arab house of corrupt political regimes.

A faded hope

For us in Jerusalem, our first “real” experience with defeat was seeing the Israeli military in the streets of the city, calling on people to hand over their weapons, although there were none around to do so. I remember walking through Salah al-Din Street to the Damascus Gate, where the Israelis had assembled a number of buses, encouraging Palestinians from the Old City to evacuate and leave to Amman across the bombed and broken Allenby Bridge to follow those who had fled during the fighting.

I was in a troubled state of mind and couldn’t grasp the reality that there was another world next to mine. I had lived in Jerusalem without thinking what was on the other side of the wall, in my city’s western part. Only after the war, could I open my eyes. I walked up the hill of Notre Dame Hotel, for example, to the old municipality building, I was searching for a building nearby, where I was told my father and uncle had had their law office prior to 1948. I felt nostalgia, touching history with my eyes, as I walked along Jaffa Street and to King George Street, where I noticed a sign saying the street had been opened under the auspices of Ragheb Nashashibi, who served as Jerusalem mayor from 1920 to 1934.

I felt a sense of loss about what had been ours and now was not. How could a young man like me cope? Apart from the shock and humiliation, there was a strong feeling of “I am here, I am not leaving, I belong and this is ours too.” Later in the month, we all were registered in the new Israeli census of Arab inhabitants of the city. From that time on and until today, we were considered “residents,” not “citizens.” Although the Israelis were henceforth in charge, we tried to avoid any contact with them – after all, they were the enemy and we should have nothing to do with them.
At the same time, we kept dreaming that it would only be a matter of time before this catastrophe would end – that it would not last for long, just as it had been the case of the Israeli occupation of Gaza in 1956. We recited the politically inspired poems of Nizar Qabbani. Back then no one ever thought it would last 50 years. And indeed it could not have lasted if international political will to give any meaning to UN Resolution 242 of November 1967 had not faded or the statements of too many Arab summits been turned into reality.

But these statements proved meaningless and international will did fade and remains faded. It is in fact with the backing of the international community that Israel has been able to continue unabated what it set off in those painful days in June 1967.

Then and now

After the war, apart from the political situation, we were much concerned with the practical difficulties of daily life. Banks in Jerusalem were closed, so people were afraid of money shortages. I needed to assuage my parents’ concerns and followed some of my friends to Amman. We knew the Israeli authorities would seize our passports and wouldn’t allow us to come back after crossing the Allenby Bridge. I handed my personal ID papers to the Israeli guard at the checkpoint, claiming that I lost my passport, even though it was hidden in my pocket. Luckily, they were not interested in people crossing that way across the bridge, so they let me pass.

I traveled to Amman to collect my father’s pensions and to buy very much needed medicines for both my parents. In Amman, I went to meet the well known Jordanian notable Mohamed Odeh Quran, head of the Agricultural Credit Corporation, later appointed member of Jordan’s senate, and one of my father’s close friends. I will never forget how he embraced me as his son and gave me his own shoes to wear; mine were full of mud from the Jericho area.

Quran also lent me his driver, who drove me to the bank and the pharmacy. In the early morning of the next day, the driver took me to Allenby Bridge where I had to pay, as others did, a huge amount of money to be smuggled back to the West Bank. We had to cross the river, wading through water up to our waists. I hid all day in Jericho and slept on the balcony of our old house there. The next day I shared a taxi back to Jerusalem, a big smile on my face, happy to have successfully accomplished my mission.

By the way, Quran kept sending my father’s pensions and medicines for months, saving me from having to repeatedly smuggle myself back into Jordan.

Today, 50 years later, I see our young generation in Jerusalem undertaking similarly courageous missions, acting individually and unpredictably, trying to meet some of their aspirations. I think: I was then where they are now, with a smile on our faces, without fear of what lies ahead as long as we believed in our tasks and responsibilities.

Mahdi Abdul Hadi is founder and chairman of the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, PASSIA.

