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

Monday, August 7, 2017

An Appeal To The President


Rajeewa Jayaweera
Mr President,
The media frenzy, following the testimony by Minister for Foreign Affairs and National Lotteries on Wednesday, 02 August before the Commission of Inquiry appointed by you and his claims ‘I did not know’ and ‘I cannot remember’ to the origins of his over a million rupees a month abode for half a year, has been unprecedent. 
6.2 million voters took your word and elected you to the highest office in the land on January 09, 2015. The bond scam took place within six weeks of your election to office on a Good Governance platform.   
Both electronic and print media besides social media and gossip columns are agog with news reports and comments related to the minister’s testimony. The rumor mills are working overtime. The current guessing game in some sections of the media and political circles of minister concerned being requested by you to resign and his denials is unbecoming.   
Despite the difficulty in accepting statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and National Lotteries of not having known the origins of the luxury apartment obtained by his wife and daughter, he, currently must be given the benefit of doubt and considered innocent till proven guilty.
However, his ministerial functions related to foreign affairs necessitates him to meet world leaders, representatives from multi-lateral organizations and a host of opinion makers in the international community. The United Nations General Assembly is due to begin in September and he would either represent this nation or at least be a member of the delegation. To carry out such duties on behalf of the nation while being under a corruption cloud amounts to shaming the nation. Besides, it is unethical.
In developed countries, similar situations would result in ministers tendering their resignation post-haste.  Maintaining current status quo is not a viable option.
French President Emmanuel Macron’s newly appointed Defense Minister Sylvie Goulard had to resign from government after a magistrate launched a preliminary investigation into allegations of her party misusing European parliament funds. Similarly, President Macron’s Justice Minister, Francois Bayrou, tasked with promoting a law to clean up politics, a key election pledge by Macron, resigned following allegations of misuse of European Parliament funds by his party. It may be noted, both resignations took place prior to commencement of investigations. 
Your indecision to remove former Governor of Central Bank till such time his contract expired earned you no plaudits. Let there be no repetition.     
You will recollect, you travelled to London in May 2016 at state expense to participate at the Anti-corruption summit in London, hosted by former British Prime Minister David Cameron. During your address, you stated; “The people reacted strongly against corruption by changing the corrupt administration by the power of the ballot, by changing the government in January 2015 at the Presidential election and again at the parliamentary election in August 2015. The people acting democratically got rid of the corrupt leaders and their supporters”. Let not nature repeat itself in 2020 
Your Prime Minister and your good-self erred when you appointed the minister concerned as Finance Minister in January 2015 while he was under investigation for money laundering. He could have been appointed after he was exonerated of charges.
This is an appeal to avoid making a similar mistake. For the sake of what is left of the good name of this country, your government and your name, the minister concerned should be requested to step down till the Commission of Inquiry has completed its deliberations and arrived at its conclusions. He could always be reappointed, if and when his name has been cleared. 
I quote once again from your speech at the Anti-corruption summit in London; “The current national unity government, consisting of the two major political parties in the parliament, one under my leadership and the other led by Prime Minister Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe, we were elected to office on the policy platform of good governance, democracy, and rule of law. Therefore, we consider it our prime duty to root out corruption from the country.”
Deeds Mr President and not words are the need of the hour.

Read More

Mangala’s secretary arrested with drugs! Minister gives categorical instructions to enforce the law irrespective of status or rank!





(Lanka-e-News- 06.Aug.2017, 11.30PM)  Sameera Manahara the Private secretary to minister Mangala Samaraweera  was arrested by an   STF team of officers on the  6 th in the early hours of the morning. He was taken into custody along with a quantity of drugs including cocaine , hashish , Kush, ‘pill’  and banned cigarettes .
 
LEN logoWhile Manahara was transporting the contraband in a super luxury vehicle for a beach party in Mt. Lavinia he was apprehended after the police set an ambush   following a tip off . Along with him four others were taken  into custody. It is learnt among the four others were individuals who had been engaged  in drug peddling together with Malaka Silva.
3000 milligrams of  cocaine , 4500 milligrams of the drug ‘Pill’, 9740 milligrams of hashish , 9420 milligrams of Kush  , 18 bottles of foreign liquor bottles and 400 banned imported cigarettes which were in the vehicle  were also taken into custody.
The official  identity card and a bank card of ASP Upul Seneviratne of the ministry’s security division had also been found  in the possession of the suspects .
At the time of the arrest, Minister Mangala Samaraweera was at Matara . 
When Sameera and his group   were trying to ‘sell’ minister’s name following the arrest in order to escape from the clutches of the law , the minister from Matara on the other hand had given clear and categorical instructions to the police to enforce the law to the letter against those taken into custody in connection with drugs  irrespective of rank or status, and not to show any special leniency. The minister’s exemplary instructions is most laudable.  
---------------------------
by     (2017-08-07 04:00:01)

