BY Kumari-2017-10-28 The way it is
Racial and religious disharmony proceeding to violence is prevalent in most parts of the world; worse in the Middle East with the militant ISIS there, the Taliban still causing trouble in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan and now flared up in Myanmar. And all these trouble spots are churned up by Islamist. The Rohingya are native Burmese and have been discriminated against by the Burmans and other sub-races in Myanmar.
Recently, the Rohingya attacked a Burmese police post and so the military still ruling the land ordered countermeasures which turned violent and caused the Rohingya to flee their homes and land in the thousands, most across the border to Bangladesh and others by sea. Some were rescued in the seas off Sri Lanka, brought safely ashore by the Sri Lankan Navy and taken charge of by the UN Refugee organization. While detained in a safe house, some militant Sri Lankans led by those in yellow robes, attacked them. This was totally reprehensible. Police intervened and nothing much came of it.
The world condemns the Burmese Buddhists and government and calls for stripping State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kye of her Noble Peace prize; but her hands are tied. Even she, though winning elections hands down, is still under military rule and so cannot do much to help the Rohingya. In fact it looks as if she is anti-them, like her father.
The riots of 1915
Kumari goes far back to much before she was born - to 1915. Yes, almost a century ago a conflagration occurred between Muslims and Buddhists. A historian tells me that the enmity smouldered as the coast Muslims who were really trading Moors, settled down in this fair island and became prosperous businessmen. The simmering heat was encouraged to flame by the ruling Britons at the time – true to their political dictum of 'divide and rule'. A case had gone up to the District Court, in Colombo over these clashes. Judge Paul E. Peiris gave judgment in favour of the Sinhalese.
He quoted Clause 5 of the Kandyan Convention that gave protection to Buddhism. An appeal was made to the Supreme Court which overturned the earlier judgment on the premise that the Kandyan Convention was no longer in effect. Of course, the Brits reneged on their promises. Hence further trouble was expected, and brewing.
Carol cart
In Kandy on 29 May 1915, Vesak Day, against warnings, a carol cart proceeded near the mosque that is at the far end of Kandy town where the Kachcheri is located now. (A much used approach road to Anniewatte starts here). When the carol cart came opposite the mosque, jeering and stone throwing ensued. Clashes broke out and the hate and fire of torching spread to Matale, Gampola and along the Kandy-Colombo Road. Mercifully by 6 June that year the British, though they initially sparked the clashes, doused them very soon and peace settled back in the land, at least peace among the different religions. It was unity that was called for to resist the foreign power in the land, with religious amity promoted.
We do hope and pray our own leaders will clamp down most forcefully on anyone and everyone who instigates religious antipathy which can just burst into flames of conflict. We do not condone the actions of certain Buddhist monks who are fundamentalists.
Buddhism is best protected by living according to the Buddha's teaching with the four excellent qualities of loving kindness, sympathy, joy in other's well-being and equanimity promoted. The Muslims too need to give up fundamentalism on their part. We have too many economic problems to tackle without having religious turmoil and misguided patriotism intruding to make matters worse.
Many ‘false’ Dhammas are emerging which has become a major threat. Buddha encouraged discussion and discourse but what is happening now is Bhikkus giving their own interpretations to gather a set of followers.
by Dr Upul Wijayawardhana-
( October 28, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Impermanence is a quality of all things, preached the Buddha. Therefore, His teachings cannot be an exception to this law of nature, one can argue. But, on the other hand, the real crux of Buddha Dhamma are universal truths and how can universal truths decline or disappear? May be, Buddhism as a religion, may decline and disappear but the substance, at least a large part of it, will survive for the foreseeable future. Perhaps, my title should have been ‘Decline of Buddha Dhamma’ than Buddhism. In fact, some may welcome the decline of Buddhism so that rituals are replaced by true practices.
Some believe we are in a ‘terminal era’ where the gradual decline of Buddhism with ultimate demise, is inevitable. They also believe that Buddhism, then, will be non-existent for eons, till the birth of the next Buddha, Maithri. These concepts of previous Buddhas and a future Buddha are scientifically implausible and can only be believed with blind faith. To me, Gautama Buddha is a unique human being who, by the exploration of mind, discovered universal truths. By implying He is one of a cycle of Buddhas, all born in India, diminishes his unparalleled achievements. He was the originator of scientific thinking as exemplified by what he preached in Kalama Suttta but I will not go into details as much has been written on this Sutta. However, there is another Sutta, Kevaddha Sutta, that illustrates how important education is; leading to the avoidance of acceptance without questioning.
