(Lanka-e-News - 26.Oct.2016, 11.30PM) The organization under the name of ‘Vipath Maga’(Disaster Path) of Gotabaya Rajapakse is indeed the route to national disaster because it is clearly welcoming terrorism when it is claiming ‘ the new constitution will divide the country , and since only traitors will extend support to that, those traitors shall be exterminated .’
This claim was publicly made by Major General Kamal Gunaratne a chief of the organization at a meeting held by Vipath Maga at Gampaha on the 21 st .
Gunaratne went on to insist like during the terrorist period in 1988-89 ,’murder for traitors’ orders were issued by the terrorists, these traitors too should also be murdered. During the period 1988-89 , in the way the remains were carried with their knees up and bodies down to the cemetery after so murdering , these traitors should also be disgraced , he added.
In the first part of his speech , Gunaratne made a confession that the forces then told lies to the people. The spokesman for the forces told falsehoods about how many members of the forces died , and it was only the funeral parlors which knew the true number , he added. Gunaratne while admitting the falsehoods remarked ‘ how many lies we told you. ’
While Gunaratne was making these revelations , ex defense secretary Gotabaya Rajapakse was right in front. It is significant to note it is this same psychotic Gunaratne who is making such an insane and obnoxious announcement , was the one while working at the SL embassy in Brazil killed an employee by attacking him with an iron rod. Though a complaint was received in that regard under the present good governance government , and even Lanka e news exposed the crime with evidence , on president’s intervention however the criminal episode was suppressed , and investigation was halted again.
Herein is the video footage of extracts of Kamal Gunaratne’s speech
--------------------------- by (2017-10-26 18:45:20)
There is increasing number of complaints regarding police brutality and force being unleashed on the people. However, according to the Secretary of the Police Commission Ariyadasa Cooray, those found guilty of such crime have been punished through the courts and that police officers are only permitted to act in accordance with their establishment code.
However, amidst such police officers there are also those who uphold the law to the utmost and treat the public with respect and dignity, yet these are just a handful. The police is the institution that upholds the law and order of a country and as such when they themselves take the law into their own hands and act in such brutal manner, where do the people turn to in order to address their grievances and safeguard their rights. The majority of the public don’t trust the police to be fair and just. This is mainly due to the actions and behaviour of some policemen who behave in such a sadistic manner. While the police commission has been appointed to keep the police under control and law abiding, many of the people do not have much trust in them too. However, it is up to the police commission to ensure that the police are kept on track and not allowed to run amok by taking the law and the lives of the people into their own hands,.Therefore, the police commission states that in order to conduct a comprehensive investigation it takes a least six months. Both parties have to be called and evidence and statements should be recorded from both parties. Every District Secretariat has an appointed officer of the Police commission. Thus the misdeeds of any police station in that area can be complained to at any district Secretariat. In addition there is a hot line 1960 to report any misdeed committed by the police 24 hours day or night.
Ariyadasa pointed out that if a police officer commits an offence, he would be dealt with in a court of law and thereon, they have no right to intervene. He said however, that in the event there had been a shortcoming in the production of evidence, then it would be reconsidered and an investigation would be initiated.
According to the Convention Against Torture And Other Cruel, Inhuman Or Degrading Treatment Or Punishment Act (No. 22 of 1994), a police officer mistreating a person under their custody can be tried and sentenced to jail for upto seven years. Yet most police officers get off scot free due to the lack or absence of evidence. In response to this situation, in 2016 Minister of law and order Sagala Ratnayake said all police stations should be fitted with CCTV cameras. Yet even after that there were several deaths that had taken place within police stations.During the recent past several persons had died due to police brutality. The lad to many disputes. The most recent incident was when K.A. Gamini who was arrested by the Divulapitiya Police had died while in police custody. The reason for his death were internal injuries it was revealed. His relatives giving evidence said that Gamini had complained of police having hung him and assaulted him while in custody. The Police had another accusation that they had shot another youth from Divulapitiya and killed him around three years ago. However although the police office escaped from the charges, media footage of the incident clearly showed the police officer shooting the youth. Another youth had died while in custody of the Dompe Police in 2011. With this incident having taken place the public set fire to the police station. This was the result of people taking the law into their own hands when the police had acted unlawfully. This situation cannot be endorsed by any civil society and the people taking control of the law is also a grave situation. Hence these sort of incidents should not occur but when those who are appointed to uphold the law behave in such unlawful ways, it is unavoidable that people may try to take matters into their own hands.
The other closest incident to this effect is the Mattala incident where a journalist was assaulted. Yet now the police allege that the journalist too had been involved in the protest. However, we are still uncertain as to which version is right or wrong. From what we saw in evidence that were recorded on the media cameras was that the police officer slapping the journalist across his ear. What right does a police officer have to assault anyone they please? This is the question that bothers us.