‘Aava’ group leader, five members arrested


Monday, August 7, 2017

The Terrorism Investigation Division (TID) arrested six members, including the leader of the ‘Aava’ group who are alleged to have assaulted two Policemen by swords in Kopai, Jaffna.

Police Media Spokesman SP Ruwan Gunasekera told Daily News Online that out of the six suspects, three were arrested in Colombo Fort and two other suspects from Jaffna earlier today.

One other suspect was arrested from Mattakkuliya last night, he said.

The suspects arrested from Colombo Fort are Raj Kumar Jeya Kumar alias Vinod and Kulendran Manojith.

Sri Kanthan Kugadhasa and Arjunam Prasanna were arrested from Jaffna and Shiwasubramaniyum Paul was arrested from Mattakkuliya.

All suspects are residents in Jaffna.

Twelve men on motorcycles attacked two police constables with swords while they were engaged field duty in Kopai, Jaffna on July 30.

The Police Spokesperson said that the suspects are currently under the custody of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID).

Further investigations are underway. 

Underhand deal in e-passport tender 

Underhand deal in e-passport tender

Aug 07, 2017

A ploy is on to handover the designing of the electronic passport to Di La Ru (Pvt.) Ltd. at Biyagama FTZ under an underhand deal, government sources say. In disregard of the president’s recommendations and by misleading the cabinet, the due tender procedure had not been followed. This has caused a massive financial loss to the state and endangered national security, the sources say.

This is despite the State Printing Department’s having submitted a feasibility study demonstrating its ability to design a low-cost, high quality and safe new e-passport. The study says the e-passport with an electronic chip containing the holder’s details, can be given at Rs. 350. A sum of Rs.700 million is needed to fulfill the related technical requirements, and the state will be able retain the spending that will otherwise be channeled to the private sector, says the Department documents sent to the Home Affairs, Wayamba Development Cultural Affairs Ministry secretary. However, there has been no response so far to that notification.
It is in this scenario that the cabinet approved a joint paper on August 01 by the Home Affairs, Wayamba Development Cultural Affairs Minister S.B. Nawinna and Telecommunication and Digital Infrastructure Minister Harin Fernando which says the introduction of the e-passport should be carried out as a state-private partnership under the national digitalization programme.
According to information available to us, the first study in this regard started in 2015. The Moratuwa University was handed over the task of designing a technical framework for an international standard e-passport. Later, with its recommendations, the Immigration and Emigration Department was going to introduce a new e-passport when that was suspended and a proposal made to bring that under the ICTA and the Telecommunication and Digital Infrastructure Ministry.
In March 2017, a cabinet paper based on ICTA proposals was submitted with approval by the economic affairs subcommittee. It says a partnership with Di La Ru, which prints currency notes, be made and a special printing machine installed at a cost of Rs. 1.2 billion. However, that was rejected by the cabinet because it did not follow a clear tender procedure in accordance with presidential recommendations, the Immigration and Emigration Department was not involved, a high was bid placed by Di La Ru and a clear loss would occur to the state and other reasons .
The president recommended that a committee involving the Immigration and Emigration, State Printing Departments and Home Affairs Ministry be set up and based on its recommendations the Swiss Challenge method be undertaken. Accordingly, the State Printing Department submitted its recommendations. ICTA and other responsible authorities are trying, without consulting the Finance Ministry, to launch the project through Di La Ru.
Previously, the tender for the printing of passports was given to Indonesia’s state press, which charged a very high fee of five dollars per passport, the sources note. The e-passport will cost more than that. The attempt will result in citizens’ information going to the hands of a private company, risk of fake passports, weakening of powers of the Immigration and Emigration Department, state’s having to bear an unnecessary expenditure and loss, and the ministries involved getting accused of corruption. This will all lead to the government suffering a huge disgrace, the sources say, stressing that the top government figures should pay careful attention to this matter.
Kashyapa Kotelawala
 Australian foreign ministry disavows diplomats’ ties to Israeli group
 Alexander Downer, Australia’s ambassador in London, has resigned from NGO Monitor, a group that works with the Israeli government to smear human rights defenders. (via Facebook)

Ali Abunimah-7 August 2017

The Australian foreign ministry is disavowing ties between two of its senior diplomats and the right-wing Israeli group NGO Monitor.