Al-Shabaab fighters kill dozens in attack on military base in Somalia

Up to 70 people feared dead after Islamist militants storm Puntland army camp in one of deadliest attacks on security forces

Al-Shabaab militants at a training camp in Mogadishu. Photograph: Feisal Omar/Reuters

 Africa correspondent-Thursday 8 June 2017
Hundreds of fighters from al-Shabaab, the Islamist militant group that controls parts of Somalia, have stormed an army base, killing up to 70 people and wounding dozens more.
Residents said some civilians were beheaded during the attack on the remote Af-Urur camp, in Somalia’s semi-autonomous northern state of Puntland.

The attack, one of the deadliest to target Somali security forces for several years, underlines the continuing strength of al-Shabaab, an al-Qaida affiliate.
The assault began with a blast, before the extremists overran the base and killed soldiers at close range, said Ahmed Mohamed, a senior military official.
An exact death toll was not yet available, he said, adding: “The situation is grim over there. This attack was an unexpected one.”
Liban Mohamed, a nurse at the hospital in nearby Armo town, said at least 40 wounded soldiers had been brought there. Witnesses said the militants wore uniforms resembling those of local security forces and attacked at dawn.
Capt Yasin Nur Mohamed, a local military officer, said the militants shouted “God is great” as they breached the camp’s limited defences.
“They caught my fellow soldiers off-guard,” he said. “We did not expect such a big assault on our base. They entered chanting ‘God is great’ from the side of the hill while many of the soldiers manning the base were asleep. They killed many of my friends.
“It was a complete loss to us. But now we have returned to the base. We are preparing to bury the dead soldiers and civilians.”
Hashi Muse, 45, a farmer living near the camp, was preparing a meal when he heard an explosion and gunfire.
“What happened today was a massacre – they killed many civilians,” he said. “This afternoon I have seen dead bodies of those killed. I have seen four headless women, bodies slaughtered by al-Shabaab in one place.
“They killed every person they saw, even children.”
The women are thought to have been cooks for the soldiers.
Such violence, if confirmed, is unprecedented locally and may indicate an escalation of the long-running conflict in Somalia.
The extremists, including suicide bombers, reportedly attacked the base from three directions and used a vehicle bomb to open a gap in a perimeter fence. Similar tactics have been used in a series of successful attacks on military bases elsewhere in the country in recent years.

Al-Shabaab claimed it killed at least 61 soldiers in the attack. “Early on Thursday, our fighters stormed a military base in Puntland. This base was used by foreign soldiers and Puntand apostates in the area,” it said in a statement.
“We have killed many soldiers – as the number goes up, we have counted about 60. Our fighters took control of the whole town including the base … This was a huge defeat of the western-trained soldiers in Somalia.”
Some local forces have received training from US, British and other western armies in recent years. Al-Shabaab said it seized a large amount of weapons and ammunition as well as more than a dozen military vehicles. The group’s strongholds are in the south and centre of Somalia, though it has a presence through much of the country.
Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, the newly elected president, has pledged to rid Somalia of al-Shabaab, which was formed in 2009. The US is increasingly engaged in the campaign against the group.
Donald Trump, the US president, recently designated Somalia a “zone of active hostilities”, allowing commanders greater authority when launching airstrikes, broadening the range of possible targets and relaxing restrictions on the use of air power designed to prevent civilian casualties.
The group, which has not been implicated in any plots to strike the US or Europe, has carried out several high-profile terrorist attacks in east Africa. It has attracted recruits from the US and Europe.
Puntland also faces a threat from a faction of Islamic State-linked fighters who have split from al-Shabaab. Isis and al-Qaida, which are rivals, have encouraged militants to stage attacks during the holy month of Ramadan.
Saudi-Qatari rift: Submission is survival

2017-06-09
In the sea of world politics, it is a norm that the big fish eats the small fish. For small States, sovereignty is a myth. When the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was formed in 1981, some Arab analysts saw it as an attempt by Saudi Arabia to swallow up the small emirates on its eastern borders.

In effect, the GCC is a Saudi-led defence bloc, as much as an economic bloc. Since the 2011 Arab Spring shock, Riyadh has resorted to aggressive and assertive diplomacy to maintain the Saudi-led political order in the troubled Middle East. For disobeying its dictates, Yemen is paying a huge price. Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain have genuflected in tribal style to the Saudis -- but not Qatar and, to some extent, Oman. The two nations maintain friendly ties with Iran, largely for economic reasons, and have refused to endorse Saudi Arabia’s anti-Shiite hatred.

