Minister Sagala Rathnayake under close scrutiny

Jul 05, 2017

President Maithreepala Sirisena had said at the cabinet meeting on Tuesday that the UNP had done nothing for 2 years with the investigations, and as a result the offenders are still at large and he has become the laughing stock of the country.

Several UNP and SLFP ministers have told the President to take over the police or hand over to a loyalist of his until all the investigations are complete.

Certain Police officials have been critical of Minister Sagala for unnecessary interference in some of the high profile cases. Some of them have even hidden certain information from the Minister and the IGP to continue investigations without interference.

Minister Sagala according to a senior Police Official has taken a special interest in the Former Defense Secretary pending 16 investigations. The two were very close during the previous regime and the defense secretary had helped both the Minister and his brother Kavan in many ways. 
A Minister said " that is all fine but should not interfere in discharging his national duties.

The government is currently in a precarious position because of the conduct of the Minster and the IGP.

A reappraisal of evidence and claims

Emerging Buddhist-Muslim Rivalry in Sri Lanka?

by G. H. Peiris-July 5, 2017, 9:06 pm 

(Continued from yesterday)

An understanding of this setting, instead of being led by a fixation on the image of Buddhist bigotry and Sinhalese triumphalism which, of course, is what rings a bell in the 'liberal' West, is necessary to grasp the realities pertaining to the mosque dispute. That a large and stately mosque stands pristine in the main commercial locality of Dambulla, a couple of hundred meters away from the entrance to the rock temple, never under threat of attack or desecration, has hardly ever been mentioned. What was demolished on 27 April 2012 by a mob guided by Ven. Sumangala and several other monks in defiance of a small contingent of 'law enforcers' was a low single-storeyed structure of corrugated iron sheets for walls and roofing (and thus in appearance quite unlike any other mosque we usually see) occupying a small roadside site which, according to spokesmen for the Muslim community, had nevertheless been a place of Islamic worship for over 65-years. This claim, though emphatically refuted by Sri Sumangala thero and his flock, was publicly substantiated for TV and radio broadcast by a well-known Sinhalese political leader of ministerial rank in the area. Meanwhile, what a spokesperson for local government administration insisted was that the so-called demolition was, in fact, a hasty and unlawful act that ignored a thoroughly negotiated decision to relocate at a more suitable site outside the 'sacred area' of an ongoing conversion of a makeshift structure owned by a Muslim to a mosque. The Muslim leaders denied this charge, but one of the more vociferous among them said (this is a transcript of the filmed original): "we build more and more mosques with our own money, you should be building more and more of your temples with your money".

The chief incumbent's insistence that "we should never permit mosques to be constructed in this sacred area" has also been repeatedly documented in film and broadcast. Thus, what one could see in retrospect more prominently than all else is an abundance of jingoism. The Dambulla episode marks the inception of a strategy pursued by unseen forces the destabilising impact of which over the next two years depended much on the nature of the 'manpower' it could mobilise at the grassroots in the different flashpoints. Dambulla was certainly a avenue in which the strategy did achieve considerable success especially because it also represented the initiation of a drift of some of the most prominent Muslim leaders away from the Rajapaksa regime in which they held powerful posts.

(c) Desecration of a Mosque in Mahiyangana

The geographical setting here has some similarities to Dambulla – the venerated 'Rajamahavihāraya' (literally, 'great monarchic temple') with which the name Mahiyangana has been associated from time immemorial; the enormous extent of land over which the temple could claim custodianship (but seldom does) as vihāragam, and the sharp upsurge of the township since about the late 1980s as a centre of trade, being located as it does at the gateway to 'System C', one of the largest Mahaveli Settlement complexes where, it so happened in its early stages, the 'farm-gate' (kamatha) bulk purchase of paddy was almost totally under the cartelised control of Muslim traders.

The story of the Mahiyangana clash which I construct here is based on several sources that contain heaps of mutually contradictory information – a sketch in an SLMC document; a retrospect published about a fortnight after the turbulences in a Sunday newspaper known for its intense antipathy towards the Rajapaksa regime; a media statement by Ven. Watarka Vijitha, the chief incumbent of a temple located at the market town of Girandurukotte within the Mahaveli System C' and named 'Mahaveli Viharaya' (Vijitha thero was also an elected member of the local government institution of the area who had contested from the ruling party of that time, and one of the key personalities – a maverick – associated with the stormy events of July 2013); a report dated 21 May 2017 authored by Ifham Nizam titled 'Government Silent as the BBS Holy War Continues'; a brief observation made by the Urulǽwatte Dhammakeetti, the chief incumbent of the Rajamahaviharaya and, of course, an expression of deep concern issued by the US Embassy in Colombo that prompted bunkum Moon to shed another tear, this time on the ravaged Muslims of Sri Lanka

The Ven. Vijitha had been repeatedly harassed and, on one occasion, assaulted, by nondescript mobs opposed to him mainly on grounds of his close association with the Muslim traders of the area, his party affiliation, and allegedly, his encouragement of the construction of a Muslim prayer venue in proximity to the Rajamahaviharaya.

The sketch furnished in the SLMC report states that on the night of 11 July 2013, in a mob attack that lasted for about twenty minutes, the mosque was stoned and defiled with swine offal, and that at a meeting of the 'Up-Country Muslim Council' held the following day, Vijitha disclosed that Gnānasāra thero of the BBS and several others had discussions in the Rajamahavihāraya premises on the day before the attack. Ven. Gnānasāra denied involvement in the alleged desecration but, having done so (according to several later press reports), assaulted Ven. Vijitha when the two met somewhere in Colombo a few days later. The sequel to this latter attack is that, its victim, according to the Judicial Medical Officer's report, had injuries he himself had inflicted, presumably in order to enhance the gravity of the assault. Meanwhile the chief incumbent of the Rajamahavihāraya has said that there never was a mosque in Mahiyangana, but that a structure used as a prayer room of the Muslims could have been an embryonic mosque. The removal of the mosque, Ifham Nizam has speculated, averted a disastrous conflict.