NGO Monitor has been involved in leveling smears targeting Australian aid to Gaza that Canberra has refuted.

Arabic press review: Why it's 'cool' to be an Egyptian prisoner


Thousands of prisoners denied trials in Egypt now have the luxury of air-con in buses. In other news, an Algerian researcher has a cure for lying
Egyptian prisoners get some air before their trial (AFP)
Mohammad Ayesh's picture
Mohammad Ayesh- Monday 7 August 2017

In the cooler

Egyptian prisoners are benefiting from new facilities and comforts, including air-conditioned buses and cells for people with special needs, according to the Cairo newspaper al-Mesryoon.
Mahmoud Khallaf, the director of prison administration, said jails are now equipped with modern and reliable buses, and up-to-date care facilities. He said the buses also have security cars and ambulances ready to intervene in case of an emergency.
There are tens of thousands of political prisoners in Egypt who have not been granted the right to a trial. Human rights organisations also speak of widespread violations committed in Egyptian prisons, including denying some prisoners the right to be treated.
Al Jazeera in Jerusalem (Reuters)

Israel 'joins siege of Qatar'

Israel's plans to shut down Al Jazeera's offices in Jerusalem marks its entry into the Gulf dispute on the side of the Saudi-led coalition of four Arab states, according to the al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper.
Israel has seized the opportunity in what has been a long campaign to remove Al Jazeera, according to published in London on Monday.       

Saudi security officer turns to 'IS'

The Saudi daily al-Hayat newspaper reported that a Saudi court in Riyadh has sentenced a security officer to prison for joining IS.
The charges included "training in IS camps, leading an armed group affiliated with IS, participating in its military operations, meeting its leaders" and "returning to Saudi Arabia and leading a cell aimed at carrying out terrorist operations at Arar airport, targeting foreign embassies, officials and officers".

You couldn't make it up

After five years of work, the Algerian researcher Rachid Moussaoui has designed a computer programme to combat lying in society through psychoanalysis, according to the Algerian newspaperEchourouk
In what is billed as the first of its kind in the world, the programme starts with diagnosis and analysis moving to thinking, action and reaction, and then to the classification of different types of behaviour.
The newspaper said that Morocco, Tunisia and Canada expressed their interest in the project.

The Beckoning of Nuclear War

A coup against the man in the White House is under way. This is not because he is an odious human being, but because he has consistently made clear he does not want war with Russia.