In January last year, when Saudi Arabia wanted all GCC members to sever ties with Iran, following a mob attack on the Saudi embassy in Teheran, oil-and-gas-rich Qatar only recalled its ambassador, without severing ties with Iran. Qatar feels it needs to maintain good relations with Iran for it to jointly explore the North Field-South Pars gas fields in the seas between Qatar and Iran. (See map)

Qatar, which has a history of troubled relations with Saudi Arabia, has been asserting its political independence in recent years, much to the chagrin of Riyadh. Qatar’s outreach to Iran and its support for Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood have infuriated the Saudis. Moreover, the relatively independent reporting of the Doha-based al Jazeeera has also been a bone of contention.

The Qataris also resent Saudi Arabia’s interference in their internal affairs. Border disputes and a Saudi hand in palace coups have also soured relations. Against this backdrop, Qatar saw an opportunity in the Arab Spring to put in motion a Middle Eastern order scripted by it. It supported the Arab Spring, while Saudi Arabia, shocked by the courage of the Arab masses, feared a similar uprising in the kingdom. To say that Saudi Arabia is no lover of democracy, is an understatement. It chops off the head of democracy at first sight, just as it chops off the heads of dissidents such as Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, the leader of Saudi Arabia’s Shiites, who make up 10 percent of the population. His crime was demanding democracy and political reforms, just as the Americans demanded a greater say in government, when they rose against the Brits in the 1700s, shouting “No taxation without representation.”

Neither is Qatar an advocate of democracy. While the Saudis unsuccessfully tried to prop up the autocracy of Hosni Mubarak, Qatar’s support for Egypt’s Arab Spring and the Muslim Brotherhood, which was elected to power in Egypt’s first ever democratic elections, was largely geopolitical. With Egypt under its wraps, Qatar set sight on regime change in Libya, providing arms and money to anti-Gaddafi rebels, some of whom were al-Qaeda affiliates and foreign fighters. No sooner the Muammar Gaddafi regime was overthrown than Qatar targeted Syria for the next regime change exercise. The lightning speed with which Qatar moved from one theatre to another gave the Saudis little time to respond or check the high-riding Qataris and the growing popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood across the region. Qatar’s plan was to open, via Egypt, a support and supply line to the Syrian Brotherhood which, having fought a rebellion against Damascus in 1982, was the most powerful dissident group in Syria.

When the dust settled on the Arab world after the Arab Spring upheaval, Saudi Arabia, together with the UAE, rolled out their plan to oust the Brotherhood government in Egypt. Although the United States was seen adopting an equidistant policy, vis-à-vis the Saudi-Qatari rivalry, it discreetly backed the Saudi moves. This was because the Brotherhood government looked east towards Iran and China.

Qatar poured in billions of US dollars to help Egypt’s Brotherhood government overcome its economic woes. But, secret US-Saudi counter-moves contributed to the early collapse of the Brotherhood government and the return of the military in civilian garb, with pseudo democratic credentials.

In Syria, Qatar continued to support the Brotherhood, while the Saudis, it is alleged, relied on Al Qaeda- and ISIS-backed groups to topple the Syrian government. Leaked Hillary Clinton emails also confirm Qatar’s and Saudi Arabia’s links with extremist groups. Hence, the Saudi accusation that Qatar supported terrorism smacks of hypocrisy of the worst order. On Wednesday, Wahhabi/Takfiri terrorists struck in Iran, much to the glee of the Saudis and Washington. Donald Trump’s White House said in a statement: “We underscore that States that sponsor terrorism, risk falling victim to the evil they promote.” Of course, such a statement can be said of 9/11 and the recent acts of terrorism in Europe.

In March 2014, the rift between Saudi Arabia and Qatar reached its nadir, with Qatar facing a crisis similar to what it experiences now. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE recalled their ambassadors from Qatar, while Riyadh even threatened to impose a sea-and-land blockade, forcing Qatar’s young emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani to mend his country’s policies to placate the Saudis.

The present crisis appears more serious than the 2014 fallout. The Saudis and their vassal States, including the tiny Maldives, have severed ties with Qatar and imposed an economic blockade, after accusing it of supporting extremism.