(d) Grandpass mob attack on Muslims

Eruptions of violence in this part of Colombo have been somewhat more frequent than elsewhere in the country. But one needs to take into account a gamut of considerations before concluding that it is an exemplification of intensifying religious tensions impelled by Buddhist bigots. Many localities in this area have for long constituted the venue of the multi-ethnic ‘underworld’ of Sri Lanka and the bailiwicks of rival gangland bosses who are known to have at least slender connections with their respective political masters among whom were/are politicians at the highest level, city fathers and business magnates. This same feature has been subject to detailed observation in other South Asian cities such as Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Karachi, Delhi and Calcutta. This is why, when gangland clashes occur, there is invariably a polarisation on ethnic/religious lines (I have written about this phenomenon in my recent book, Political Conflict in South Asia, pp. 179-183, illustrating it with Karachi experiences.).

The relevance of this to an understanding of conditions in several localities of the Colombo underworld is the emergence of a phenomenon that could be regarded as being featured by ‘narcopolitical' violence. Even as recently as the late 1970s heroin was hardly known in Sri Lanka. Today, Greater Colombo is not only an important arena of its retail trade and consumption, but also a "conduit" in the highways of bulk transfers of heroin sourced from the 'Golden Crescent’ on a global scale; and a disproportionate participation of the criminal fringe of the Muslim community in the related transactions (see, the annual reports of the ‘Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Bureau of Sri Lanka', in particular, the data on the extraordinarily skewed ethnic distribution of the numbers convicted of drug-related crimes).

In order to make the background to the Grandpass conflagration more comprehensive, and since certain versions of this clash convey a false identity of the attacked shrine, it should be clarified that the 'Grand Mosque' of Colombo, established in the early 16th century, like several other architecturally grand mosques scattered throughout the city, stands in all its glory in a fairly affluent setting on New Moor Street, absolutely free of any external threat. The largest mosque in Grandpass is 'Muhiyaddeen Jumma Masjid' on St. Joseph Street which, like many other Islamic shrines that adorn the cityscape, has also never faced a challenge from Colombo's multi-ethnic denizenry. What was attacked is a far more modest structure located in the 'Grand Pass' ward of the city, located along the 'Swarna Chaitya Road' of a densely populated working-class residential neighbourhood where the Buddhists marginally outnumber the others. This information is intended not to trivialise the outrage but to indicate that these and a few other localised mob attacks on places of worship during these months did not represent a Buddhist onslaught on the Muslims.

The narrative of a "Buddhist mob" attacking Muslims at a newly constructed mosque in Grandpass on 12 August 2013 is true but not the whole truth. What does emerge from the reports available is a rather confusing story of aggressive religiosity among both Buddhists as well as Muslims in a social ethos that facilitates instant formation of mobs invariably fuelled in late evenings by booze and drugs.

Earlier in 2013 a part of the land belonging to a mosque built in the 1960s was earmarked for acquisition by the Urban Development Authority (UDA) for a much needed widening a waste-water canal traversing the area. The related amicable agreement between the UDA and the trustees of the mosque involved the offer of an alternative site made available for re-location of the mosque, and, with the concurrence of the Ministry of Religious Affairs, the setting up of a temporary structure along Swarna Chaitya Road for use by the Muslim devotees. It was the gradual refurbishing of that structure into a multi-storeyed building for permanent use as a mosque that conveyed the impression of a surreptitious addition of a permanent new mosque to this excessively overcrowded residential area, while the old mosque stands round the corner uninterrupted in its use, that led, Sinhalese residents of locality led by the monks from the local temple, to make peaceful representations (on 5 July) and a larger collective demand (17 July), the latter resulting in an intervention by the ministry of Religious Affairs in the form of sponsoring a former discussion among representatives of the different interests concerned, reaching an understanding that the mosque trustees will withdraw from the temporary premises soon after the end of the rituals connected with the Ramadan fast on 7 August 2013. It was when there were no signs of the promised vacation that there was a build-up of tensions involving, on the one hand, the intervention of rabble-rousing Buddhist extremists from outside and, on the other, what seemed a preparation on the part of the temple devotees to meet possible violence with violence to defend their right to use the new premises as a mosque.

Several sources indicate that a mob of about 50 to 60 stoned the mosque, broke into its inner sanctums, and damaged the fixtures in the ground floor in a ferocious attack that began at about 6.45 p.m. on 10 August 2013, by which time the devotees had completed their evening prayers. When the attack began, about 50 of his devotees retreated to the upper floor. The Imam of the mosque emphasised in a statement that the devotees did not use any weapons to defend themselves and that, at the time of this offensive, a contingent of about 40 police personnel remained as mere spectators outside the mosque. Several other stories including a Reuter report dated 12 August, news broadcast by the BBC on 12 August a story filed by its Colombo correspondent, "hundreds of Muslims took to the streets during the attack on the mosque, and that the police and the 'Special Task Force' dispersed the crowd, imposing a curfew in the area. There are, also the reports which states that these measures were selective, and that the law enforcement efforts were administered mainly on the Muslims. Aljazeera (an institution that has a record of hostility towards Sri Lanka) reported on 13 August that about 10 injured persons from both communities were admitted to hospital (among them, two police officers).

To be continued

Uma Oya Debacle

2017-07-06

The Government has started the blame game again, this time on the ill-conceived Uma Oya project which has turned into a catastrophe for the people in the Bandarawela area. Earlier it was the issues over the South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine (SAITM), the collapse of the Meethotamulla garbage dump and the hate speech against minorities, especially against the Muslims, over which the government was blaming the previous regime.  

It is true that the previous government led by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa committed blunders regarding these issues. Leaders of that government helped the owners of the SAITM to set up the institution by approving loans and granting scholarships to the students of that institution. They highhandedly allowed dumping of garbage at Meethotamulla, even violating the court orders. Hate speech was encouraged by their blessings or at least by their lethargic attitude towards containing it. But will those issues be resolved now merely by accusing the former regime?