by John Pilger-
( August 7, 2017, London, Sri Lanka Guardian)  The US submarine captain says, “We’ve all got to die one day, some sooner and some later. The trouble always has been that you’re never ready, because you don’t know when it’s coming. Well, now we do know and there’s nothing to be done about it.”
He says he will be dead by September. It will take about a week to die, though no one can be sure. Animals live the longest.
The war was over in a month. The United States, Russia and China were the protagonists. It is not clear if it was started by accident or mistake. There was no victor. The northern hemisphere is contaminated and lifeless now.
A curtain of radioactivity is moving south towards Australia and New Zealand, southern Africa and South America. By September, the last cities, towns and villages will succumb. As in the north, most buildings will remain untouched, some illuminated by the last flickers of electric light.
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper
These lines from T.S. Eliot’s poem The Hollow Men appear at the beginning of Nevil Shute’s novel On the Beach, which left me close to tears. The endorsements on the cover said the same.
Published in 1957 at the height of the Cold War when too many writers were silent or cowed, it is a masterpiece. At first the language suggests a genteel relic; yet nothing I have read on nuclear war is as unyielding in its warning. No book is more urgent.
Some readers will remember the black and white Hollywood film starring Gregory Peck as the US Navy commander who takes his submarine to Australia to await the silent, formless spectre descending on the last of the living world.
I read On the Beach for the first time the other day, finishing it as the US Congress passed a law to wage economic war on Russia, the world’s second most lethal nuclear power. There was no justification for this insane vote, except the promise of plunder.
The “sanctions” are aimed at Europe, too, mainly Germany, which depends on Russian natural gas and on European companies that do legitimate business with Russia. In what passed for debate on Capitol Hill, the more garrulous senators left no doubt that the embargo was designed to force Europe to import expensive American gas.
Their main aim seems to be war – real war. No provocation as extreme can suggest anything else. They seem to crave it, even though Americans have little idea what war is. The Civil War of 1861-5 was the last on their mainland. War is what the United States does to others.
The only nation to have used nuclear weapons against human beings, they have since destroyed scores of governments, many of them democracies, and laid to waste whole societies – the million deaths in Iraq were a fraction of the carnage in Indo-China, which President Reagan called “a noble cause” and President Obama revised as the tragedy of an “exceptional people”He was not referring to the Vietnamese.
Filming last year at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, I overheard a National Parks Service guide lecturing a school party of young teenagers. “Listen up,” he said. “We lost 58,000 young soldiers in Vietnam, and they died defending your freedom.”
At a stroke, the truth was inverted. No freedom was defended. Freedom was destroyed. A peasant country was invaded and millions of its people were killed, maimed, dispossessed, poisoned; 60,000 of the invaders took their own lives. Listen up, indeed.
A lobotomy is performed on each generation. Facts are removed. History is excised and replaced by what Time magazine calls “an eternal present”. Harold Pinter described this as “manipulation of power worldwide, while masquerading as a force for universal good, a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis [which meant] that it never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest.”
Those who call themselves liberals or tendentiously “the left” are eager participants in this manipulation, and its brainwashing, which today revert to one name: Trump.
Trump is mad, a fascist, a dupe of Russia. He is also a gift for “liberal brains pickled in the formaldehyde of identity politics”, wrote Luciana Bohne memorably. The obsession with Trump the man – not Trump as a symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of us.
While they pursue their fossilised anti-Russia agendas, narcissistic media such as the Washington Post, the BBC and the Guardian suppress the essence of the most important political story of our time as they warmonger on a scale I cannot remember in my lifetime.
On 3 August, in contrast to the acreage the Guardian has given to drivel that the Russians conspired with Trump (reminiscent of the far-right smearing of John Kennedy as a “Soviet agent”), the paper buried, on page 16, news that the President of the United States was forced to sign a Congressional bill declaring economic war on Russia. Unlike every other Trump signing, this was conducted in virtual secrecy and attached with a caveat from Trump himself that it was “clearly unconstitutional”.
A coup against the man in the White House is under way. This is not because he is an odious human being, but because he has consistently made clear he does not want war with Russia.
This glimpse of sanity, or simple pragmatism, is anathema to the “national security” managers who guard a system based on war, surveillance, armaments, threats and extreme capitalism. Martin Luther King called them “the greatest purveyors of violence in the world today”.
They have encircled Russia and China with missiles and a nuclear arsenal. They have used neo-Nazis to instal an unstable, aggressive regime on Russia’s “borderland” – the way through which Hitler invaded, causing the deaths of 27 million people. Their goal is to dismember the modern Russian Federation.
In response, “partnership” is a word used incessantly by Vladimir Putin – anything, it seems, that might halt an evangelical drive to war in the United States. Incredulity in Russia may have now turned to fear and perhaps a certain resolution. The Russians almost certainly have war-gamed nuclear counter strikes. Air-raid drills are not uncommon. Their history tells them to get ready.
The threat is simultaneous. Russia is first, China is next. The US has just completed a huge military exercise with Australia known as Talisman Sabre. They rehearsed a blockade of the Malacca Straits and the South China Sea, through which pass China’s economic lifelines.
The admiral commanding the US Pacific fleet said that, “if required”, he would nuke China. That he would say such a thing publicly in the current perfidious atmosphere begins to make fact of Nevil Shute’s fiction.
None of this is considered news. No connection is made as the bloodfest of Passchendaele a century ago is remembered. Honest reporting is no longer welcome in much of the media. Windbags, known as pundits, dominate: editors are infotainment or party line managers. Where there was once sub-editing, there is the liberation of axe-grinding clichés. Those journalists who do not comply are defenestrated.
The urgency has plenty of precedents. In my film, The Coming War on China, John Bordne, a member of a US Air Force missile combat crew based in Okinawa, Japan, describes how in 1962 – during the Cuban missile crisis – he and his colleagues were “told to launch all the missiles” from their silos.
Nuclear armed, the missiles were aimed at both China and Russia. A junior officer questioned this, and the order was eventually rescinded – but only after they were issued with service revolvers and ordered to shoot at others in a missile crew if they did not “stand down”.
At the height of the Cold War, the anti-communist hysteria in the United States was such that US officials who were on official business in China were accused of treason and sacked. In 1957 – the year Shute wrote On the Beach – no official in the State Department could speak the language of the world’s most populous nation. Mandarin speakers were purged under strictures now echoed in the Congressional bill that has just passed, aimed at Russia.
The bill was bipartisan. There is no fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. The terms “left” and “right” are meaningless. Most of America’s modern wars were started not by conservatives, but by liberal Democrats.
When Obama left office, he presided over a record seven wars, including America’s longest war and an unprecedented campaign of extrajudicial killings – murder – by drones.
In his last year, according to a Council on Foreign Relations study, Obama, the “reluctant liberal warrior”, dropped 26,171 bombs – three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day. Having pledged to help “rid the world” of nuclear weapons, the Nobel Peace Laureate built more nuclear warheads than any president since the Cold War.
Trump is a wimp by comparison. It was Obama – with his secretary of state Hillary Clinton at his side – who destroyed Libya as a modern state and launched the human stampede to Europe. At home, immigration groups knew him as the “deporter-in-chief”.
One of Obama’s last acts as president was to sign a bill that handed a record $618billion to the Pentagon, reflecting the soaring ascendancy of fascist militarism in the governance of the United States. Trump has endorsed this.
Buried in the detail was the establishment of a “Center for Information Analysis and Response”. This is a ministry of truth. It is tasked with providing an “official narrative of facts” that will prepare us for the real possibility of nuclear war – if we allow it.
German cops nab Chinese tourists for making Nazi salute outside Parliament