However, the Police Media Spokesman Ruwan Gunasekara says that in such instances, no matter how big or small the police officer is or what his position is, he would be punished for his fault legally. But, no matter what these officers say we all know that this is not the first time such police brutality has been displayed openly and this certainly would not be the last. However, despite all these measures being put in place the main matter is that no police officer has the right to assault anyone be it a suspect or otherwise. Therefore every citizen has the right to complain to the police commission in the event any such assault or misbehaviour of any police officer or any ranker of the police force takes place. It is your right as the public. AshWaru Colombo
The National Building Research Organization (NBRO) yesterday (27) issued landslide warnings for the Kandy and Nuwara-Eliya Districts as heavy rainfall was experienced in several areas of the country.
The NBRO warned of landslides taking place if the inclement weather worsens in the coming days.
Warnings were issued in Ududumbara and Medadumbara divisional secretariat areas in the Kandy District and in the Hanguranketha Divisional Secretariat area in the Nuwara-Eliya District.
Meanwhile the Disaster Management Centre (DMC) which quoted the Department of Meteorology which warned that the prevailing showery weather could worsen from tomorrow (29).
Rainfall exceeding 100mm was expected in some places in the Eastern and Uva Provinces and in the Vavuniya District as well.
Misty conditions were predicted at some places in the Western, Sabaragamuwa, Central, North-western and Uva Provinces during the morning hours.
According the Department of Meteorology some areas of the country, including Kegalle, had received rainfall exceeding 100 mm yesterday. (Yohan Perera)
If you look closely, you can see her ribcage, veins, and bloated stomach, covered by a thin layer of sallow skin.
This shocking image, captured by Reuters photographer Bassam Khabieh, depicts two-year-old Hala al-Nufi, one of hundreds of children suffering from malnutrition in eastern Ghouta amid Syria's civil war.
Eastern Ghouta is held by one of the rebel groups against President Bashar al-Assad, and has been surounded by Syrian government forces for the past four years, according to al Jazeera. It's located near Damascus, Syria's capital.
Food, fuel, and medicine used to be smuggled into the 300,000-person-strong city via underground tunnels, but those routes were cut off by government forces earlier this year,Reuters reported. Bassam Khabieh/Reuters
Hala suffers from a metabolic disorder, and a scarcity of food has exacerbated her illness, Reuters said. She weighs around 5 kilograms (12 pounds).
Her mother, Um Said, says she is too hungry to breastfeed any of her six children.
"I put the child to the breast, but there is no milk. I am not eating," she told Reuters.
"Sometimes I hit myself against the wall. For God's sake, open the road. In the name of the prophet, I kiss your hands and feet, open the road for us.
"We are going to die of hunger. We are eating from the trash bins." Hala being held by her uncle.Bassam Khabieh/Reuters
At least 1,200 children in eastern Ghouta alone suffer from malnutrition, a UNICEF spokeswoman told Reuters.
Paediatrician Amani Ballar also said: "The child that we consider normal in Ghouta is the child whose weight is on the lowest end of the normal weight scale. We don't have fully healthy children."
Zeid Ra'ad al Hussein, the UN's human rights commissioner, said on Friday the images were "shocking" and that the "deliberate starvation of civilians as a method of warfare constitutes a clear violation of international humanitarian law, and may amount to a crime against humanity and/or a war crime."
In a troubling move for students and Palestine rights activists, the Trump administration has tappedKenneth Marcus as the top civil rights enforcer at the US Department of Education.
He will lead the department’s Office of Civil Rights.
Marcus is the head of the Brandeis Center for Human Rights, an Israel advocacy group that has for years worked to smear Palestine solidarity activism as anti-Semitism. It has no affiliation with the better known Brandeis University.
Since 2010, Marcus’ key strategy has been to file civil rights complaints with the Office of Civil Rights claiming that universities were failing to protect Jewish students by not cracking down on the Palestine solidarity movement, especially the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights.
The tactic was unsuccessful. But now, Marcus himself will be in charge of investigating such complaints.
Marcus’ appointment comes just weeks after Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos rolled back regulations aimed at protecting victims of campus sexual assault.
Abuse of civil rights law
Marcus previously served as the Office of Civil Rights’ top enforcement officer from 2002-2004, under President George W. Bush, and has held other government jobs.
He is author of the strategy Israel advocacy groups have used to instigate federal crackdowns on Palestine solidarity activism by filing complaints under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The act obligates administrators to ensure that there is no discrimination based on race or national origin in institutions that receive federal funding.
In 2010, the Obama administration expanded its interpretation of the law to include religion, opening the way for complaints alleging that Palestine advocacy harms Jewish students.
The previous year the department threw out a similar complaint against Barnard College.
Repressive bill
These decisions marked a setback to Marcus’ strategy which was based on advancing the notion that Palestine rights activism on US campuses is inherently anti-Semitic.