The tough punitive measures followed reports—the result of an alleged hacking of the Qatari news agency—that the Qatari emir cautioned allies against confrontation with Iran, and defended the Palestinian resistance group Hamas and Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shi’ite movement allied with Teheran.
Incidentally, the Saudi-led moves followed email leaks that exposed the UAE’s back channel ties with Israel. The leaks broadcast through Al-Jazeera said the UAE’s US ambassador maintained close relations with pro-Israeli think tanks in the US. It is no secret that the policies of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Israel merge well with regard to their hostility towards Iran. It is noteworthy to mention that Israel was quick to welcome Saudi Arabia’s moves against Qatar. Besides, the Saudi foreign minister has insisted that Qatar sever its links with Hamas, if it wants the kingdom to normalise relations.
The shenanigans are as shocking as they are treacherous. Israel occupies the Palestinian land, including Jerusalem—and the custodian of Islam’s holiest shrines wants Palestinian freedom fighters penalised. The noble King Faisal, who restored Saudi pride with the oil boycott of 1973, in retaliation to US support for Israel, must be turning in his grave.

Given the Trump administration’s Saudi bias, Qatar, which is home to the biggest US military base in the Middle East, has no option but to surrender before the might of the Saudis, and be a Bahrain. It appears there is no end to the flow of the Middle East’s troubles.

M.P. farmer ‘thrashed by police’ dies

Agitation spreads: Police detain a protesting farmer in Fanda village on the outskirts of Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh on Friday. 

With this, toll in the ongoing agrarian agitation in Malwa region goes up to six

Mahesh LangaMahesh Langa



- JUNE 09, 2017

Return to frontpageA 26-year-old farmer, Ghanshyam Dhakad, died on Friday after he was reportedly beaten up by police in violence-hit Mandsaur in Madhya Pradesh.

He is the sixth person to die in the Malwa region of the State which is in the grip of violence after five farmers were killed in police firing on June 6.

Sources at the Indore hospital, where he was rushed late on Thursday night, said he was brought dead and that his body bore signs of assault and there were injuries.

According to local villagers, Mr. Dhakad was on his way to a temple on Thursday evening when some policemen stopped him and thrashed him with sticks and baton.
 
As soon as news of his death became public, Mandsaur SP Manoj Kumar Singh and Collector O.P. Srivastava reached the spot and talked to villagers to ensure that peace was maintained. Collector Srivastav said the cause of his death was being investigated.

Besides officials, former Congress MP Sajjan Singh Verma reached the hospital and demanded a probe, alleging that the young farmer was beaten to death.

Meanwhile, the farmers’ agitation spread to Bhopal on Friday, with a few incidents of arson and stone-pelting in Fanda area.
There’s no indication Comey violated the law. Trump may be about to.

 President Trump and his allies lashed out at former FBI director James Comey after his congressional testimony on June 9, while some Republican lawmakers had a more measured defense of the president. (The Washington Post)

By Philip Bump June 9 at 12:45 PM

This article has been updated.

President Trump’s declaration that the Thursday testimony of former FBI director James B. Comey was a “total and complete vindication” despite “so many false statements and lies” was the sort of brashly triumphant and loosely-grounded-in-reality statement we’ve come to expect from the commander in chief. It was news that came out a bit later, news about plans to file a complaint against Comey for a revelation he made during that Senate Intelligence Committee hearing meeting, that may end up being more damaging to the president.

CNN and Fox first reported that Trump’s outside counsel, Marc Kasowitz, plans to file complaints with the inspector general of the Justice Department and the Senate Judiciary Committee about Comey’s testimony. At issue was Comey’s revelation that he provided a memo documenting a conversation with Trump to a friend to be shared with the New York Times.

As the news broke, I was on the phone with Stephen Kohn, partner at a law firm focused on whistleblower protection. We’d been talking about where the boundaries lay for Comey in what he could and couldn’t do with the information about his conversations with the president. Kohn’s response to the story about Kasowitz, though, was visceral.

“Here is my position on that: Frivolous grandstanding,” he said. “First of all, I don’t believe the inspector general would have jurisdiction over Comey any more, because he’s no longer a federal employee.” The inspector general’s job is to investigate wrongdoing by employees of the Justice Department, which Comey is no longer, thanks to Trump — though the IG would have the ability to investigate an allegation of criminal misconduct.