shutterstock_526234636-940x580  The two men, aged 36 and 49, could be slapped with a fine or a prison sentence of up to three years for making the Nazi salute outside Germany's lower house in Berlin. Source: Shitterstock

7th August 2017

TWO Chinese tourists learned the hard way it is illegal to perform the Nazi salute in Germany after they were arrested for raising the Sieg Hailing outside Parliament in Berlin on Saturday.

According to the BBC, the duo is faced with criminal proceedings for using banned symbols from the outlawed fascist organisation.

If convicted, the two men, aged 36 and 49, could be slapped with a fine or a prison sentence of up to three years.

Police said the pair had been released on EUR500 (US$600) each.

The charges the tourists face were usually used to prosecute right-wing hardliners.


Citing a report by the AFP news agency, the BBC quoted a police spokeswoman as saying the men could leave the country during the investigation. If a fine is handed to them, the bail money paid would likely cover for it, the spokesman said.

A report in the New York Times said the two were whisked away in police vehicles after they were spotted making the Nazi salute while snapping photos of each other outside the Reichtag, Germany’s lower house of Parliament.

Demonstrating its non-tolerance towards the former Nazi regime, Germany enacts strict laws concerning hate speech, particularly when cases are linked to famed Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and his party.


Like many European countries, Germany is a choice destination for Chinese tourists who arrive in the country by the millions every year.  Although anti-hate speech laws were commonplace in Europe, it is uncertain whether visitors from China are well-versed on the sensitivities of the European countries they visit.

According to the Mercator Institute for China Studies, a research foundation based in Berlin, the number of Chinese tourists to Germany swelled above two million in 2014. By 2020, tourist organisations say a projected 2.2 million Chinese visitors are expected to visit Germany.

The volume of Chinese tourists has surged since China put the European Union on its list of approved countries, with many from the mainland taking advantage of direct flights to shop and enjoy sightseeing in the continent.

However, the rise in Chinese tourists to European destinations, as well as other places throughout the globe is not welcomed by all, owing to culture clashes and common courtesy, according to the NYT.

