Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Monday, April 9, 2018

French police fire teargas to expel anti-capitalist squatters

Officers start to remove activists from site of abandoned airport plan in Notre-Dame-des-Landes


Protesters set a barricade on fire as French police advance. Photograph: Stephane Mahe/Reuters

 -
French police have used teargas in an attempt to clear anti-capitalist squatters from the site of an abandoned airport project.

About 2,500 riot police made a pre-dawn raid in Notre-Dame-des-Landes to evict about 250 activists.
The squatters have occupied the site for 10 years to prevent the airport from being built, but refused to leave after the plans were dropped earlier this year, saying they sought to construct an alternative way of life.

The government had warned they would be evicted and carried out this threat on Monday morning.
The protesters threw petrol bombs and set fire to barricades made of tyres and wooden pallets to obstruct the police’s advance.

An eclectic group of anti-capitalists, eco-warriors and squatters, known as Zadists, joined a handful of farmers on the site in 2008.
Over the past 50 years, successive governments have waded into the debate over the controversial plan to build an airport hub serving western France. The half century had been marked by consultations, arguments and indecision until Emmanuel Macron announced in January that the €580m (£505m) project would be abandoned once and for all.

An attempt in 2012 failed to dislodge settlers of what is called the ZAD – zone d’aménagement différée (zone for future development) officially and zone à défendre (zone to defend) to protesters.

The eviction, named Opération César, led to clashes between the squatters and the police, and the government backed down following public outrage at the violent scenes.

Many of the squatters had abandoned their tents and caravans and built permanent homes, shacks and cabins, or had occupied abandoned farms, making them habitable and planting the land around.
There was a boulangerie, a brewery, a pirate radio station, an online newspaper and a weekly vegetable market.


 Officers in riot gear move towards the anti-capitalist activists. Photograph: Loic Venance/AFP/Getty Images

At the end of last year, Zadists told the Guardian they were seeking an alternative, simpler and more utopian way of life.

“The squatters and the farmers here are building something extraordinary, something that goes back to the simple life of our grandparents,” one said. “We are able to produce what we need, and we don’t need a lot.”

At 3.22am, Zadist organisers, prepared for eviction, diffused an alert that the police were on their way, and eight minutes later, they set a barricade alight to prevent officers from entering the site. Protesters claimed 70 police buses had surrounded the 1,650-hectare (4,080 acre) site.

Gérard Collomb, the French interior minister, said police would remain “for as long as necessary” to ensure the site was not reoccupied.

He said those evicted would be offered alternative accommodation. “Nobody will be left on the street,” Collomb said.

In December, the squatters were bullish, saying they would not give up on their dream. “The state institutions have no power here. We have organised our lives without them – that’s what they don’t like. Even if they expel us, we’ll come back … After a month, there will be thousands of us,” one warned.

By midday on Monday, the police prefecture said 10 out of an estimated 97 squats at the site had been dismantled and one person had been arrested for throwing a firebomb. A gendarme was injured in the eye and taken to hospital, but released after treatment.

The eviction operation is expected to last several days.
For Rohingya refugees fleeing persecution, elephants pose a new threat


By  | 

WHEN the tarpaulin she was sleeping under started rustling furiously in the darkness, Mustaba Khatun thought it was thieves cutting their way into her shelter on the edges of Bangladesh’s Kutupalong-Balukhali refugee camp, where the city of bamboo and plastic meets the forest.

“We thought someone had come to take our supplies so we rushed outside and that’s when we saw the elephant. Then it charged at us,” she recalled of the night in September 2017, only weeks after she fled a military operation in Burma (Myanmar) that killed an estimated 6,700 Rohingya Muslims.
A child and an adult were killed in that nocturnal chaos, and the community was left with a new fear to live with after a harrowing escape from alleged “systematic killings and rape.” One of Khatun’s neighbours, his own leg still bandaged from falling over as he bolted from the scene, keeps a grisly photo of the aftermath on his phone.


Soon afterward, the child’s mourning family decided to move deeper into the camp. Those remaining on the edges formed night watches, monitoring the hills and rallying the neighbours to chase away any elephants that wandered in.

But these community responses, which can instantly draw out thousands in a camp of almost 600,000 people, could be part of the reason why 12 people have been killed, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which has now teamed up with the UN’s refugee agency, the UNHCR, to formally train special response teams.