However, that is what the government is exactly doing now. Following an unprecedented massive protest rally and a hartal against the multimillion dollar Uma Oya Multipurpose Development Project last week during which the Bandarawela town came to a standstill, President Maithripala Sirisena accused the former government of implementing the project without proper planning. While claiming that he was with the protesters, the President accused the former government of taking wrong political decisions and defrauding funds amounting to millions through this project.

People in Bandarawela area were agitating for the past several years over the issue demanding the project be stopped forthwith as more than 3,000 wells, tanks and streams have run dry and over 7,000 houses have been fully and partially destroyed due to cracks and sinking of earth in various places. It is said that the reason for this situation was the leakage of ground water in the area into the tunnel that is being constructed under this project between two reservoirs at Puhulpola and Diaraba, both near Welimada.

Following the people’s agitations the present government had appointed a ministerial sub-committee to probe the matter in 2015, while accusing the former government of implementing the project without a feasibility study or an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA). Therefore the government is now well aware of the seriousness of the issue and also it had enough time during the past two years to decide whether to proceed with the project, resolving the current problems or to terminate it, if the damages are uncontainable.  

But the government did nothing. The ministerial sub-committee appointed in 2015 just toured the area and didn’t submit any constructive proposals either to proceed with the project minimizing harm or to stop it without aggravating the situation. In fact the committee was incapable of doing so as it wasn’t a panel of experts. Therefore, if the government still continues to blame the previous government for the project without providing a viable solution to the problem, it would be tantamount to an attempt to cover up its inability to handle the issue.

With the current wave of agitations by the affected people led by the “People’s Movement against the destructive Uma Oya Project” the President had appointed another three member Cabinet sub-committee last week, apart from personally announcing that a Norwegian team of experts would visit the country to look into the matter next month and recommend remedial measures. He stated that it would be only after that the government would be able to decide whether to continue with the project or to terminate it.
 
At a time when the affected people have strongly aired their views and the media had widely and visually reported the damage done to the poor people in the area, what is the new Cabinet sub-committee going to find out afresh? They are not experts to give a scientific assessment of the situation and advice the government to proceed or not.  

No doubt, the expenditure incurred so far regarding the project might be huge. But if there is no way to contain the damages and protect the ground water in the area due to the continuation of the project, the only solution would be to stop the project, forgetting the expenditure incurred thus far. It won’t be a good decision, but all others would be worse. Whatever it would be, the government has to take the decision without wasting time and blaming others.  

Israel fears endangered World Heritage status could thwart Hebron takeover

Palestinians visit the Ibrahimi mosque in the occupied West Bank city of Hebron on 25 February 2014, 20 years to the day after an American Jewish settler opened fire killing 29 worshippers there.

 Issam RimawiAPA images
Charlotte Silver- 3 July 2017

Israel is refusing to give visas to a team of investigators with UNESCO who are scheduled to visit Hebron’s Old City in the occupied West Bank.

The visit was to take place ahead of a July vote by the UN educational and cultural organization to consider the Old City an endangered World Heritage Site.

Calling the move “principled and strategic,” Israel’s ambassador to UNESCO, Carmel Shama Hacohen, said the UN team’s visit was based on “lies that plot against Israel.”

The UNESCO team was to provide its findings to the International Council on Monuments and Sites, the body that considers which sites should be placed on the the World Heritage in Danger list.

Hacohen said the group was denied entry to Israel because in the past UNESCO had overruled the council’s recommendations against placing sites in the occupied West Bank on the endangered list. It would be “a shame to waste the time and money,” Hacohen said, for the team to go to Hebron.

After UNESCO granted Palestine full membership in 2011, the Palestinian Authority applied for the agency to recognize the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem as an endangered World Heritage Site.

In 2014, UNESCO recognized the terraces of Battir in the occupied West Bank as a World Heritage Site, helping to protect the village’s ancient agricultural landscape and culture from Israel’s plans to build its separation wall through it.

Hacohen described the planned UNESCO mission to Hebron as a broader campaign of “lies that plot against the state of Israel as well as the history and the connection of the Jewish people to this important holy site.”

Violent takeover

Hebron’s Old City is the site of the Ibrahimi mosque, known to Jews as the Cave of the Patriarchs. Muslims and Jews hold that this is where the prophet Abraham was buried.

It is one of 35 potential additions around the world that the World Heritage Committee will consider when it meets in Poland later this month.

On 25 February 1994, Baruch Goldstein an American Jewish settler from Brooklyn walked into the mosque during Ramadan prayers and opened fire, killing 29 Palestinian men and boys and injuring dozens more, before his victims overwhelmed him and beat him to death.

In the days immediately following the massacre, Israel took action not against the settlers but against Palestinians: Israeli forces killed and injured dozens more unarmed Palestinians protesting the mosque massacre across the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

This set the pattern: Israel escalated its repression of Palestinians, gradually allowing the settlers to take over more of the city.

The Ibrahimi mosque was partitioned between the settlers and Palestinians. In 1997, settlers were rewarded even further for Goldstein’s massacre when the Palestinian Authority agreed to allow Israel to partition Hebron itself into two zones: “H1” and “H2.”

H1 is nominally administered by the Palestinian Authority and is home to more than 120,000 Palestinians.

H2, under full Israeli military rule, includes Hebron’s historic Old City as well as the Ibrahimi mosque.

Israeli occupation forces severely restrict the movement of thousands of Palestinians in H2 while about 800 Israeli settlers in the heart of the city move about freely under army protection, including on segregated roads.

Checkpoint shootings

According to the Israeli news website Ynet, Israel fears that including the Old City on UNESCO’s World Heritage List, could impose limits on Israeli construction and protect the Ibrahimi mosque and areas around it from development.

Inclusion on the list could also heighten scrutiny of Israel when it erects new checkpoints in the Old City or carries out work that is damaging to the site.

In the last two years, checkpoints in the heart of Hebron have been the sites of numerous slayings of Palestinian civilians by Israeli occupation forces, which in a number of cases Amnesty International has urged be investigated as extrajudicial killings of persons who posed no threat to soldiers.