Earlier this year, Marcus testified in support of a bill in the South Carolina legislature aimed at censoring Palestine advocacy on campuses.
A legal memo from civil and human rights groups said the bill sought to unconstitutionally amend South Carolina’s education law “by directing public colleges and universities to classify virtually all political speech critical of Israel and Israeli government policies as anti-Semitic.”
As the top civil rights enforcer, Marcus “will do from the inside the Department of Education what he has failed to do from the outside: advance Title VI cases that push universities to punish students who exercise their First Amendment right to advocate for justice in Palestine,” said Dima Khalidi, director of Palestine Legal.
“His tactics dilute the definition of anti-Semitism so much that it becomes useless, and have contributed to widespread repression on college campuses, where students and faculty fear studying Palestinian history or advocating for Palestinian rights,” Jewish Voice for Peace said.
This appointment comes as more than 20 states have adopted measures ostracizing or attempting to restrict the BDS movement.
Last week, it was revealed that a city in Texas required residents to verify that they do not boycott Israel in order to receive aid to rebuild from the devastation of Hurricane Harvey.
Earlier this month, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a teacher in Kansas who is being required to repudiate boycotts of Israel as a condition for taking on a state contract as a trainer.
Currently, the US Congress is considering the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which could impose prison and heavy fines on companies or their personnel accused of abiding by boycotts of Israel called for by international organizations.
The Israel Anti-Boycott Act currently has 266 sponsors in the House and 50 in the Senate.
“Make the enemy pay”
Although pro-Israel lawfare groups have sufferedroundingdefeats when their claims end up before judges, they have been undeterred.
Last year, another Israel-aligned litigation group, the Lawfare Project, indicated that it was preparing another round of Title VI challenges against US universities despite the strategy’s previous failures.
“The goal is to make the enemy pay,” Brooke Goldstein, the Lawfare Project’s director, said.
With Kenneth Marcus now at the helm of the Office of Civil Rights, those targeted by such complaints will have anything but an impartial adjudicator in charge of investigating them.
His new role will be a boon for Israel lobby groups seeking to silence campus organizing for Palestinian human rights, censor educators who teach about Israeli and Palestinian history and even shut down Students for Justice in Palestine chapters.
“Marcus has no business enforcing civil rights laws when he has explicitly used such laws to chill the speech activities and violate the civil rights of Arab, Muslim, Jewish and other students who advocate for Palestinian rights,” Palestine Legal’s Khalidi added.
“His appointment will only further the white supremacist and anti-Muslim agenda of the Trump administration.”
Over recent years, many Iranians in the big cities confided quietly to the opinion pollsters that they felt an empathy with the West. It was not reciprocated. Frankly, most people in the West have no in-depth opinion about Iran. If they think about it for more than a couple of minutes, they go along with their government’s line.
A majority of Western and Arab leaders supported the American position as taken by successive presidents: Iran was probably trying to make a bomb. (To its credit the US intelligence never concurred with its presidents, and privately some Western leaders would acknowledge this.) Then came the Obama-initiated nuclear deal with Iran negotiating with the Americans, the Europeans, Russians and Chinese. It was one of President Barack Obama’s most singular achievements. At the end, Obama was gracious enough to phone President Vladimir Putin to thank him for Russian support.
The Iranian public were truly happy about the deal. But President Donald Trump has all but sabotaged their benign feelings. His private war against the Obama deal has become red hot. He appears determined to scrap it and thus return to years of bitter antagonism, besides giving succour to Iran’s nuclear weapons’ lobby. Now he has extended his wrath to Iran’s non-nuclear rocket programme, even though they would be useless against Western targets.
The Iranian public were truly happy about the deal. But President Donald Trump has all but sabotaged their benign feelings. His private war against the Obama deal has become red hot. He appears determined to scrap it and thus return to years of bitter antagonism, besides giving succour to Iran’s nuclear weapons’ lobby.
Trump knows no Iranian history. When the Iranian revolution happened in 1979, the Shah was overthrown and the fundamentalist Islamic Shiite regime of Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, one of the first things the new regime did was to close down the Shah’s nuclear weapons’ research programme. (Ironically, it has had technical help from the US.) It was only after Iraq attacked Iran that the programme was resuscitated.
Underneath the Iranian skin of anyone over 40 lies the memory of the Iran-Iraq war. Whatever warm feelings the Iranian man and woman in the street might have for the West today can easily be undercut by any suggestion that the US and UK in particular might be reverting to those confrontational days when they covertly aided with sophisticated weapons President Saddam Hussein’s eight-year war with Iran. (It lasted from 1980 to 1988.) The Reagan Administration escorted Kuwaiti oil tankers through the Persian Gulf to Iraq. It also initiated an arms embargo against Iran. It was a terrible war, more akin to the trench warfare of World War I than any other, with opposing troops bogged down for years on end, fighting over a few hundred metres of ground. Iraq used chemical weapons on a large scale. The death toll was horrendous- estimates range from 170,000 to 750,000.