IMGP9026
Rohingya refugee Mustaba Khan said she thought thieves had come to her tent when she heard it rustling in the night, until she went outside and saw an elephant. Source: Kaamil Ahmed/Mongabay

Shaky video shot during an incident in February shows terrified refugees scrambling down the camp’s naked hills and throwing sticks and stones at an elephant that ends up flattening several shelters in its confusion. This frenzied response, said IUCN local coordinator Mohammed Abdul Motaleb, illustrates why the refugees need help understanding elephant behavior.

“Basically they throw stones and firecrackers, which is really bad for the elephants … and the elephants attacked people because they don’t like this kind of chaos,” he said.

“Elephants are like human beings, they always prefer quieter places and that’s why they always come at night. They have fixed routes that people never go to, which helps them to move freely.” The problem, he said, was that the sprawling refugee camp now falls across those elephant corridors.

Protecting the community

“I am ready. I promise to protect my community,” barked the first of the Rohingya refugees to stand up and make his pledge to serve in localised elephant response teams.
Inshallah” — God willing — came the response from the 19 other men sitting crossed-legged on the floor of a bamboo-framed meeting room, all proudly wearing blue T-shirts marked with an elephant logo unmistakably identifying their new responsibilities.

The training was simple: presentations on the history and character of the Asian elephant, designed to increase their respect for the animal; some team-building exercises; and a mock elephant incursion with three of the trainees on their knees, lurching at their friends, while the others imitated guiding the elephants away and keeping back onlookers.


One of the Rohingya responders, Abdul Lateef, said he had seen 14 elephants since arriving in Bangladesh and had to improvise ways to chase some of them away. “We didn’t know what to do,” he said. “Everyone was shouting and running in every direction, falling over each [other].”

IMGP1365
Abdul Lateef takes a pledge to protect other Rohingya refugees from elephant incursions. Source: Kaamil Ahmed/Mongabay

After two or three incidents, they realised they needed to organise themselves. Each night, volunteers would sit by their tents, fixing their eyes on the unlit hills from which the elephants usually slipped in, raising the alarm when they spotted something.

“We didn’t have lights or sticks with us, we were just shouting, creating noise to drive them away,” Abdul Lateef said.

Motaleb’s team has given the trainees flashlights, spotlights and whistles. Other programs in Bangladesh have proven these simple tools are enough to protect humans without harming the endangered animals, he said.

Motaleb said the key to training the elephant response teams was in teaching them to control the crowds and to ensure that groups of no more than 10 people were responsible for protecting the elephants and guiding them away from the camp. In the past, he said, the refugees would surround the elephants on all sides, aggravating them and leaving them no way to escape — and that’s when they would lash out.

A wider environmental crisis

The first of the human-elephant clashes happened in September 2017, just weeks after the first refugees began pouring into Bangladesh and exhausted and traumatised new arrivals took shelter wherever they found space. But they have not let up as the main Kutupalong-Balukhali camp, which has existed since a previous Rohingya influx in 1991, grew into the world’s largest refugee settlement. Motaleb warned more problems lay ahead during the imminent monsoon season, when elephants traditionally migrate.

An IUCN survey prompted by the refugee crisis, which studied elephant footprints and dung, estimated up to 45 elephants live in the area. They had been able to freely move along corridors between Bangladesh and Burma in search of food and shelter — until hundreds of thousands of new people arrived in the area.


Unlike the host community, who the new arrivals said warned them about the elephant presence, the refugees struggle to avoid the elephant paths because of the limited space given to them to settle in. That clash has only been heightened by the rapid deforestation caused by the crisis.

An estimated 20 square kilometres of forest have been cleared to make space for the new settlements and by refugees needing to make almost daily excursions for firewood in the absence of any alternative fuel. The muddy, winding route they take into the forest becomes longer each day, constantly increasing the tension between them and the environment. At one of the stopping points, a group of children hauling heavy loads of firewood on their shoulders told Mongabay they had run into elephants before — and just like in the camp, tried to scare them away by shouting and throwing stones.