When Kevaddha, an ordinary householder in Nalanda, approached the Buddha and requested him to get one of the monks to perform miracles so that the people of Nalanda, a powerful and prosperous kingdom, would have greater faith in the Buddha, He replied: “Kevatta, there are these three miracles that I have declared, having directly known and realized them for myself. Which three? The miracle of psychic power, the miracle of telepathy, and the miracle of instruction.”
The Buddha went on to explain that psychic power may convince the believers but non-believer would say ‘There is already a charm, called Ghandari charm, used by many priests to exhibit psychic phenomena’. Similarly, non-believers of telepathy would say that many priests already use a charm called Manika. Seeing these drawbacks, I am disillusioned with these miracles and believe only in the miracle of instructions; instructing how to use the mind properly and goes on to explain how instruction can lead to enlightenment. Therefore, He called instructions the greatest miracle; instructions not to follow Him blindly but use the mind properly to achieve enlightenment.
While claiming to follow the teachings of such a rational teacher, we believe in the irrational. The occult attracts us and there are many Buddhist priests engaging in activities which the Buddha categorised as practices unworthy of a monk. Though we think ‘Mitya Distika’, (wrong believers) refers to those of other faiths, a surprisingly large number of Buddhists are wrong believers; believing in distorted versions of Buddhism.
Many have argued how long the Buddha Dhamma would last but this seems an exercise in futility and, instead, we should be concentrating on the question, whether there is a threat to the Dhamma and, more importantly, whether we can take corrective action. According to most authorities, the dangers are twofold; external and internal.
External threats
Early writers identified two external threats:
1. Invasion of India from the North West, which did occur but it did not affect Buddhism alone. 2. Regulation of Monks by rulers, which also did occur but more important was the withdrawal of facilities granted.
As far as I can see, the greatest threat, a very successful one at that, came from the Brahmins. Had the words of equality of the Buddha spread far and wise, fearing they would lose their claimed superiority based on an archaic system of caste, Brahmins conceived a cunning plan. They ‘swallowed’ the Buddha as the ninth avatar of Vishnu. Gradually their concepts crept into Buddhism and that is the Buddhism we practice today.
Internal threats
These are the reasons recorded by various writers and some are definitely stated in Suttas like Saddhammasamosa and Saddhammapatirupaka Sutta.
1. Admission of women to the monastic community 2. Lack of respect toward various elements of the Buddhist tradition 3. Lack of diligence in meditation practice 4. Carelessness in the transmission of the teachings 5. The emergence of divisions within the Sangha 6. The emergence of a false or ‘counterfeit’ Dhamma 7. Excessive association with secular society
Admission of women to the monastic tradition would lead to the halving of the lifespan of Buddha Sasana, the Buddha is supposed to have said and at the first Sangayana, Venerable Ananda was blamed by the assembled Arahants for enticing the Buddha to do this. Are we to believe that Ananda, who had not even got to the first step of enlightenment, could convince the Buddha? Are we to believe that Ananda was needed to remind the Buddha, who breast-fed him following the death of his mother? Are we to believe that the Buddha who preached equality was reluctant to grant equality to women for ordination? This seems an addition by Monks as an act of self-preservation. It is interesting to speculate whether the un-Buddhists behaviour of some monks would be diminished if we had a strong Bhikkuni Sasana. Anyway, it is women who protect the Sasana; obvious when you look at the crowds in any Buddhist religious ceremony where the vast majority are women.
Regarding the second, in Saddhammapatirupaka Sutta, the Buddha has stated that when the Sangha and laity, live without respect, without deference for the Teacher, for the Dhamma, for the Sangha, for the training and for the concentration, it lends to the disappearance of the Dhamma but has also said that reversal of these will ensure the protection of the Dhamma.
Lack of diligence in Meditation practice is very common as even Monks believe it is a practice for those of the monastic tradition. Fortunately, scientists have recognised the value of Mindfulness Meditation, introduced by the Buddha, and treatment modalities based on this are now in common use. Unfortunately, attempts by some to commercialise is bringing disrepute but this is likely to be temporary.
Regarding carelessness in the transmission of teachings, in Pathama Saddhmmasammosa Sutta, (as translated by E M Hare and appearing in obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya) it is stated:
Herein, monks, carelessly the monks hear Dhamma;carelessly they master it;carelessly they bear it in mind;carelessly they test the good of the things borne in mind;knowing the good and knowing Dhamma,carelessly they go their ways in Dhamma by Dhamma.