“But, second,” he continued, “initiating an investigation because you don’t like somebody’s testimony could be considered obstruction. And in the whistleblower context, it’s both evidence of retaliation and, under some laws, could be an adverse retaliatory act itself.”

In other words, Comey, here, is an employee who is blowing the whistle, to use the idiom, on his former boss. That boss wants to punish him for doing so. That’s problematic — especially if there’s no evidence that Comey actually violated any law that would trigger punishment.

This is where my original line of inquiry to Kohn comes back into play.

Former FBI director James B. Comey testified he used a third party to share the details of his private meetings with President Trump. When Sen. Blunt (R-Mo.) asked Comey why he didn't share the memos himself, Comey said he worried the media was camping at the end of his driveway and he thought it would "be like feeding seagulls at the beach." (Photo: Matt McClain / The Washington Post/Reuters)

Comey testified under oath that, following a conversation with Trump in the Oval Office, he wrote a memo documenting what was said. Last month, he provided that memo to a friend and asked that it be shared with the New York Times.

That, as described, is not illegal, Kohn said.

“Obviously you can report on a conversation with the president,” he said. “What the president does isn’t confidential or classified.” There is the principle of “executive privilege,” which protects the president’s deliberative process as he does his job. But that wouldn’t cover a conversation like the one between Comey and Trump.

In a piece he wrote for The Post on Thursday, Kohn described a 2003 case involving Robert MacLean, an air marshal who was fired for leaking information about a Homeland Security Department decision. That case established a relevant precedent for the Comey question. The Supreme Court determined that the DHS rule prohibiting leaks was insufficient cause for firing in the whistleblower context, since it wasn’t a law. By extension, even if Trump tried to argue that Comey violated executive privilege, that, too, is not codified in law.

If the information in that memo Comey gave to his friend was classified, the situation changes. But in his testimony, Comey described how he protected classified information in memos he wrote documenting conversations. There’s no indication, despite Trump’s lawyer’s cleverly worded statement on Thursday, that Comey crossed that important legal line.

Comey gave nonclassified notes about a conversation he had with the president to a friend with the express purpose of releasing that information to the media. In Kohn’s eyes, there’s nothing remotely illegal about that — making the new “frivolous grandstanding” from Kasowitz particularly problematic.

“The constitutional right to go to the press with information on matters of public concern, as long as you’re not doing it in a way that will bring out classified information,” Kohn said, “the reason why that is protected constitutionally is that the courts — including the U.S. Supreme Court — have ruled that the public has a constitutional right to hear this information.” In other words, it’s constitutionally protected speech.
Trying to get DOJ to go after Comey --a material witness-- over "leak" is yet more obstruction of Justice.
It’s also worth noting that Trump’s tweeted attacks on the veracity of Comey’s testimony are also unlikely to bear much fruit. Making a mistake in testimony is not in itself illegal. When Comey made such a mistake last month, the FBI corrected his statement after the fact. Perjury requires a demonstration of intent, that the person meant to lie. That would be a difficult case to make legally.

We can safely assume, though, that Trump’s team is aware that Comey likely didn’t violate any laws, and that they are simply using these arguments as a tool for undermining the parts of his testimony that they didn’t like. How they’re doing it, though, could make their problems worse.

Kohn summarized the new minefield into which Trump and his lawyer might be walking.

“They know that they’re not going to get anything out of Comey on this, because there’s no evidence,” he added. “But they’re clearly trying to create a chilling effect. Not a chilling effect on classified information. … This is a chilling effect on people not to talk about conversations they had with the president that are not classified as a matter of law.”

Update:

There’s a caveat, though. Tom Devine, legal director for the Government Accountability Project pointed out in an email after this article was originally published that Comey himself isn’t covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act since he was both a presidential appointee and a representative of the FBI, a position which doesn’t fall under the act’s purview.

Devine thinks, though, that another federal law may apply to Comey. U.S. Code Title 18, Section 1513 makes it a federal offense for anyone who “with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense.” Whether or not Comey is an actual witness in a federal investigation is the key question here; given the uniqueness of the circumstances, there is a lot of fuzziness.