Iran too wants to ensure that in post-Saddam Iraq, the majority Shiite population will always be in the ascendant. Saddam was not religious but always made sure that the minority Sunnis had the upper hand
For its part, Iran refused to use chemical weapons in retaliation. Its present-day Supreme Ruler, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has made it a point to remind us of this, explaining that using such weapons of mass destruction would have gone against Islamic teaching. At the same time, he has long pointed out that this was the key reason for Iran not building nuclear weapons.
It is this war that has determined the larger part if not most of Iran’s foreign policy. “What Gulf Arab officials term ‘Iran meddling in Arab affairs’ is to Iran an essential part of an ‘aggressive defence’ of its national security,” write Professors Ariane Tabatabai of Georgetown University and Annie Samuel of the University Tennessee in a recent article in Harvard’s quarterly, ‘International Security.’
The authors concede that in certain areas Iran’s policies – for instance in the Syrian war - are disruptive, if not destructive. But they argue that Iran’s activities have as their primary aim not destabilisation but Iran’s survival.
The history of the Iran-Iraq war determines the mindset of Iranian leaders today. It makes them feel that Iran will always have to go it alone, or at least maintain the ability to do so. Iran fears an Israeli attack. The Israeli Government during the last tense months of nuclear negotiations made it clear that it was considering one.
Iran too wants to ensure that in post-Saddam Iraq, the majority Shiite population will always be in the ascendant. Saddam was not religious but always made sure that the minority Sunnis had the upper hand.
Despite all, in the fight against ISIS in Northern Iraq and Syria and the Taliban in Afghanistan, Iran has been de facto on the side of the Western coalition. Is this a sideshow signifying nothing? Is this an anomaly? Could it be a sign of Iranian flexibility that could be pursued positively by the US and its allies?
Trump and those Western leaders who are preoccupied by Iranian foreign and military policy need a big rethink about where to go next with Iran. If the West wants peace in the Middle East and Afghanistan, Iran is too important to be alienated.
China is the biggest threat to the U.S.-led global order. But America keeps getting distracted.
A military band conductor rehearses ahead a ceremony to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the founding the People's Liberation Army, at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Aug. 1. (Andy Wong/AFP/Getty Images)
As global attention fixes on the Trump administration’s North Korea and Iran policies, the White House is preparing for another consequential policy shift that’s gone almost unnoticed in comparison — this time on China. Reports suggest the Trump administration will soon adopt a more hard-edged strategy toward China’s unfair trade practices and pursuit of American technology, among other issues. In theory, this would represent a major departure from how the United States has approached China, now the world’s second-largest economy and military spender.
Yet the Trump administration’s ability to translate this new approach into sustained action remains in question. Multiple U.S. administrations have tried, and failed, to focus attention on a rising China.
George W. Bush’s national security team came into office determined to elevate China as a long-term strategic focus. The April 2001 collision of a Chinese fighter jet with a U.S. surveillance aircraft — and the tense standoff that followed — reinforced this perspective. By September 2001, the Pentagon was finalizing its Defense Strategy Review, which embraced great power competition with China.
Then 9/11 happened. U.S. attention largely shifted away from China and didn’t return for years. From China’s perspective, the Iraq War further embroiled the United States in the Middle East, keeping open Beijing’s window of opportunity to rise while Washington focused elsewhere.
A decade later, President Barack Obama set out to refocus U.S. attention on Asia. The subsequent rebalance, or pivot, to Asia was intended in part to address Beijing’s rise by shifting attention and resources from the Middle East to Asia. Nevertheless, the Obama administration failed to persuade Congress to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement and dithered as Beijing constructed artificial islands in the South China Sea. Ultimately, Obama prioritized Chinese cooperation on global issues — such as ratification of the 2016 Paris agreement to combat climate change and support for United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran — over more competitive bilateral and regional concerns.
Too easily diverted by near-term distractions, American leaders have failed to act as China has become a military and economic powerhouse capable of contesting U.S. leadership not only in Asia, but also increasingly around the world.
China is closing what was once a seemingly unbridgeable military gap with the United States.
Beijing’s desire to become the preeminent military power in Asia is neither new nor concealed. Since the late 1990s, Beijing has embarked on a sweeping military modernization program fuelled by double-digit defense budget growth and the acquisition of foreign technology. Although some have called China’s military a “paper tiger,” Xi Jinping made clear at the 19th Party Congress that “a military is built to fight.” Meanwhile, grinding land wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as numerous smaller operations have prevented American leaders from marshaling a comparable level of attention and resources to the military challenge posed by China.
Economically, China is already a peer competitor of the United States. Not content to remain the world’s factory, China is eroding U.S. leadership in high technology, often by engaging in unfair business practices such as illicitly acquiring foreign intellectual property. The large and growing U.S. trade deficit with China has many causes, but one is Beijing’s active embrace of mercantilist trade policies.