P1390240
As the camp expands, nearby forests have been cleared for settlements and stripped for firewood, leaving a barren landscape and increasing the chances of human-wildlife conflict. Source: Kaamil Ahmed/Mongabay

And as that thick forest has rapidly retreated, it has been replaced by a now barren, washed-out landscape of crumbling, pale-brown hills stripped of all vegetation and even their roots. That newly emptied space has also increased the entry points for the elephants, who in recent months have been scavenging for food during the dry season. This is where the IUCN plans to build 56 watchtowers to monitor elephant activity.


UNHCR spokesperson Caroline Gluck said some of the more recent video of panicked elephants stampeding through the camp convinced them of the issue’s urgency, but this is just part of a longer-term plan to start dealing with the dramatic environmental changes caused by the crisis.

“The camp itself is not environmentally friendly. It’s below international standards by any measure. The numbers of people there exceed the numbers of people who should be there,” she said.

Work is currently focused on preparing for a potentially disastrous monsoon season because of the surge of people into the area. Gluck said they would also be working on providing alternative fuels to end the firewood crisis, providing new water supplies, and running a reforestation program to start reversing some of the damage that has been done.

“We want to work on creating a better environmental awareness, both among the refugees and the host community, to try and better preserve the fragile environment that they have at the moment,” she said.

This article was originally published on Mongabay.

Hungary's Fidesz signals swift NGO crackdown after Orban victory



Krisztina ThanMarton Dunai-APRIL 9, 2018

BUDAPEST (Reuters) - Hungary’s ruling Fidesz party signalled on Monday it could push on quickly with legislation to crack down on organisations promoting migrant rights as soon as parliament reconvenes after Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s sweeping election victory.

The right-wing nationalist projected himself as a saviour of Hungary’s Christian culture against Muslim migration into Europe, an image which resonated with more than 2.5 million voters, especially in rural areas.

His Fidesz party won a two-thirds majority for the third time straight time in Sunday’s election, meaning he again has the powers to change constitutional laws - potentially paving the way for further friction with the European Union.

The victory could embolden Orban to put more muscle into a Central European alliance against EU migration policies, working with other right-wing nationalists in Poland and Austria, and further expose cracks in the 28-nation bloc.

A Fidesz spokesman told state radio on Monday: “After parliament is formed, at the end of April ... in early May in the next parliament session we can start work ... that is needed in the interest of the country, which could be the Stop Soros legal package.”

The proposed legislation is part of Orban’s campaign targeting Hungarian-born U.S. financier George Soros, whose philanthropy aims to bolster liberal and open-border values.
According to the bill submitted to parliament before the election, it would impose a 25 percent tax on foreign donations to NGOs that the government says back migration in Hungary.

Their activity would have to be approved by the interior minister, who could deny permission if he saw a “national security risk”.

Last month, Orban told state radio the government had drafted the bill because activists were being paid by Soros to “transform Hungary into an immigrant country”. Soros has rejected the campaign against him as “distortions and lies.”

Analysts at Hungarian think tank Political Capital said Orban’s election landslide reflected the success of his efforts to consolidate power around Fidesz, which controls state media and regional newspapers via business allies.
“Hungary has become a successful laboratory of illiberal governance with an institutional system tailor-made to serve Fidesz’s purposes and goals,” it said.

“XENOPHOBIC RHETORIC”

Indeed, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe watchdog said parties could not compete on an equal basis in the election, which was held in an adverse climate as freedom of the media and association were restricted.

“Voters had a wide range of political options, but intimidating and xenophobic rhetoric, media bias and opaque campaign financing constricted the space for genuine political debate,” the OSCE, which monitored the vote, said. It said the technical administration of the election had been transparent.

A spokesman said European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker would write to Orban to congratulate him on his victory and emphasise that defending democracy and values was the common duty of all member states with no exception.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel congratulated Orban, a German government spokesman said, adding she would work with his new government despite differences on migration.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban addresses the supporters after the announcement of the partial results of parliamentary election in Budapest, Hungary, April 8, 2018. REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger

French far-right leader Marine Le Pen was the first to congratulate Orban. Poland’s deputy foreign minister and envoy to the EU, Konrad Szymanski, hailed his victory as “a confirmation of Central Europe’s emancipation policy”.

Before the election, Hungary had already signalled it would be looking to expand co-operation on migrant policy with neighbouring Austria, the only country in Western Europe with a far-right group in government, as well as Italy, where the centre-left Democratic Party lost to anti-establishment and right-wing parties that campaigned hard against immigration.