Verily, monks, these are the five thingsthat lead to the confounding, the disappearance of Saddhamma.’
I referred to the divisions of Sangha in my article ‘Men in Robes’ (SATmag, 14 October) and am pleased to note that the Malwatta Chapter is already taking action on some of these misdeeds. Hope all three Nikayas will unite to take stern action against Bhikkus indulging in un-Buddhist activities.
Many ‘false’ Dhammas are emerging which has become a major threat. Buddha encouraged discussion and discourse but what is happening now is Bhikkus giving their own interpretations to gather a set of followers. Though not a Bhikku, the downfall of the Tibetan teacher Rinpoche, which I referred to in the same article, highlighted this problem.
Excessive association with secular society is interpreted by some as Monks indulging in non-religious activities but if Monks take part in activities for the common good, not their personal benefit, what harm is there?
It looks as if we, Buddhists, need to urge our Monks to listen to the words of the Buddha and change some of their ways so that Buddha Dhamma lasts for years to come. Even if Buddhism is in decline, even if actions that can reverse this is not taken, it is gratifying to note that some of the concepts the Buddha introduced, like Mindfulness is in the ascendency. Its application, albeit with modifications, are benefitting vast numbers of people of all races and religions all over the world.
The debate on a new constitution is certainly gathering force, but regrettably it is largely a distorted debate due to deliberate efforts by those clearly opposed to a new constitution being adopted in the country, presenting the Interim Report of the Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly, which is the Parliament, as the Draft Constitution.
What is taking place is a debate on unreality, deceit, duplicity and falsehood, taking the constitution making process to one of political mendacity; going against the mandate given by the people in January 2015 for a new constitution, remove the Executive Presidency and make Sri Lanka a more democratic state, with wider sharing of power.
This debate of duplicity is being transformed into a confrontation on religion and not on the substance of the State, and the formulations of State policy for the future. In a situation where instead of statecraft that should be the substance of the discussion, so-called religiosity is pushed forward with the use of the yellow robe, wholly distorting the thinking on constitutional reform. This comes with threats of mass protests led by sections of the Maha Sangha, clearly orchestrated by political forces that look towards racial and religious divides in the country, to support their goals of majoritarian politics.
The new surge of Sangha driven politics, against any new constitution, or constitutional reform, calling for the present Constitution to be kept unchanged, wholly ignores the call for constitutional change from 1978, showing a dangerous ignorance of history in the politics of post-independence Sri Lanka, especially after the rise of the Sinhala Only majoritarian politics in 1956.
Banda - Chelva Pact
It is necessary to recall it was large scale protests led by the Sangha that led to the tearing up of the Bandaranaike - Chelvanayakam Pact in 1958, intended to reduce communal disagreements, with a certain level of autonomy to the Tamil people. Prime Minister Bandaranaike, who was compelled to tear the pact, said he was doing it under pressure, and the consequences would be seen much later. He was not alive to see the full bloody consequences of this pro-Sinhala-Buddhist majoritarian pressure by politicians displaying the influence and power of the yellow robe.
It was not very long after, in March 1965, that Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake signed an agreement with S. J. V. Chelvanayakam – known as the Dudley - Chelva Pact - seeking to resolve some important matters affecting the Tamil speaking people. This too saw huge protest led by sections of the Sangha, and in the final clash with the police at Kollupitiya one young monk was killed; leading to Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake having to do away with the Pact.
The results of these mass protest movements largely led by sections of the Sangha and serving the interests of political opponents of the then governments were seen not too long after; when the country was thrown into a thirty year fight against separatist terrorism led by the LTTE. That battle ended in May 2009, but the conditions that caused the rise of separatist forces among the Tamil people, especially the Tamil youth, have still not been fully addressed and resolved. One aspect of the proposed new constitution, as seen in the Steering Committee Report, is to address the larger issue of national unity, and ensure that peace prevails among the different communities and religions in the country.
The present threats made by sections of the Sangha to take to the streets and prevent any change in the Constitution, is clearly seeking to push the country and its people back to the days of the majoritarian rejection of minority rights, and fair play in a democracy. This threatens the country once again of antagonistic living among the communities in the country, with its dangerous consequences, as history has shown us, both in Sri Lanka and abroad.