American leaders have thus far been too permissive of China’s unfair economic policies. When they have taken a hard line — as President Obama did on China’s use of cyber-enabled economic espionage — tactical concessions by Beijing have defused what could have become a more comprehensive focus on China’s unfair business practices.
Over the past decade, China has increasingly challenged U.S. leadership both in Asia and around the world, particularly in the economic domain.
As protectionist sentiment has risen in the United States and Europe, China has begun to present itself as the new champion of globalization. For example, at the World Economic Forum in Davos this year, Xi Jinping offered other countries an opportunity to jump aboard “the express train of China’s development.” China’s global clout was also a major theme of the recently concluded Party Congress, with Xi proclaiming a “new era” in which Beijing would take center stage in the world.
China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative will further reinforce Beijing’s ability to compete with the United States on a more global footing. Under the umbrella of the Belt and Road Initiative, China plans to spend a trillion dollars to link parts of Asia with the Middle East, Europe, and Africa. Beijing’s investments are already transforming its relationships with countries of strategic value to the United States, such as Pakistan and Djibouti, where China recently opened a military base. Even if Beijing makes good on only a fraction of its promised investments, it will make progress toward rewiring large portions of the global economy into a more China-centric order.
If the United States is to maintain its regional and global influence, military advantage, and economic prosperity, American leaders starting with the current administration will have to take a more competitive approach toward China. This does not preclude cooperating in areas of mutual interest. Beijing sees no reason to back down on contentious issues while simultaneously pursuing common objectives through engagement; neither should Washington. Ultimately, China needs cooperation with the United States just as much as (if not more than) the reverse. Implemented smartly, a more competitive approach toward China will not endanger existing — or future — areas of cooperation. Yet whether the United States can focus on China remains in doubt. The Trump administration faces four challenges as it tries to avoid the mistakes of its predecessors.
First, distractions abound. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford reflected this reality when he told Congress that China would pose “the greatest threat to our nation by about 2025.”
Although U.S. leaders know that China is the only foreign power capable of remaking the international order, they remain distracted by Russia, Iran, and North Korea, as well as terrorism. These other security concerns undoubtedly require sustained attention, but the world’s 12th, 29th, and 113th largest economies surely do not warrant the same level of focus as a China that is pushing hard to be No. 1.
Second, Beijing encourages Washington to overlook competitive dynamics in the U.S.-China relationship by calling for “win-win” cooperation and dangling the prospect of Chinese support on issues such as North Korea. Beijing hopes that the illusion of progress will divert American attention from potential friction points, such as China’s unfair trade practicesand coercion of its neighbors. Too often, this strategy has succeeded.
Third, a successful China policy ultimately requires getting the region right, not the other way around. U.S. allies and partners don’t want conflict with Beijing, so tough talk on China risks losing friends abroad, even as it wins political points at home. Instead, regional states want to see Washington stand up for international rules and shared values, while supporting economic growth.
With U.S. participation in the TPP off the table, the administration will have to put forward a new economic agenda. But post-TPP, many regional partners question whether negotiating bilateral trade deals with the United States is in their interest. An effective regional economic strategy must uphold a rules-based order and compete with China where necessary, all while promoting a better understanding of the enormous importance of U.S. trade and investment to the region despite China’s economic rise.
Fourth, strategy is merely aspirational without the resources to execute it. Competing priorities and disagreements with Congress limited the Obama administration’s ability to execute its ambitious Asia strategy; the same traps endanger the Trump administration as well. The current administration is also hampered by the lack of political appointees in key Asia jobs. Discord in the executive branch, as well as in Congress, undermines perceptions of U.S. commitment and credibility. The forthcoming National Security Strategy and related documents are important signals of intent, but personnel and resources are the more reliable policy indicators.
Where does this leave the Trump administration?
The chief danger for U.S. leaders is that their strategic appetites will outpace their ability to execute their plans.
If crises of the day dominate leaders’ attention, Washington will continue to be outmaneuvered by Beijing. With Trump’s first trip to Asia as president just days away, now is the time for the administration to elevate the U.S. focus on China and devote substantial resources to implementing a positive regional agenda. A planned presidential speech that will call for a “free and open Indo-Pacific” is a positive sign — if translated into tangible action.
U.S. presidents typically get one try to get Asia strategy right — if the Trump administration lets this opportunity slip away, it is unlikely to get a second chance.
The Spanish government has taken control of Catalonia, dissolved its parliament and announced new elections after secessionist Catalan MPs voted to establish an independent republic, pushing the country’s worst political crisis in 40 years to new and dangerous heights.
Speaking on Friday evening, the Spanish prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, said his cabinet had fired the regional president, Carles Puigdemont, and ordered regional elections to be held on 21 December.