It was near such a checkpoint in March 2016 that Elor Azarya took aim and fired fatally at the head of injured and incapacitated Palestinian Abd al-Fattah al-Sharif, a videotaped killing for which the Israeli army medic received a slap on the wrist.

Ynet also reported that Israel was scrambling to find seven countries whose votes are needed to block the UNESCO motion, which also includes a clause rejecting Israel’s claim of sovereignty over occupied East Jerusalem.

In April, The Times of Israel reported that the Trump administration had instructed US diplomats to lobby UNESCO delegations to help Israel secure enough votes against a resolution that criticized Israel’s actions in Hebron and Bethlehem.

Blocking UN representatives

Meanwhile, Israel continues to prevent the entry of the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories.

According to the Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council, Israel has not responded to any of Michael Lynk’s requests to conduct official visits. Lynk was appointed in 2016. Israel has prevented the entry of all UN special rapporteurs since 2008, according to the human rights groups.
Israel is obliged under the UN Charter to allow UN officials to access its territory.


Lynk’s predecssor, Makarim Wibisono, resigned in protest at Israel’s refusal to allow him to enter the occupied Palestinian territories.

‘No Specific Agenda’ Means Trump Will Get Played by Putin, Again

BY JULIE SMITH-JULY 5, 2017

Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will meet for first time at the G20 summit in Hamburg on July 7 and 8. While few oppose the two leaders meeting face to face, the meeting itself carries serious risks, especially as National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster claimed on Thursday that the administration has “no specific agenda” for the meeting. Putin does have an agenda, though.

According to European intelligence sources Putin believes he can get concessions on sanctions by promising Trump cooperation in Syria. Trump, who has expressed admiration for Putin’s leadership style and refused to criticize him, clearly wants to show he can do something past presidents couldn’t: strengthen and stabilize the U.S.-Russia relationship without getting played. The problem, of course, is that for months the United States has been getting played. After interfering in the U.S. election last fall and experiencing little more than a rhetorical slap on the wrist, Putin’s takeaway is simple: Russia’s aggressive actions such disinformation campaigns, buzzing U.S. ships and planes, energy coercion, and hacking carry no consequences. And if Trump and his White House team don’t come up with a plan fast, the United States will get played once again when the two leaders meet next week. Trump needs both a strategy and a message.

The first message Trump needs to send to Putin should be one of transatlantic resolve, and he can do that during his stop in Poland, which will proceed his meeting with Putin in Hamburg. In Warsaw, Trump can reassure skittish allies and showcase transatlantic unity by reaffirming his commitment to transatlantic values, NATO’s Article 5, and enhanced deterrence. In his speech there, Trump should stress that, while we sometimes have differences with our allies over issues like defense spending, we will not tolerate Russia’s attempts to undermine our democratic systems and divide Europe from the United States. Putin has no doubt enjoyed watching the transatlantic partners spend months wringing their hands over the future of the relationship as Trump’s views on Europe and Russia have remained vague. Putin needs to see and hear from Trump personally that the ties that bind the two sides of the Atlantic are as strong as ever.

After the visit to Poland, when Trump finally sits down with Putin in Hamburg, he should open by stating unequivocally that while the United States values engagement with Russia, it is not prepared to make trades, particularly over the heads of U.S. allies and partners. In other words, the United States will not trade cooperation in Syria for the lifting of sanctions, especially after Russia recently threatened to shoot down anything “west of the Euphrates,” including U.S. jets. Trump should remind Putin that U.S.-Russia cooperation in Syria is in everyone’s interest — Moscow included — and that alone should drive our efforts to diffuse tensions between our two countries and work towards a long-term solution in Syria.

Putin will use the meeting to plug all of the amazing things Russia can do to help Trump achieve his goals in defeating the Islamic State. Trump shouldn’t believe him. Why? Experience shows that Putin often promises his counterparts the moon and consistently under delivers. Remember when Putin pledged his cooperation in Syria when he met with President Barack Obama at the U.N. in the fall of 2015? Russia launched its first strikes in Syria just days later.

Trump should also view Putin’s pledges of support with some skepticism because it’s not clear what Russia even brings to the fight. Putin can offer more air power but that isn’t what the United States needs. More troubling, Russia’s partners in the Syrian conflict (Assad and the Iranians) and its rules of engagement (or lack thereof) put Moscow and Washington on opposing sides both geostrategically and tactically. That doesn’t mean Trump and Putin should avoid talking about Syria. It just means Trump should proceed with extreme caution, and he shouldn’t exchange anything — especially those two Russian compounds the U.S. government seized last fall — for loose pledges of support.

In addition to Syria, the two leaders need to discuss Russia’s increasingly aggressive use of asymmetric tactics like hacking and disinformation campaigns. Trump could take a page from French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent visit with Putin and challenge him (publicly or privately) on Russia’s efforts to undermine U.S. democratic institutions. Trump should make clear that we know these attacks often stem directly from the Russian government and that they won’t be tolerated. In the week before the two leaders meet, Trump’s team should make a list of concrete actions that the United States will take if such behavior continues. Given the severity of the threat, this subject requires far more than a “cut it out.”

There are plenty of other issues to cover, which again, makes it surprising that McMaster said that the Trump team doesn’t have much of an agenda. The two leaders should talk about extending New START, instability in the Balkans, the INF Treaty, and how to take risk-reduction steps. Sam Nunn, Igor Ivanov, Des Browne, and Wolfgang Ischinger in a recent letter to  Trump suggested the two countries also create a NATO-Russia Military Crisis Management Group. Whatever the two leaders discuss, it is important that Trump seek input and advice from some of our closest Europeans allies, many of whom he will see in Hamburg before he sees Putin.

This first meeting between Trump and Russia will be hugely consequential for future of the U.S.-Russia relationship as well as the wider transatlantic community. It will also tell us a lot about how this administration plans to deal with authoritarian leaders in the future. That’s why it’s important to get it right. Trump needs to come to this meeting prepared, well-informed, and armed with ideas and countermeasures. If he ignores the advice of his very capable Russia hands and decides instead to rely on his “good brain,” the results could be disastrous. Putin brings decades of experience to this meeting and is coming to the table with a plan. We need one too.