“Orban is implementing sustainable and correct policies for the people of his country ... Hungary’s voters have rewarded that once again,” Austrian Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache, leader of the far-right Freedom Party, said.

According to preliminary results with 99 percent of votes counted, National Election Office data showed Fidesz winning 134 seats, a two-thirds majority in the 199-seat parliament. Nationalist Jobbik won 25, while the Socialists were projected in third with 20 lawmakers, among the remaining seats.
The final result is expected later this month.

Orban, Hungary’s longest-serving post-communist premier, opposes deeper integration of the EU and - teaming up with Poland - has been a fierce critique of Brussels’ policies.

Slideshow (2 Images)

Since coming to power in 2010, his government has locked horns with the European Commission over reforms that critics say have eroded democratic checks and balances and weakened the independence of the media.

Some of the NGOs that could be hit by the new law said they expected a hardening in the new government’s stance.

“With a two-thirds majority, there can be no doubt they can and will do it,” Hungarian Civil Liberties Union director Stefania Kapronczay said. “This is terrifyingly serious.”
GRAPHIC: Hungarian electihere

Writing by Krisztina Than and Gergely Szakacs, additional reporting by Francois Murphy in Vienna; Editing by Alison Williams

Free Trade Zones and Counterfeit Goods

Free Trade Zones (FTZs) encompass a broad range of activities, from tourism to retail sales.

by Michael Czinkota- 
( April 7, 2018, Washington DC, Sri Lanka Guardian) The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the Organization for Economic Co-opertaion and Development (OECD)’s recent report claims that free trade zones may be facilitating illegal activities, such as trade in counterfeit and pirated products, by providing good infrastructure with little oversight over its use.
Free Trade Zones (FTZs) encompass a broad range of activities, from tourism to retail sales. They typically represent duty-free customs areas, or offer benefits based on location, in a geographically limited space. Today, there are over 3,500 zones in 130 economies, collectively employing 66 million workers worldwide.
A number of benefits drive countries to embrace FTZs. In general, these areas increase a nation’s foreign exchange reserves and improve the balance of payments. On a local level, new supply chains increase business for domestic producers that sell inputs by zone-based firms. Finally, these areas provide jobs that bolster employment and, at least in developing countries, can lead to higher wages over time.
Apart from FTZ’s benefits to their host country at both a local and national level, there may also be economic exposure to criminal activities as a result of insufficient regulation. Research shows that the number of FTZs in an economy appears correlated with the value of exports of counterfeit and pirated products.
With less oversight, rogue actors are attracted to FTZs to engage in illegal and criminal trade. The OECD’s findings indicate that one additional FTZ within an economy increases counterfeiting by 5.9 percent on average. It also appears that FTZs tend to be overly permissive by letting companies get away with poor safety and health conditions. This limited oversight is particularly troubling when one considers the potential for exploitation in areas such as human trafficking.
The OECD and EUIPO both stress the need for future action to curb the misuse of FTZs. They recommend developing clear guidelines for countries to increase transparency and promote clean and fair trade in FTZs, based on the involvement of industry members and key stakeholder of the trade supply chain.
The organizations identify three areas for future analysis. The first is the measurement the role of FTZs in the trade of illicit and counterfeit goods. The next step requires a fuller quantitative analysis of counterfeit goods. Finally, further research needs to explore why counterfeit profiles differ from similar economies.
FTZs provide a number of advantages to economies, but without further regulation and research, they may induce heightened criminal activity. Both public and private actors must devise and apply strong deterrents to the establishment of criminal networks.
Michael Czinkota teaches international business and trade at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business and the University of Kent. His key book (with Ilkka Ronkainen) is “International Marketing” (10th ed., CENGAGE).
Lisa Burgoa of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service contributed to this comment.

The End of Human Rights?

Learning from the failure of the Responsibility to Protect and the International Criminal Court.

Sisal Creative illustration for Foreign Policy; Sean Money and Elizabeth Fay for Foreign Policy
Sisal Creative illustration for Foreign Policy; Sean Money and Elizabeth Fay for Foreign Policy

No automatic alt text available.
BY -
APRIL 9, 2018, 8:00 AM
There is no doubt that the human rights movement is facing the greatest test it has confronted since its emergence in the 1970s as a major participant in the international order.