Rajoy said the Catalan government had been removed along with the head of the regional police force, the Mossos d’Esquadra. The Catalan government’s international “embassies” are also to be shut down.
“I have decided to call free, clean and legal elections as soon as possible to restore democracy,” he told a press conference, adding that the aim of the measures was to “restore the self-government that has been eliminated by the decisions of the Catalan government.
“We never, ever wanted to get to this situation. Nor do we think that it would be good to prolong this exceptional [state of affairs]. But as we have always said, this is not about suspending autonomy but about restoring it.”
The actions came hours after Spain’s national unity suffered a decisive blow when Catalan MPs in the 135-seat regional parliament voted for independence by a margin of 70 votes to 10.
Dozens of opposition MPs boycotted the secret ballot, marching out of the chamber in Barcelona before it took place and leaving Spanish and Catalan flags on their empty seats in protest.
Minutes later in Madrid, the Spanish senate granted Rajoy unprecedented powers to impose direct rule on Catalonia under article 155 of the constitution.
The article, which has never been used, allows Rajoy to sack Puigdemont and assume control of Catalonia’s civil service, police, finances and public media.
The European Union, the UK, Germany and the United States all said they would not recognise Catalan independence and expressed support for Madrid’s to preserve Spanish unity.
Rajoy had earlier appealed for calm following the vote and promised that Catalonia would be returned to legal and constitutional order.
“What has happened today in the Catalan parliament is unequivocal proof of how necessary it was for the senate to approve the government’s proposals,” he said on Friday afternoon. “Today the Catalan parliament has approved something that, in the opinion of the great majority of people, is not just against the law, but is also a criminal act because it is intended to declare something that isn’t possible – Catalan independence.”
Rajoy’s cabinet held an emergency meeting to enact the measures and is expected to appeal against the independence declaration in the Spanish constitutional court.
Prosecutors will also file charges of “rebellion” against Puigdemont, a crime punishable with up to 30 years in jail, a spokesman said.
Much will now depend on exactly how the Spanish government goes about removing Catalan officials from office and how pro-independence activists and the Mossos d’Esquadra react to the intervention.
The result of the vote was greeted with jubilation by pro-independence MPs, who applauded and began singing the Catalan anthem, Els Segadors. Thousands of people who gathered outside Catalonia’s parliament cheered the announcement.
Pro-independence supporters flood streets near the Palau Generalitat in Barcelona. Photograph: Emilio Morenatti/AP
Addressing the crowds, Puigdemont called for a peaceful response to the coming crackdown. “In the days ahead, we must keep to our values of pacificism and dignity,” he said. “It’s in our – in your – hands to build the republic.”
The joyous scenes outside the parliament jarred with the angry debate that preceded the vote inside. Opponents of independence accused Puigdemont and his allies of ignoring the views of the majority of Catalans who wished to remain part of Spain. They said he had declared independence on the back of a deeply flawed and undemocratic referendum.
Carlos Carrizosa of the centrist Ciutadans party described Friday as “a sad day and a blow to democracy”.
Turning on the regional government and its president, he said: “You’re like gods, above the law. How can you imagine you can impose independence like this without a majority in favour … and with this simulacrum of a referendum? Puigdemont will be remembered not for ruining Catalonia but for having divided the Catalans and Spain.”
Eva Granados of the Catalan socialist party asked: “Have you any idea how frightened many Catalans are?”
However, Carles Riera of the far-left, pro-independence CUP party, said the declaration would help transform the lives of working people. “We declare the republic of Catalonia,” he said. “This is a happy day.”
The independence declaration met with an unambiguous response from Donald Tusk, the president of the European council. “For [the] EU nothing changes. Spain remains our only interlocutor,” Tusk tweeted.
However, in an apparent reference to the police violence that marred the unilateral independence referendum held on 1 October, he said: “I hope the Spanish government favours force of argument, not argument of force.”
The US state department also backed Rajoy’s efforts to halt Catalan independence. “Catalonia is an integral part of Spain, and the United States supports the Spanish government’s constitutional measures to keep Spain strong and united,” said a spokeswoman.
Theresa May’s spokesperson said: “The UK does not and will not recognise the unilateral declaration of independence made by the Catalan regional parliament. It is based on a vote that was declared illegal by the Spanish courts. We continue to want to see the rule of law upheld, the Spanish constitution respected and Spanish unity preserved.”
Some of the pro-independence Catalans who gathered near parliament expressed the hope that a republic could be established peacefully and with international support.
“We are not afraid of what will happen,” said Gregorio Castillo, who had travelled to Barcelona from Girona. “We will respond to any measure from Madrid in our own peaceful way. We hope that Britain, Germany and France will help us achieve this; that Europe will see us as a country.”
Earlier on Friday, Rajoy had appeared before the upper house of the Spanish parliament to request authorisation for the government’s use of article 155.
He told senators that Puigdemont’s decision to flout the Spanish constitution by staging the independence referendum had forced the central government to take the unprecedented step of imposing direct rule.