Photo credit: MIKHAIL KLIMENTIEV/AFP/Getty Images

At G-20 summit, it looks more and more like Trump against the world

FILE PHOTO: From L-R, European Council President Donald Tusk, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, U.S. President Donald Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe walk after a family photo during the G7 Summit in Taormina, Sicily, Italy, May 26, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

By Damian Paletta and Ana Swanson July 5 at 11:23 AM

President Trump and key global leaders are on a collision course ahead of the Group of 20 summit in Germany this week, with Trump's unapologetic “America First” mantra on trade and climate change running into emboldened, and increasingly united, opposition overseas.

Trump reiterated his threats on Wednesday to pull the United States back from existing trade deals, arguing they were against the national interest. As Trump threatens to retreat from global trade, other world powers are exploring new economic ties.

The European Union and Japan are expected on Thursday to announce plans for a major new free trade agreement. The E.U.-Japanese deal, which has only been negotiated in broad terms thus far, would lower barriers to exports of cars flowing in both directions, as well as reduce Japanese barriers to imports of trains and agricultural products, including cheese and chocolate, according to media reports. It would create a free trade area similar in size to North America, which is linked by the 1994 NAFTA agreement.

During a rally in Harrisburg, Pa., April 29 President Trump said he will renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement or "terminate" it if a fair deal cannot be reached. (The Washington Post) 

If completed, the E.U.-Japan trade deal would be a sign of other top economies adjusting to a new world order in which they attempt to work around the United States instead of looking to it for direction on building global trade. Trump, with support from Congress, already ended an effort for the United State to reach a trade agreement with Japan and other Asian countries, and he has threatened to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement and from a separate trade agreement with South Korea.

Amid strengthening overseas opposition, Trump faces one of the most consequential economic decisions of his tenure so far, as he considers imposing new restrictions on steel imports to protect U.S. producers — a move vociferously opposed by Germany and other U.S. allies. The Commerce Department was close to recommending new restrictions, but other top Trump advisers warned it could lead to major economic fallout. Now the decision is hanging over both the administration and the summit of global leaders.

[Trump promised to make trade fair again. Is he succeeding?]

Trump's advisers plan to push other countries at the G-20 to agree to concrete steps that would crack down on the way China exports steel, people briefed on the planning said, and if Trump is successful in this effort it could buttress his willingness to challenge other countries on a range of issues. But if the attempt backfires and numerous countries reject the U.S. push, it could further isolate the country.
The divergent trade approaches have set up the G-20 as a potential crossroads for the international economic order. Trump is attempting to leverage the United States' economic power to negotiate new deals in the country's favor, while foreign leaders appear increasingly ready to bypass the United States in favor of stronger ties elsewhere.

“There was a question mark there, as to whether or not the E.U. would be able to continue signing free trade agreements in the future,” said André Sapir, an international trade expert and a former economic adviser to the European Union’s Director General for Economic and Financial Affairs. “This indeed demonstrates that the E.U. is able to do that.”

“Going into the G-20, it’s demonstrating that indeed the E.U. and Japan want to continue to have a liberal trade agenda and show that there are other countries able to pursue this agenda without the United States,” Sapir said.

There are also signs that other nations are willing to challenge Trump more directly. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who faces elections in September in a country where Trump is deeply unpopular, said she would press Trump about his trade threats as well as his recent decision to withdraw from the 2016 Paris climate agreement that aimed to curb greenhouse gas emissions. In advance of the meeting, Merkel and Trump discussed “global steel overcapacity” in a phone call on Monday, something that could become the top trade issue at the summit. Germany is a large exporter of steel and officials there worry they could be caught in any U.S. crackdown.

“There has been no love lost between Germany and Trump from the beginning, but now Chancellor Merkel is operating in campaign mode where all the numbers show that President Trump is deeply disliked,” said Michal Baranowski, director of the Warsaw office for the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a think tank. “The concern is certainly very high about protectionist language and potentially protectionist ideas coming from the Trump administration.”

“It is important for us to wave the flag of free trade in response to global moves toward protectionism by quickly concluding the free trade agreement with Europe,” Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said on Tuesday, according to Reuters, as he touted the potential Japan-E.U. trade pact.

Trump appeared ready for a scrap ahead of the meeting. “The United States made some of the worst Trade Deals in world history. Why should we continue these deals with countries that do not help us?” he wrote in a Wednesday morning Twitter post. That followed a Monday post in which Trump implied he might soon take action on steel, writing “Don’t like steel & aluminum dumping!”

U.S. officials have accused China — not Germany and Canada — of “dumping” excess steel on global markets in a way that drives down prices. Because China is a G-20 country, Trump could try — for the first time — to directly challenge Chinese leader Xi Jinping in person at the Hamburg meeting. The United States imports very little steel from China, but Trump administration officials say the way China produces and exports steel still hurts the U.S. steel industry because it sells it at low prices to other countries, driving down prices.

China now makes more than half of the world’s steel. Some of that steel goes to feed the factories, roads and skyscrapers that have cropped up around the country as China’s economy has grown in past decades.

But U.S. companies say that the Chinese steel boom is also due to unfair government subsidies and state ownership that protects steel mills from market forces and causes them to produce much more steel than the world needs. Much of this glut of Chinese steel ends up in overseas markets, lowering the global steel price to a point where foreign companies can’t profitably compete. In 2015, China produced 10 times as much crude steel as the United States.

“The United States stands firm against all unfair trading practices, including massive distortions in the global steel market and other nonmarket practices that harm U.S. workers,” White House National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn said. “We ask the G-20 economies to join us in this effort and to take concrete actions to solve these problems.”

U.S.-China relations are further complicated by international tensions over North Korea, after dictator Kim Jong Un's regime — to broad international condemnation — conducted a military exercise that seemed designed to demonstrate the increased range of its missile technology.