Against Buddhist thought
It is necessary to emphasize that this campaign by sections of the Sangha against constitutional reform or change, is wholly against the principles of Buddhist teaching, which gives the highest importance to understanding, tolerance and compassion.
The Steering Committee Report gives different proposals on the position and description of the State – as Unitary, as proposed by members of the Constituent Assembly, who are all members of this Parliament, as well as the public who made representations to the Committee. Similarly, there are alternate proposals about the status of Buddhism in this country. All of these remain proposals which can be well debated and accepted, or amended and rejected by the Constituent Assembly (Parliament) at the debate next week. None of these are dictums, precepts or any doctrines of faith. They are open to good discussion and debate, proper analysis, scrutiny and assay in keeping with the core principles of Buddhist teaching. In such a context, the campaign being manipulated with the participation of sections of the Sangha, to give a wholly wrong message about a Draft Constitution, or certain dangerous clauses in a supposedly new constitution, is one meant to mislead the people. It is something which no person committed to reason and rationality, such as a follower of Buddhist teaching, whether in yellow robes or not, should accept.
This calls for a strong response from the Government on its own position vis-à-vis the proposals in the Steering Committee Report, and on the very concept and principle of a New Constitution. One noticeable aspect of the current debate on constitutional reform is the very large absence of direct government involvement. The debate is largely the theatre of the opposition both to the government and constitutional change. The divisions within the ruling coalition – the UNP and SLFP, as well as divisions within the formal and non-formal SLFP, is certainly pushing the government largely into a role of silence, where the government should be the key player in the debate. Both the UNP and SLFP cannot forget, or seem to not know the clear mandate given by the people for a new constitution. Most notably, it was part of the main message given by the Common Candidate, Maithripala Sirisena, at the campaign for the Presidential Poll on January 2015. This was the clear position of the late Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera, who led the civil society movement and wider campaign for the Common Candidate. The abolition of the Executive Presidency was a very clear part of this message.
As the debate on the Steering Committee Report approaches, the Prime Minister has been critical of what is seen as biased reporting by sections of the media, on the issue of constitutional reform and the Sangha. However, there is doubt in the public mind as to what the UNP’s concept of the new constitution would be, other than its clear opposition to the Executive Presidency. On the other hand, there is the SLFP which for decades was to abolish the Executive Presidency, now wanting to retain it, and also opposing a new constitution. This position of the SLFP certainly requires a clear leadership position by the Party Leader, President Sirisena.
There is also the somewhat unexpected position by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who is in support of abolishing the Executive Presidency, while opposing wider sharing of power among the people. This has much to do with the uncertainties of new political leadership.
What is clearly needed on this debate, to keep public support alive for a new constitution, is for President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe to take a joint stand on the issue, and make a declaration in support of a new constitution. This will help strengthen the people’s support throughout the country and also give a major push back to the racist and majoritarian forces, aligned with sections of the Sangha opposed to any constitutional change. Such unity by the leaders of the ruling coalition will help take this debate to the realization of public expectations that gave the mandate in January 2015.
The threats of violence
While sections of the Sangha are giving warnings of mass action against constitutional reform, there is a new danger of violence against those who support such changes in the structure of the State in Sri Lanka. The Members of Parliament, whether they support these changes or not, are all threatened by a bomb attack on Parliament, if a new constitution is adopted. This threat comes from none other than the leader of the National Freedom Front, Wimal Weerawansa, who thinks he should move beyond his farcical fasting to make a new mark in politics.
The other major threat comes from Major General Kamal Gunaratne, the author of ‘Ranamaga Ossey - Nandikadal’, and speaker at the pro-Gotabhaya Rajapaksa; “Viyath Maga” who says a new constitution would divide the country, those supporting it are traitors, who should be given death. There is also a description given how such dead should be carried insultingly low.
It remains a major question how the Buddhist campaign against constitutional change, can come together with such declarations of violence. It would seem that the campaign against new policies of the State is certainly displaying the threats that exist to democracy and peaceful loving people, amidst the political desperation of majoritarian racists.
While the Speaker will be attending to the threat announced by Wimal Weerawansa, the threat by Maj. Gen Kamal Gunaratne looks the stuff of criminality and legal action.
(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 way it is
What is taking place is a debate on unreality, deceit, duplicity and falsehood, taking the constitution making process to one of political mendacity; going against the mandate given by the people in January 2015 for a new constitution, remove the Executive Presidency and make Sri Lanka a more democratic state, with wider sharing of power.
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)