Australia's Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has been disqualified from serving in parliament after a high court ruling found him ineligible due to his dual citizenship. (Reuters)
Australia’s conservative coalition government was thrown into turmoil on Friday after the country’s high court ruled that five politicians, including the deputy prime minister and four other senators, had been disqualified from office. The decision could bring down Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s ruling coalition, which so far has relied on a slim majority of only one seat.
The five politicians were found guilty of having violated the Australian constitution — written when the territory still consisted of several British colonies — which bans anyone from parliamentary office who is “citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power.”
In a nation where many have parents who emigrated from overseas and where about a fourth of all citizens were born abroad, the ban’s strict enforcement has escalated into a debate about whether full loyalty to a country can only be ensured through single citizenship.
Similar laws that prohibit politicians or presidents from holding multiple citizenships exist in other countries, and “birther controversies” have at times also dominated the U.S. election cycle.
Republican candidate Ted Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship to quell claims that he could not become president because of his Canadian birthplace. Long before he became president, Donald Trump was also fueling rumors that then-President Barack Obama might not have been born in the U.S.
Australian Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce reacts as he sits behind Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull at Parliament House in Canberra on Oct. 24, (Lukas Coch/AAP/Reuters)
In contrast, the birther controversy which might bring down the Australian government was partially brought up by the politicians under investigation themselves. Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce was born in Australia, but automatically held New Zealand citizenship because his father was born there. He renounced his second citizenship after claiming to have found out about it this August, but a court disqualified him from office, anyway.
The four other senators who were ruled ineligible to sit in federal parliament had similarly become citizens of Britain, Canada or New Zealand by descent or birth. All of them claimed not to have known about those second citizenships, and some of them had already resigned prior to Friday’s court ruling.
The crisis which has engulfed the Australian government is a cross-party problem, which emerged earlier this year when two senators of the Greens opposition party resigned from parliament after learning that they too held multiple citizenships. At the time, the Turnbull lashed out at these opposition politicians for having shown “incredible sloppiness.”
He likely later regretted his choice of words when he learned that his own deputy, Joyce, had the same problem. Ironically, Joyce himself had also previously slammed the two Greens party senators, saying that “ignorance is not an excuse.” Unlike them, however, Joyce refused to resign upon finding out about being guilty of the same “ignorance,” in order to prevent a collapse of the coalition government.
Throughout the summer, more senators across various parties revealed that they too were citizens of other countries. Joyce’s own deputy in his function as leader of the Nationals party later came out as British, although she has since renounced her citizenship. Some of those accused had more credible claims about having been unaware than those who were born or even raised abroad. Almost all of them tearfully expressed shock and remorse amid the revelations, even as they hoped to survive them.
As deputy prime minister, it was Joyce’s extra citizenship that hit the ruling coalition hardest. It also resulted in a diplomatic row with Australia’s close ally New Zealand, where a Labour party member of parliament brought up questions over Joyce's citizenship for the first time in public. The parliamentary scrutiny there came as a more discreet Australian investigation was already underway, but before Joyce had publicly acknowledged it.
Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop hit back at the time, saying that the questions brought up in New Zealand's parliament were “allegations designed to undermine the government of Australia,”
and that she would find it hard to establish working relations should the New Zealand Labour party become part of the country’s next government. Turnbull later joined the diplomatic spat, claiming that the allegations amounted to a “conspiracy.”
The allegations ultimately proved to be correct, however, according to Australia’s high court — throwing the country into an uncertain political future. (The five politicians who have been disqualified from office could run again in future elections if they renounced their second citizenships and some, including Joyce, have already announced the intention to do so.)
Joyce will now have to compete in by-elections for his old seat. If he loses, the government would likely collapse.
And now, likely much to the chagrin of Australia’s governing coalition, New Zealand’s Labour party has become part of the government and their leader, Jacinda Ardern, the prime minister.
Meanwhile, it is not entirely clear that Australia's Conservative Party will be staying in power itself.
Bangladesh will try all possible ways they can, but if a regional power and neighboring country like India comes in whole heart by the side of Bangladesh on this Rohingya issue, it will be great for Bangladesh.
by Swadesh Roy-
( October 26, 2017, Dhaka, Sri Lanka Guardian) Indian External Affairs Minister (EAM) Sushma Swaraj visited Bangladesh on 22nd and 23rd October. Her two days working visit was so much important for Bangladesh. She came to Bangladesh at a time when Bangladesh has been suffering from Rohingya refugees’ influx. Such a time when influx of Rohingya to Bangladesh started, then the Prime Minister of India visited to Myanmar. The Indian Prime Minister showed his all support to Myanmar for destroying the terrorist of their soil when he was visiting that country. The government of Myanmar is portraying all the Rohingya Muslims as terrorists. They never said the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARS) are only the terrorist. They are still killing and driving the Rohingya Muslims from their soil.