Trump took a combative posture with China ahead of the meeting, ripping the country for allegedly increasing its trade with North Korea. “Trade between China and North Korea grew almost 40% in the first quarter. So much for China working with us — but we had to give it a try!” Trump wrote in another Wednesday morning Twitter missive.

Trump had taken a more conciliatory approach with China in recent months, backing away from a threat to label Beijing a currency manipulator and saying he thought both countries could work closely together on a range of issues. But relations appear to have soured in recent weeks, and his Wednesday accusation that China has enabled North Korea's missile programs marks a low point between his administration and Xi.

A number of trade experts said it remains unclear whether Trump is simply threatening tariffs as a way to lure other countries to offer him concessions, or if he will follow through on new restrictions, rebuffing advice from many in his Cabinet. He has taken steps to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, and he has also said he wants a new trade deal with South Korea. But so far those efforts are only in initial stages. Global leaders have seen an opening in persuading Trump to change course, as he made a last-minute decision to renegotiate — rather than withdraw — from NAFTA after intense pressure from Canada and Mexico.

“There’s a big difference between being unpredictable with your adversaries and being erratic with your friends and allies,” said Daniel Price, former international economic affairs adviser to President George W. Bush, who helped organize the first G-20 summit in 2008.

Still, Merkel has emerged as one of the global leaders most willing to challenge Trump’s approach.
“Those who think that the problems of this world can be solved with isolationism or protectionism are terribly wrong,” she told the German parliament last week.

Trump and some of his advisers have chided Merkel over the fact that Germany exports far more goods more to the U.S. than the U.S. exports to Germany — $64 billion worth of cars, machinery and other goods in 2016.

Many trade experts believe the unbalanced trade is due in large part to Germany’s use of a shared currency with the rest of the euro zone, which ends up making the euro cheaper than a strong economy like Germany would otherwise have. German officials have tried to explain this dynamic to Trump and his advisers for months, but Trump administration officials believe Germany could do more to boost their imports.

The Germans argue that their companies, including luxury automakers, invest heavily in the United States, employing more than 100,000 Americans.

Before his inauguration, Trump had threatened BMW with a 35 percent tariff over its plan to build a new plant in Mexico. And on his last trip to Europe, at a meeting of the Group of 7 in Italy, Trump told European leaders that the Germans were “very bad” on trade. “We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change,” Trump tweeted in late May.

[The places in America most exposed to a trade war]

Trump ran for his election by vilifying China’s trade practices, and he could try to use the G-20 summit to try to isolate Beijing over the way it produces and exports steel. Trump softened his criticism of China in the early months of his term, but in recent weeks his administration has stepped up criticism of the country for human rights violations and failing to help with North Korea.

G-20 meetings, which are held once a year in a rotation of countries, typically end with a joint statement from every nation about a range of issues that can include economic policy, international assistance and security. Officials are likely to face strains as they try to cobble together the joint statement — known as the “communique” — for this meeting, because Trump could easily block any language that he feels try to box him in on his trade or climate initiatives. But Trump could also risk alienating the White House from foreign leaders who have often looked to the U.S. for leadership on all of these issues, particularly as he is seeking more influence in global security and counterterrorism efforts.

Merkel is expected to also serve as Trump’s lead antagonist on climate issues, following his June announcement that he was beginning the process of withdrawing from the Paris agreement. The announcement divided White House officials, some of whom opposed the move, and it was condemned by numerous world leaders, including those in China, Canada and the United Kingdom.

But since then, top White House officials have defended Trump’s decision, saying it represents his focus on helping protect U.S. jobs and not succumbing to greenhouse gas targets that could lead to regulations.

“He cares very much about the climate,” Cohn said, speaking of Trump. “He cares about the environment. But he has to enter into a deal that’s fair for the American people, the American workers. He’s done everything he’s done based on job creation, economic growth in the United States.”

This is a message Trump and his advisers are expected to make again at the G-20 meeting in the coming days when they are challenged by other leaders.

Trump leaves for the G-20 meeting on Wednesday and will first stop in Poland.

James McAuley contributed reporting from Paris.

U.S. prepared to use force on North Korea 'if we must' - U.N. envoy

By Michelle Nichols | UNITED NATIONS-Wed Jul 5, 2017

The United States cautioned on Wednesday it was ready to use force if need be to stop North Korea's nuclear missile program but said it preferred global diplomatic action against Pyongyang for defying world powers by test launching a ballistic missile that could hit Alaska.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley told a meeting of the U.N. Security Council that North Korea's actions were "quickly closing off the possibility of a diplomatic solution" and the United States was prepared to defend itself and its allies.

"One of our capabilities lies with our considerable military forces. We will use them if we must, but we prefer not to have to go in that direction," Haley said. She urged China, North Korea's only major ally, to do more to rein in Pyongyang.

Speaking with his Japanese counterpart on Wednesday, U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis underscored the "ironclad commitment" of the United States to defending Japan and providing "extended deterrence using the full range of U.S. capabilities," Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in a statement.

Mattis' assurances to Japanese Defense Minister Tomomi Inada came during a phone call to discuss the North Korean test, the statement said.

Taking a major step in its missile program, North Korea on Tuesday test launched an intercontinental ballistic missile that some experts believe has the range to reach the U.S. states of Alaska and Hawaii and perhaps the U.S. Pacific Northwest.

North Korea says the missile could carry a large nuclear warhead.

The missile test is a direct challenge to U.S. President Donald Trump, who has vowed to prevent North Korea from being able to hit the United States with a nuclear missile.

He has frequently urged China to press the isolated country's leadership to give up its nuclear program.

Haley said the United States would propose new U.N. sanctions on North Korea in coming days and warned that

if Russia and China did not support the move, then “we will go our own path.”
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un looks on during the test-launch of the intercontinental ballistic missile Hwasong-14 in this undated photo released by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang July 5, 2017. KCNA/via REUTERS---U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley directs comments to the Russian delegation at the conclusion of a U.N. Security Council meeting to discuss the recent ballistic missile launch by North Korea at U.N. headquarters in New York, U.S., July 5, 2017. REUTERS/Mike Segar


Russian Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations Vladimir Safronkov addresses the U.N. Security Council as it meets to discuss the recent ballistic missile launch by North Korea at U.N. headquarters in New York, U.S., July 5, 2017. REUTERS/Mike Segar---Chinese Ambassador to the United Nations Liu Jieyi addresses the U.N. Security Council as it meets to discuss the recent ballistic missile launch by North Korea at U.N. headquarters in New York, U.S., July 5, 2017. REUTERS/Mike Segar

She did not give details on what sanctions would be proposed, but outlined possible options.