***This article first appeared on our sister site Travel Wire Asia
Angela Merkel Is Hurting German Democracy

The chancellor has turned Berlin into a beacon of stability — by draining German politics of any hint of debate.
Angela Merkel Is Hurting German Democracy


No automatic alt text available.BY PAUL HOCKENOS-AUGUST 7, 2017

Days after Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) released its campaign program for the coming election this fall, Chancellor Angela Merkel appeared on television to defend it. Sort of. Upon its release, the CDU’s program had been widely panned: It contained nothing new, the press said, nothing specific, too few numbers, and sounded suspiciously like the manifesto of the conservative’s rival party, the Social Democratic Party (SPD), only vaguer. Its slogan — “for a Germany in which we live well and gladly” — was particularly vacuous, even by campaign slogan standards. It included a raft of airy allusions to prosperity and security. In its few tangible pledges, the conservatives summoned up bland crowd-pleasers such as tax breaks for lower and middle-income Germans (not a bold move in light of record-busting tax revenues); the overdue abolition of the so-called solidarity tax that had funded infrastructure in eastern Germany since unification; and more resources for families, internal security, and social housing. The conservatives vowed to cut unemployment from 5.5 percent, the lowest since 1980, to below 3 percent. In short, the message was: Everything is cushy for Germans, but it could be even cushier. Reelect the CDU.

Despite the criticism, the figure at the front and center of the CDU’s campaign sat at ease in a red-leather armchair, ready for her annual “summer interview.” Clad in a blue and white pant suit, with a turquoise and red gemstone necklace, she smiled frequently at her inquisitors, two of Germany’s sharpest commentators. She was almost coquettish at times, friendly to a fault. She didn’t so much defend her party’s manifesto as she did transcend it. She was unwilling to utter an unkind word about her opponents or their acerbic attacks on her and the CDU’s proposals. In short, clipped sentences, she listed her party’s spending plans, doling out presents as a kind auntie would bonbons to children. Every jab from the interviewers she dodged, in a wholly successful effort to appear above the political fray and in control — and alone the one to deliver what ordinary Germans want: more of the same.

Germans refer to this modus operandi as “Merkel’s method.” When Merkel is asked about the technique, as she was by the interview’s moderators, who referred to it as a “trick,” she chuckles lightly, and typically replies — ever so innocently — that she has no idea what they’re talking about.
Meanwhile, her disgruntled opponents mutter, the woman recently dubbed the unlikely new leader of the free world is doing real damage to German politics. At a July campaign event, Martin Schulz, Merkel’s chief opponent, took the CDU to task for its fluffy program and reluctance to do battle, assailing the chancellor for committing an “attack on democracy.”  In early July, the German weekly Der Spiegel chimed in: “In democracies, it isn’t only the result but also the process that counts,” it scolded. It went so far as to call the buttoned-up chancellor’s style “scandalous.”

Merkel is poised to win handily in September, which would deliver her a fourth chancellorship. The Christian Democrats currently stand at around 40 percent in the polls and the Social Democrats at 25 percent, which is virtually identical to the vote tally of four years ago. Such numbers appear, if anything, to understate Germans’ affection for their leader: Surveys show that nearly 60 percent of Germans would vote for Merkel if the vote for chancellor were direct (it’s not); just half of that would vote for her SPD adversary, Martin Schulz.

Yet Merkel has achieved all of this by, essentially, depoliticizing German politics. She skillfully avoids instigating or acknowledging real conflict on substantive topics. She ensures that there are no quality nationwide debates taking place. At a time when much of the West seems to be bolting toward extremes, she’s turned German politics into one big, warm-and-fuzzy centrist feather bed. In doing so, she may be doing lasting damage to the Federal Republic.

Central to Merkel’s method is the way she boxes out the Social Democrats from the campaign’s center stage by absorbing their ideas and occupying their space. Merkel has sidelined the SPD this way time again over the years, on dozens of issues ranging from the minimum wage to nuclear power. This strands the SPD in no-man’s land, unable to debate the chancellor on CDU policy, which differs only in degree or detail from their own. On the campaign trail, Schulz splutters, cursing the chancellor and the CDU but without a real target to shoot at, or flesh-and-blood issues to engage on such as migration, climate change, or the European Union’s troubled southern perimeter. (This phenomenon is only exacerbated by the fact that the SPD has ruled in a relatively peaceful “grand coalition” with the Christian Democrats for eight of the past twelve years, thus making it share in responsibility for the government’s record.)

Merkel’s tactic effectively demobilizes potential SPD voters who see no pressing reason to vote left or even show up at all on election day. But the knock-on effects are further reaching than that. It demobilizes conservative voters, too, who want to see more passion and right-wing oomph from their party, rather than a shadow dance with the Sozis. Some conservative voters have responded to the leftist tilt and platitudes from their former party by peeling off to the far-right Alternative for Germany, or AfD, which will most probably enter the Bundestag for the first time in the fall. (Some critics in her own party blame Merkel for this: By sliding to the center, they claim, she has opened up the right to electoral extremists for the first time in the history of the Federal Republic.) But more simply don’t vote at all, as the CDU/CSU’s weak turnouts in regional votes show; nationally, voter participation across the party spectrum stands at post-reunification lows.