The Prime Minister of Bangladesh ordered to open the border of Bangladesh for humanitarian ground so that Rohingya people can enter in Bangladesh. If she did not make this decision thousand -hundreds of Rohingyas would be killed by the Myanmar army. What they have done was called a ‘text book ethnic cleansing’ by the United Nation. However, after the speech came from the Prime Minister of India during his visit in Myanmar, the High Commissioner of India to Bangladesh said that his government is with Bangladesh on this refugee issue. Accordingly, within a very short time, Indian government sent some food and other necessary things for Rohingya refugees. Besides, a meeting was hold in Delhi between two foreign secretaries of India and Bangladesh. A statement came as an outcome of that India would play role in favor of Bangladesh so that Rohingya refugee problem could be solved.
After that meeting of foreign secretaries, Indian Finance Minister (FM) came to Bangladesh and his visit was also for two days. It was also a land mark visit for India and Bangladesh, because India signed a contract with Bangladesh that India would give Bangladesh more 4.5-billion-dollar credit facility which includes only 1.5 percent interest to build up the infrastructure of Bangladesh. When Indian FM visited Bangladesh, the Prime Minster of Bangladesh was in aboard. Moreover, as a Finance Minister he kept himself in his boundary. He attended in a seminar and told about the Indian economic policy regarding the poverty alleviation. He never uttered a word regarding the Rohingya refugee. But more than $4.5 billion contract made clear that India has been continuing their friendship with joint economic progress program with Bangladesh. It was also a significant indication for Myanmar and the people of Bangladesh on the issue of Rohingya refugees.
However, before Indian EAM’s arrival it was not clear to the media and most of the political analysts of Bangladesh that Mrs. Swaraj would go that far about the Rohingya Refugee issues; basically it was beyond the expectation of the Bangladeshi media and the political analysts. Some of them thought that EAM of India will tell something regarding Rohingya but nobody thought she would say that firmly; Myanmar must take her Rohingya back. Form the very first time of the Rohingya influx in Bangladesh, the people of Bangladesh thought it would be easier for Bangladesh to solve the problem if they got India with them. Though, China is telling that it is the problem of Myanmar and Bangladesh so it should be solved bilaterally; but it is not true. It was never a problem between Myanmar and Bangladesh. It is the problem of Myanmar only. What Bangladesh has done, they gave shelter to hundreds of thousands people in humanitarian ground for saving their lives. So, Myanmar has to take their people back and without the pressure of the regional and world power they will not do it.
In that context, it was a very strong step smartly done by Indian EAM because, he has told it standing on the soil of Bangladesh. When India took that step in the same time the Home Minister of Bangladesh visited Myanmar. The government of Myanmar at least came to a point that they would set up a working committee within November and they would take back the Rohingya people and rehabilitate them according to the Kofi Annan commission report. In addition, Minister of Office of State Counsellor of Myanmar will visit Bangladesh soon.
However, Bangladesh will try all possible ways they can, but if a regional power and neighboring country like India comes in whole heart by the side of Bangladesh on this Rohingya issue, it will be great for Bangladesh. The people of Bangladesh got India in that way so the people of Bangladesh are happy with the visit of the Indian External Affairs Minister.
On the other hand, taking this position, India could show that, they are the good neighbor and the real friend of Bangladesh and they want a long term friendship with Bangladesh. If they did not support Bangladesh on that issue, it would prove that India wants some facilities from Bangladesh but they do not believe a long term friendship. So they are thinking about sittwe port of Myanmar and their Kaladan project of North East India which is little bit alternative of the transit in Bangladesh for communication to their North East India and the mainland. Rather, they have proved that, they are very much with the reality of transit and India would not go beyond anything to give up the friendship of Bangladesh, and the reality of India- Bangladesh joint progress aspect. Despite all, India and Bangladesh have to think about their internal security jointly in any circumstances, in this Rohingya issue- India cannot go out of that.
Swadesh Roy, Executive Editor. The Daily Janakantha, Dhaka, Bangladesh. He is a highest state award winning journalist and can be reached at swadeshroy@gmail.com
(Lanka-e-News - 26.Oct.2016, 11.30PM) The organization under the name of ‘Vipath Maga’(Disaster Path) of Gotabaya Rajapakse is indeed the route to national disaster because it is clearly welcoming terrorism when it is claiming ‘ the new constitution will divide the country , and since only traitors will extend support to that, those traitors shall be exterminated .’
Over recent years, many Iranians in the big cities confided quietly to the opinion pollsters that they felt an empathy with the West. It was not reciprocated. Frankly, most people in the West have no in-depth opinion about Iran. If they think about it for more than a couple of minutes, they go along with their government’s line. 
A military band conductor rehearses ahead a ceremony to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the founding the People's Liberation Army, at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Aug. 1. (Andy Wong/AFP/Getty Images)