Whether or not Trump and his team would like to punish Comey for his testimony seems more straightforward.

Catalonia to Hold Its Own Independence Referendum This October

Catalonia to Hold Its Own Independence Referendum This October

No automatic alt text available.BY EMILY TAMKIN-JUNE 9, 2017

Brexit has created chaos before negotiations have even officially begun; the Scottish National Party lost a whopping 21 seats in Thursday’s snap elections; and Alex Salmond, the champion of Scottish independence in the run-up to the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, lost his perch in Parliament. Given the tumult which independence referendums have caused in the United Kingdom, one might think that their continental counterparts would look with a jaundiced eye on such adventures.

One would be wrong.

On Friday, Catalan regional President Carles Puigdemont said Catalans would have their own independence referendum on Oct. 1 of this year. They will be asked to answer the question, “Do you want Catalonia to be an independent state in the form of a republic?” Catalan parliamentarians, the majority of whom are in favor of independence, are expecting to set the legislative groundwork this summer.

Independence has long been a cherished dream for many in Catalonia, including its regional president. The region is proudly linguistically different from the Spanish heartland of Castille (not to mention other restive areas like the Basque Country or Galicia) and did not have to chafe under Madrid’s tutelage until the 18th century. And the short-lived Second Republic, just before and during the Spanish Civil War, is fondly remembered in Barcelona.

More to the point, Catalonia is richer than the rest of Spain, and has Barcelona, one of the grand cities in all of Europe. Despite all that, not everybody in Catalonia is on board: Recent polls say a slight majority prefer to remain in Spain. What’s clear is that a majority of Catalans want it put to a vote.
(In 2014, the same year Scots narrowly stayed in the United Kingdom, Catalonia held a nonbinding not-really-about-independence-referendum that received little turnout but resounding support for breaking away from Madrid.)

Someone who most emphatically does not feel that way: Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, who has vowed to block the referendum, and who, with overwhelming support in parliament, has the power to do so. He could take the issue to the high court, or, a bit more dramatically, take over Catalan’s regional police to block any independence vote.

The future of the northeastern Spanish region has echoes in the U.K. There was plenty of concern in Scotland that Spanish fears of a Pandora’s Box would scupper any chance of a successful “Scotchit” from the United Kingdom.

Spain, however, said that, while it does not support an independent Scotland and believes it should remain a part of the United Kingdom, it would not block Scottish attempts to join the European Union.

No such olive branches for Catalonia, though: Spain has made clear it will do whatever it can to block even the attempt to hold a referendum.

Photo credit: Jordi Vidal/Getty Images

Election debacle leaves UK government in a minority on eve of Brexit talks




By David Milliken and Kate Holton | LONDON-Sat Jun 10, 2017

British Prime Minister Theresa May said she would lead a minority government backed by a small Northern Irish party after she lost an election gamble days before the start of talks on Britain's departure from the European Union.

May called the snap election confident her Conservative Party would increase its majority and strengthen her hand in the Brexit talks. Instead, Thursday's vote damaged her authority and made her negotiating position more vulnerable to criticism.

"I'm sorry for all those candidates and hard working party workers who weren't successful," May said on Friday after a surprise resurgence by the main opposition Labour Party under its leftwing leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Britain's Primer Minister Theresa May addresses the country as her husband looks on after Britain's election at Downing Street in London, Britain June 9, 2017. REUTERS/Hannah Mckay

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain's opposition Labour Party, and Labour Party candidate Emily Thornberry gesture at a counting centre for Britain's general election in London, June 9, 2017. REUTERS/Darren Staples

"As I reflect on the results I will reflect on what we need to do in the future to take the party forward."

With all 650 seats declared, the Conservatives had won 318 seats, the Labour Party had 262 seats, followed by the pro-independence Scottish National Party on 34.
May now risks more opposition to her Brexit plans from inside and outside her party, though a party source said leading the Conservatives was seen as too much of a poisoned chalice for her to face an immediate challenge.

"She's staying, for now," the source told Reuters.

After noon, May was driven from her official Downing Street residence to Buckingham Palace to ask Queen Elizabeth for permission to form a government - a formality under the British system.
Her office said later that the key finance, foreign, Brexit, interior and defence ministers would remain unchanged. Further announcements were expected on Saturday.