And Merkel’s success in deploying these tactics has caused others to follow her lead: The Social Democrats and, to a certain extent, the country’s green party, too, have joined this nebulous center. They haven’t responded to Merkel’s moves with fresh, even bolder, more innovative stands; on the contrary, the four mainstream parties, which includes the free-market Free Democrats, today join each other in rainbow-colored, mix-and-match coalitions across the country. This has consolidated a centrist consensus in the republic that has never been more solid. Only the far left and the far right, which stand at 9 percent apiece in polls, stand out as dissenters in the pan-German harmony.

Germany’s storied Christian Democrats, Europe’s premier conservative party, hadn’t always been so mellow or streit-shy. With a firm hand and staunchly traditional weltanschauung, the party’s founder and postwar chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, led the country into the Western, U.S.-led camp despite mass protests across the country against the Federal Republic’s decision to join NATO in 1955 and the creation of a standing army, the Bundeswehr, the same year. At the time, the CDU and the avowedly socialist SPD stood hundreds of kilometers apart on issues from relations with Moscow to equal rights for women. In the 1980s, Helmut Kohl followed a decade of Social Democratic rule by slamming the brakes on the political changes emanating from the cultural revolution set off by the student movement. He muscled through the deployment of intermediate-range nuclear missiles, and tapped into currents of nationalism enough to make sure that the CDU dominated the country’s right flank. Then, after a short  red-green hiatus, came Merkel, who almost at once headed for the middle, where indeed most of the republic lay. German Christian democracy was stood on its head, and remains that way today.

In a stunning gambit that surely made Adenauer and Kohl roll in their graves, Merkel exhibited her tactical finesse once again — or sold out her party, depending on perspective — in mid-July, in effect swiping from the leftist parties of one of their few signature issues: gay marriage. A bill to legalize homosexual partnerships — granting the same legal status as heterosexual marriage — had been in Bundestag committees for years, but blocked by the Christian Democrats, whose hard-liners barred the doors, even though public opinion (and, privately, Merkel too) had long favored it.

Merkel’s overture came out of the blue: Ever so casually, in a televised open discussion with a woman’s magazine early this summer, Merkel let drop that she wouldn’t mind if the bill came to the floor, and that Christian Democrat MPs could vote as they wished — each according to his or her conscience. The bill passed a week later, led by the three left-wing parties while the Christian Democrats split, a third of them backing the new law. (Merkel, pro-gay marriage, actually voted against it to appease her conservative critics.) What should have been a resounding, signature left-wing victory proved pyrrhic. Merkel looked open-minded and tolerant, and in one fell swoop took the issue off the table.

In one of the few moves still left to him, Schulz has been trying to make the Merkel method an explicit campaign issue, accusing the chancellor of cynicism and a lack of principle. But if it bothers Schulz and others in the political classes, Germans as a whole — who, for the most part, acknowledge the substance of the accusations — seem unfazed. Perhaps for good reason: As other countries in Europe and the West have lurched toward extremes, Germany is lurching toward the center. This has made it a bastion of stability on the Continent. But it has also raised bitter questions: Is the antidote to the illiberal Orbans and Putins of the world really a thin, watered-down political culture that skirts substance? And with parties on the far left and far right muttering that the mainstream politicians are all in bed together, how long can this hold once Merkel is gone?

“The bottom line is that 80 percent of Germans think the economy is good and that Germany is keeping Europe afloat,” argues Gesine Schwan, a political scientist who the Social Democrats and Greens nominated for federal president in the aughts. “They feel there’s no need for real discussion on EU reform or the euro crisis or migration because we’re right and that’s that, which is what Merkel says. But what happens then when the economy turns down?” There’s no answer to this in Merkel’s method, says Schwan; on the contrary, the method dictates the avoidance of doing anything until there’s a crisis — and then the Iron Chancellor can use her “steady hand” to steer the country through it.