"The international community can cut off the major sources of hard currency to the North Korean regime. We can restrict the flow of oil to their military and their weapons programs. We can increase air and maritime restrictions. We can hold senior regime officials accountable," Haley said.

Diplomats say Beijing has not been fully enforcing existing international sanctions on its neighbor and has resisted tougher measures, such as an oil embargo, bans on the North Korean airline and guest workers, and measures against Chinese banks and other firms doing business with the North.
“Much of the burden of enforcing U.N. sanctions rests with China,” Haley said.

The United States might seek to take unilateral action and sanction more Chinese companies that do business with North Korea, especially banks, U.S. officials have said.

China's U.N. ambassador, Liu Jieyi, told the Security Council meeting that the missile launch was a "flagrant violation" of U.N. resolutions and "unacceptable."

"We call on all the parties concerned to exercise restraint, avoid provocative actions and belligerent rhetoric, demonstrate the will for unconditional dialogue and work actively together to defuse the tension," Liu said.

TENSIONS WITH U.S.

The United States has remained technically at war with North Korea since the 1950-53 Korean conflict ended in an armistice rather than a peace treaty and the past six decades have been punctuated by periodic rises in antagonism and rhetoric that have always stopped short of a resumption of active hostilities.

Tensions have risen sharply after North Korea conducted two nuclear weapons tests last year and carried out a steady stream of ballistic missile tests

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said the ICBM test completed his country's strategic weapons capability that includes atomic and hydrogen bombs, the state KCNA news agency said.

Pyongyang will not negotiate with the United States to give up those weapons until Washington abandons its hostile policy against the North, KCNA quoted Kim as saying.

"He, with a broad smile on his face, told officials, scientists and technicians that the U.S. would be displeased ... as it was given a 'package of gifts' on its 'Independence Day,'" KCNA said, referring to the missile launch on July 4.

Trump and other leaders from the Group of 20 nations meeting in Germany this week are due to discuss steps to rein in North Korea's weapons program, which it has pursued in defiance of Security Council sanctions.

Russia's deputy U.N. envoy said on Wednesday that military force should not be considered against North Korea and called for a halt to the deployment of a U.S. missile defense system in South Korea.
He also said that attempts to strangle North Korea economically were "unacceptable" and that sanctions would not resolve the issue.

The U.S. military assured Americans that it was capable of defending the United States against a North Korean ICBM.

Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain Jeff Davis noted a successful test last month in which a U.S.-based missile interceptor knocked down a simulated incoming North Korean ICBM.

"So we do have confidence in our ability to defend against the limited threat, the nascent threat that is there," he told reporters. He acknowledged though that previous U.S. missile defense tests had shown "mixed results."

The North Korean launch this week was both earlier and "far more successful than expected," said U.S.-based missile expert John Schilling, a contributor to Washington-based North Korea monitoring project 38 North.

It would now probably only be a year or two before a North Korean ICBM achieved "minimal operational capability," he added.

Schilling said the U.S. national missile defense system was "only minimally operational" and would take more than two years to upgrade to provide more reliable defense.


(Additional reporting by Lesley Wroughton, Phil Stewart and David Brunnstrom in Washington; Writing by Alistair Bell; Editing by James Dalgleish and Peter Cooney)

Playing Chicken with Nuclear Annihilation

Much of Official Washington wants to escalate the confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia, ignoring the terrifying reality that this game of chicken could end life on the planet, as Norman Solomon observes.

by Norman Solomon-Jul 5, 2017

( July 5, 2017, Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian) Any truthful way to say it will sound worse than ghastly: We live in a world where one person could decide to begin a nuclear war — quickly killing several hundred million people and condemning vast numbers of others to slower painful deaths.

Given the macabre insanity of this ongoing situation, most people don’t like to talk about it or even think about it. In that zone of denial, U.S. news media keep detouring around a crucial reality: No matter what you think of Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin, they hold the whole world in their hands with a nuclear button.

If the presidents of the United States and Russia spiral into escalating conflicts between the two countries, the world is much more likely to blow up. Yet many American critics of Trump have gotten into baiting him as Putin’s flunky while goading him to prove otherwise. A new barrage of that baiting and goading is now about to begin — taking aim at any wisps of possible détente — in connection with the announced meeting between Trump and Putin at the G-20 summit in Germany at the end of this week.

Big picture: This moment in human history is not about Trump. It’s not about Putin. It’s not about whether you despise either or neither or both. What’s at stake in the dynamics between them is life on this planet.

Over the weekend, more than 10,000 people signed a petition under the heading “Tell Trump and Putin: Negotiate, Don’t Escalate.” The petition was written by RootsAction to be concise and to the point: “We vehemently urge you to take a constructive approach to your planned meeting at the G-20 summit. Whatever our differences, we must reduce rather than increase the risks of nuclear war. The future of humanity is at stake.”

A war between the world’s two nuclear superpowers could extinguish human life on a gigantic scale while plunging the Earth into cataclysmic “nuclear winter.”

“Recent scientific studies have found that a war fought with the deployed U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals would leave Earth virtually uninhabitable,” wrote Steven Starr, a senior scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility. “In fact, NASA computer models have shown that even a ‘successful’ first strike by Washington or Moscow would inflict catastrophic environmental damage that would make agriculture impossible and cause mass starvation.”

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists explains why, since last year, it has moved the risk-estimate “Doomsday Clock” even closer to apocalyptic midnight — citing as a major factor the escalation of tensions between the U.S. and Russian governments.