The socially conservative, pro-Brexit Democratic Unionist Party's 10 seats give the right-wing Conservatives a fragile but workable majority, which May said would allow her to negotiate a successful exit from the EU.

"Our two parties have enjoyed a strong relationship over many years and this gives me the confidence to believe that we will be able to work together in the interests of the whole United Kingdom," May said.

The pound hit an eight-week low against the dollar and its lowest levels in seven months versus the euro before recovering slightly after May said she would form a government backed by her "friends" in the DUP. GBP=D3 EURGBP=D3

BREXIT TIMELINE

DUP leader Arlene Foster's initial comments were non-committal: "The prime minister has spoken with me this morning and we will enter discussions with the Conservatives to explore how it may be possible to bring stability to our nation at this time of great challenge."

It was not immediately clear what the DUP's demands might be and one DUP lawmaker suggested support might come vote by vote.

British politicians differ widely on what they want from the Brexit negotiating process, seeing it as a way to shift Britain either to the right or left. Some parliamentarians in both the Conservative and Labour parties want to remain in the EU.

Business, already struggling with the uncertainties of the two-year Brexit negotiating process, urged party leaders to work together.

"The last thing business leaders need is a parliament in paralysis, and the consequences for British businesses and for the UK as an investment destination would be severe," said Stephen Martin, director general of the Institute of Directors business lobby.

May said Brexit talks would begin on June 19 as scheduled, the same day the British parliament is due to reconvene. But the election result meant it was unclear whether her plan to take Britain out of the bloc's single market and customs union could still be pursued.

EU leaders expressed concern that May's loss of her majority would raise the risk of negotiations failing, resulting in a legal limbo for people and business.

"Do your best to avoid a 'no deal' as result of 'no negotiations'," Donald Tusk, leader of the EU's ruling council, wrote in a tweet.

NEGOTIATION RISKS

"We need a government that can act," EU Budget Commissioner Guenther Oettinger told German broadcaster Deutschlandfunk. "With a weak negotiating partner, there's a danger that the (Brexit) negotiations will turn out badly for both sides."

There was little sympathy for May from some Europeans.

"Yet another own goal, after Cameron now May, will make already complex negotiations even more complicated," tweeted Guy Verhofstadt, the former Belgian premier who is the European Parliament's point man for the Brexit process.

May's predecessor David Cameron sought to silence eurosceptic fellow Conservatives by calling the referendum on EU membership, expecting Britons to vote to remain. The result ended his career and shocked Europe.

Ruth Davidson, leader of Conservatives in Scotland, where the party did well, said the results showed the Conservatives should prioritise good trade relations with the EU.

"We must in my view seek to deliver an open Brexit, not a closed one, which puts our country’s economic growth first," Davidson said. Other Conservatives have emphasised the importance of migration controls, something the EU says is incompatible with open trade.
RESURGENT LABOUR

Labour's Corbyn, revelling in a storming campaign performance after pundits had pronounced his party all but dead, said May should step down and that he wanted to form a minority government.
"The mandate she's got is lost Conservative seats, lost votes, lost support and lost confidence," he said. "I would have thought that's enough to go, actually, and make way for a government that will be truly representative of all of the people of this country."

May unexpectedly called the snap election seven weeks ago, three years early, polls predicting she would massively increase the slim majority she inherited from Cameron.

Her campaign unravelled after a policy U-turn on care for the elderly, while Corbyn's old-school socialist platform and more impassioned campaigning style won wider support than anyone had foreseen, notably from young voters, say analysts.

Late in the campaign, Britain was hit by two Islamist militant attacks that killed 30 people in Manchester and London, temporarily shifting the focus onto security issues.

That did not help May, who had overseen cuts in police numbers during six years in her previous job as interior minister.