Merkel’s formula, argues journalist Josh Groeneveld in HuffPost Deutschland, “may work in the blinkered, self-centered German present, but it’s not a long-term solution to anything.” “Germany desperately needs new ideas. There’s catching up to do: in digitalization, education, the job market, economic modernization.” Merkel’s never had to pay for this paucity herself — not yet, writes Groeneveld.

In the upcoming term, which Merkel and the CDU are certain to win, not just Germany but all of Europe will be looking to Berlin — in tandem with Emmanuel Macron’s France — to undertake sweeping reforms of the EU, address the still-floundering economies of Southern Europe, drive forward climate policy, and come up with long-term policies to confront migration. Germany is seen as a bulwark against the authoritarianism of the Trumps, Putins, and Erdogans who seem to be multiplying and morphing into ever more pernicious regimes. These are difficult topics — and all have barely merited mention in Germany’s tepid election campaign.

Instead for the moment, Merkel plows ahead, seemingly unstoppable. When she announced to party cohorts the 2017 election slogan of “For a Germany in which we live well and gladly,” one CDU higher-up suggested a tiny alternation, beginning it instead with “Our Germany …”

No, snapped back Merkel, adding “What does this look like, an editorial conference?”

Image credit: Adam Berry/Getty Images
Secret ballot for vote on motion of no confidence in South Africa's Zuma
 Jacob Zuma, who came to power in 2009, has been implicated in several corruption scandals. Photograph: John Wessels/AFP/Getty Images
 Africa correspondent-Monday 7 August 2017
Decision on Tuesday over whether to oust longstanding president seen as test of unity for African National Congress party
A vote on a no-confidence motion that could oust Jacob Zuma is to be held as a secret ballot, increasing the chances that South Africa’s president since 2009 is poised to lose office.
Baleka Mbete, the parliamentary speaker and national chair of the ruling African National Congress, told reporters on Monday the surprise decision had been made “to ensure the outcome of this very important vote is credible”.
Zuma, who has been hit by repeated scandals and a flagging economy, has survived five previous no-confidence votes but none have been held in secret.
About 20 senior ANC lawmakers have signalled they will vote with the opposition for its motion in the 400-seat parliament, but dozens more would need to disobey direct orders from senior party officials for Zuma to be forced from power.
Zuma, 75, is due to step down as head of the ANC in December, and will not therefore lead the party into the 2019 general election, whatever the result of Tuesday’s vote.
The ANC has historically sought to make major decisions at a time of its choosing, and has closed ranks against external pressure. The party led the struggle against the apartheid regime and has ruled South Africa since the first free elections 23 years ago.
Jackson Mthembu, the party’s chief whip, said ousting Zuma would “have disastrous consequences that can only have a negative impact on the people of South Africa”.
However the ANC is deeply fractured, with an increasingly vocal faction seeking root-and-branch reform, and some of its lawmakers are likely to vote with the opposition motion.
A group of ANC veterans from the anti-apartheid movement recently called for MPs to vote against Zuma, who was himself imprisoned with Nelson Mandela on Robben Island under white-minority rule.
South Africa is “witness to larceny on a grand scale, leaving the country not only impoverished, but also increasingly in the hands of criminalised and compromised governance,” the veterans said in a statement.
Public support for the ANC slipped to its lowest ever level – 55% – in last year’s local elections. Many ANC supporters were shaken by a cabinet reshuffle in March when the much-respected finance minister was replaced with a Zuma loyalist.
The opposition, principally composed of the Democratic Alliance and Julius Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), will need about 50 ANC defectors for the no-confidence motion to pass.
The DA said the vote was “an opportunity for us all to stand up to corruption and get rid of President Zuma and his cabinet”.
Street demonstrations in favour of the motion are planned in Cape Town, an opposition stronghold.
A petition signed by more than a million people demanding Zuma’s removal has been presented to Cyril Ramaphosa, the deputy president. Ramaphosa, who is seen as the leader of the party’s reformist faction, is a candidate in forthcoming ANC elections and a presidential hopeful.
His main challenger is former foreign minister and Zuma’s ex-wife, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, who has significant support within the party hierarchy, among rank and file, as well as in crucial provinces.
Much of the criticism of Zuma has been prompted by his alleged relationship with the wealthy Gupta business family. For more than a year South African media have reported a string of allegations of improper influence and graft. Both Zuma and the Guptas deny any wrongdoing.
The political instability comes against a background of economic stagnation, with high levels of unemployment and sharpening resentment at South Africa’s deep, enduring inequality.