So, the imminent meeting between Trump and Putin will affect the chances that the young people we love — and so many others around the world — will have a future. And whether later generations will even exist.

I put it this way in a recent article for The Nation: “Whatever the truth may be about Russian interference in the U.S. election last year, an overarching truth continues to bind the fates of Russians, Americans and the rest of humanity. No matter how much we might wish to forget or deny it, we are tied together by a fraying thread of relations between two nations that possess 93 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. Right now it is not popular to say so, but we desperately need each other to enhance the odds of human survival.”

In that overall context, stoking hostility toward Russia is, uh, rather short-sighted. Wouldn’t it be much better for the meeting between Trump and Putin to bring Washington and Moscow closer to détente rather than bringing us closer to nuclear annihilation?

Norman Solomon is the coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.

UN chief to attend Cyprus reunification talks in Switzerland

Secretary-general will join Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders for negotiations to overcome decades-long deadlock



Thursday 6 July 2017

Greek flag, left, flies in foreground as banner of breakaway Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, right, flutters next to Turkey's flag recently atop Suleimiye mosque (AFP)

United Nations chief Antonio Guterres will return to Switzerland for talks on reuniting Cyprus on Thursday, his spokesman said on Wednesday.

Guterres was in the Swiss resort of Crans-Montana on Friday - on the third day of negotiations - to lend his weight to the effort to unite Cyprus under a federal umbrella.

"The secretary-general feels that his presence in the talks would be opportune tomorrow. There have been also a number of calls from the parties for him to return," UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters.

Guterres said on Saturday that a "clear understanding" had been reached at the talks between Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders and their backers on what was needed to reach a comprehensive agreement to reunite the island.

Greek Cypriot leader Nicos Anastasiades said on Wednesday he would submit proposals to overcome a deadlock that had become apparent over the past week of talks.

"I expect that the other side will show the same good will, to move forward," he said. "We have to deal with these issues seriously to see a glimmer of hope, of light for the future."

Cyprus was split following a Turkish invasion in 1974, triggered by a brief Greek-inspired coup. Turkey supports a breakaway Turkish Cypriot state in northern Cyprus.

Two issues have proved especially vexing during the reunification talks: Turkish Cyprus demands for a rotating presidency, and Greek Cypriot demands that Turkey withdraw all of its 30,000 troops from the island and renounce its intervention rights.

"They're getting closer but they're not there yet. If this deal is going to be done it's going to be done with the secretary-general ... They genuinely have a lot of faith and trust in him," said a diplomatic source, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Everybody knows what they have to give, but it's almost as if they're waiting for the secretary-general to come back before they show their cards," said the diplomatic source.

Venezuela: pro-government militiamen injure politicians in attack on Congress

Men wielded sticks and bars in attack, which comes amid three months of often violent confrontations between security forces and protesters

 An injured government supporter is taken away by security forces in Caracas, Venezuela. Photograph: Andres Martinez Casares/Reuters

Associated Press in Caracas-Wednesday 5 July 2017

Four Venezuelan politicians have been wounded after pro-government militias wielding wooden sticks and metal bars stormed the opposition-controlled Congress during a special session to mark the country’s independence day.

Blood was left splattered on the neoclassical legislature’s white walls. One of the wounded politicians, Americo de Grazia, had to be taken in a stretcher to an ambulance suffering from convulsions, said a fellow congressman.

“This doesn’t hurt as much as watching how every day how we lose a little bit more of our country,” Armando Arias said from inside an ambulance as he was being treated for head wounds that spilled blood across his clothes.

The attack, in plain view of national guardsmen assigned to protect the legislature, comes amid three months of often-violent confrontations between security forces and protesters who accuse the government of trying to establish a dictatorship by jailing foes, pushing aside the opposition-controlled legislature and rewriting the constitution to avoid fair elections.

Tensions were already high after vice-president Tareck El Aissami made an unannounced morning visit to the neoclassical legislature, accompanied by top government and military officials, for an event celebrating independence day.

Standing next to a display case holding Venezuela’s declaration of independence from Spain, he said global powers are once again trying to subjugate Venezuela.

“We still haven’t finished definitively breaking the chains of the empire,” El Aissami said, adding that Nicolas Maduro’s plans to rewrite the constitution – a move the opposition sees as a power-grab – offers Venezuela the best chance to be truly independent.

After he left, dozens of government supporters set up a picket outside the building, heckling lawmakers with menacing chants and eventually invading the legislature themselves.

Despite the violence, lawmakers approved a plan by the opposition to hold a symbolic referendum on 16 July that would give voters the chance to reject Maduro’s plans to draft a new political charter.

Later Maduro condemned the violence, calling for a full investigation during a speech while attending a military parade.

The clash followed Tuesday’s appearance of a five-minute video posted by a former police inspector who allegedly stole a helicopter and fired on two government buildings last week.

Oscar Perez, repeating a call for rebellion among the security forces, said that he was in Caracas after abandoning the helicopter along the Caribbean coast and was ready for the “second phase” of his campaign to free his homeland from what he called the corrupt rule of Maduro and his “assassin” allies.

Perez gave no other details but pledged to join youth who have been protesting on the streets the past three months against Maduro.

“Stop talking. Get on the streets. Take action. Fight,” he said in the video, sitting before a Venezuelan flag and with what looks like an assault rifle by his side. He also denounced Maduro’s plan to rewrite the constitution.

“If this constitutional assembly goes through, Venezuela will cease to exist because we’ll have given away the country to the Cubans,” he said.

The bold, though largely harmless 27 June attack shocked Venezuelans who had grown accustomed to almost-daily clashes since April between often-violent youth protesters and security forces that have left more than 90 people dead and hundreds injured.

Perez apparently piloted the stolen police helicopter that sprayed 15 bullets toward the interior ministry and dropped at least two grenades over the supreme court building.

While Maduro claimed Perez had stolen the helicopter on a US-backed mission to oust him from power, many in the opposition questioned whether the incident was a staged by the government to distract attention from the president’s increasingly authoritarian rule.Adding to the intrigue is Perez’s colorful past.