(Additional reporting by Guy Faulconbridge, Elizabeth Piper, William Schomberg, Andy Bruce, Kylie MacLellan, Costas Pitas, William James and Michael Urquhart in London, Elisabeth O'Leary in Edinburgh, Padraic Halpin in Dublin; Writing by Angus MacSwan and Philippa Fletcher; Editing by Jon Boyle)
When governments are installed deriving powers from the people 

logoThursday, 8 June 2017

‘Party-less’ President heading the 5th Republic – new allegiances

DFT-7-8Perhaps even de Gaulle would not have fathomed, in his vision of creating a strong leader with the present Constitution (the 5th Republic – 1958) by splitting the powers of State and Government between a President and Prime Minister (a dual executive system) as to what may transpire if the former was elected from beyond traditional party-politics, thus maintaining a strong independence towards the People (as opposed to party loyalties); which is exactly what has now transpired with the election of the young President Macron who campaigned and won independently.

Now, as France moves closer to its general election where they have to now elect a Parliament, a governing party and Prime Minister, daily we see a marked shift in previous campaigns, massive changes in the political landscape where traditional party candidates have now shed their “party identities” (some even moving away from using their party colours on their advertisements); in an obvious attempt to align themselves with the new and popular President and the “change” brought about by the Macron campaign.

As a student of the ever-dynamic science of politics, this is an encouraging phenomenon to observe. Does this mean that traditional politicians (and politics) will now move away from attempting to appease their party loyalists and align themselves more with the wishes of the people? Have the people finally managed to break that vicious cycle where there appeared to be no change, by showing the traditional politician that it is “the person” and not “the party” that they will elect? If so what repercussions will this have on global politics; more importantly our dear old Sri Lanka?
Untitled-1

Underlying message in the US Declaration of Independence

When the founding fathers of the free world declared their desire to rid themselves of the colonial burden, they recorded the preamble to their wishes in the following lucid language: “...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal... they are endowed... with certain unalienable Rights... Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted... deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any... Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government...”

The difficulty we faced up to now however, until France showed us the way with this “new thinking”, is that we always expected a political party or regime to usher us this change. We did not (or could not) look beyond such whimsical party manifestos that promised us the sky and the moon (but ended up being unable even to clear a garbage dump or predict the adverse effects of monsoon rains that are as old as our history); thus the desire in us to see a change always being linked with a regime change led by a political party. We now see that France has moved away from that, which is apparent even with their present manifestos emanating from the traditional political parties at this election; some overtly promising the people that they will not nominate any family members or close associates as their personnel, all in an effort to get closer to the people “individually” and not as “a political party”.


The bane of “party politics” in our own republic

Is this not the same cancer that we have suffered from throughout our history, ever since our colonial masters handed the helms of government to our local pukka sahibs? The vicious cycle of absolute dependency on the party politician to do everything for you; from the birth of your child to the funeral speech, with the corollary allegiance of running around in bus loads to cheer their egos on at political rallies and putting up walls full of posters and cut-outs each time your “party man” wishes to run for office?

Well isn’t it time to consider what positive results (if any) such blind allegiance has secured in return for us as a people and a nation. Is it not a fact that even our “silent revolution” of 8th January, in which we thought (or were led to believe – which many of us did, rather naively) we were backing an “independent candidate” who had left his party allegiances behind after a hopper-dinner, has been later on dwindled down to a vast degree and those of us who raised our voices amidst much threat to life and limb let down, leaving us with the present party-tussle between the two major parties forming this so called “national government”; all due to the eagerness to harness party loyalty and allegiance?


Do we continue 

seeing our nation through “green, blue or red glasses”?

Now that we have been backing our own party hierarchy ever since our independence, is it not time to critically evaluate what (if any) policy-based benefit we have gained by voting for such “lists of persons” placed before us by the party leadership?

If even in this 21st century we are at the mercy of weather gods, that due to slight increases in inclement weather or an excessive drought we have to lose hundreds of lives, property and more importantly suffer the massive opportunity cost of lost education of our children; surely even in the days of our Kings, without the benefit of any Doppler radar but by simply observing the weather patterns didn’t they know that the monsoons brought extra rain, the excess of which they stored in tanks and reservoirs to be managed during the dry season? If our politicians are expected to sail around in boats handing over dry rations in this manner have we come any further than the days of Noah and his ark? Do we at least now not need to think beyond blind allegiance to a colour of a political party but select good, honest men and women with integrity to exercise our sovereign legislative, executive and judicial powers to finally make policy-based decisions that will at least secure a better future for our children?

Time to think Sri Lanka – Power to the people!