A bellwether of this crisis has been the essays that Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, has written introducing his organization’s annual reports. One has to go back to 2014 to find Roth writing in a relatively sanguine way about the future of human rights across the globe.
That year’s report is couched in the positive terms of its title: “Stopping Mass Atrocities, Majority Bullying, and Abusive Counterterrorism.” By 2016, he was musing on “how the politics of fear and the crushing of civil society imperil global rights.” And the following year, Roth warned Human Rights Watch’s supporters that the rise of populism “threatens to reverse the accomplishments of the modern human rights movement.”
 And though in the 2018 report Roth claims that things may not be as bad as they have been for the previous three years, he leaves no doubt that they remain very bad indeed. Roth concludes that a “fair assessment of global prospects for human rights should induce concern rather than surrender — a call to action rather than a cry of despair.”

Strip away the activist language and what emerges is a human rights movement forced to refight and relitigate battles it once thought won. Human Rights Watch is not alone in calling for an all-hands-on-deck response from its supporters. In its own 2017-2018 report, Amnesty International states: “Over the past year, leaders have pushed hate, fought against rights, ignored crimes against humanity, and blithely let inequality and suffering spin out of control.” But, like Roth, the authors of the Amnesty report conclude that “while our challenges may never be greater, the will to fight back is just as strong.”

The question remains as to why the most prominent international human rights organizations seemed to have missed the gathering storm until, with the rise of populism in Europe, it reached them.

Of course, outside critics and scholars of the human rights movement — such as Stephen Hopgood, Samuel Moyn, and Eric Posner — had already predicted that the legalism of the human rights movement no longer sufficed. Implicit in the liberal human rights narrative is the idea that once binding legal norms are set, realities on the ground will eventually conform to them. It is a legal approach that simply has no place for German scholar Carl Schmitt’s idea of the law as inseparable from politics, rather than above it. As far as the human rights movement has been concerned, once what the writer Michael Ignatieff called the post-World War II “revolution of moral concern” got fully underway, it was a matter of when — not if — an international system based on human rights would prevail throughout the world.

But for the moment, at least, Brexit, Donald Trump’s presidency, and the steady rise of China have shattered the human rights movement’s narrative that progress is inevitable.

Nothing is inevitable in history — except of course, sooner or later, the mortality of every civilization and system — and both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty are quite right to refuse to concede defeat. It is possible, though not likely, that the human rights movement will be more effective with its collective back against the wall: an underground dissident church as it was during its beginnings
 rather than the secular church of liberal globalism that it was at its apogee. What is clear, however, is that the global balance of power has tilted away from governments committed to human rights norms and toward those indifferent or actively hostile to them. Into the latter camp fall, most obviously, China, Russia, Turkey, the Philippines, and Venezuela. Roth all but admits as much when, in the 2018 report, he speaks of powers that “have withdrawn” from the struggle for human rights, even if he holds out some hope that small and middle-sized nations will fill the void.

What the human rights movement has been unwilling to do is accept some of the blame for the greatly weakened position in which it finds itself. This is predictable. If your expectations are millenarian — if you believe there is a right side of history, yours, and a wrong side of history that is doomed to defeat — skepticism about the human rights project, let alone voices of opposition, is unlikely to sway your position. Given that perspective, why consider any change in your approach that goes beyond tactical adjustments?

This is what Ignatieff, though one of the human rights community’s most important advocates, warned of in his prescient 2001 book, Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry. “In the next fifty years,” he wrote, “we can expect to see the moral consensus that sustained the Universal Declaration [of Human Rights] in 1948 splintering still further.… There is no reason to believe that economic globalization entails moral globalization.”

But this seems to have been exactly one of the main drivers of what a sympathizer with the human rights movement would call its moral serenity and a skeptic would call its hubris. Nowhere has this hubris been more evident than in the fate of institutional structures and frameworks meant to allow internationally sanctioned, state-sponsored intervention to prevent genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes or to bring to account those guilty of such horrors.

The first of these frameworks is the International Criminal Court (ICC), established in 2002. The second is the so-called Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, which the United Nations adopted at its World Summit in 2005 and reconfirmed in 2009.

R2P sets up an elaborate series of nonviolent measures that need to be tried before resorting to international military intervention on human rights or humanitarian grounds. Force, according to proponents of R2P, should only be used if both a reasonable chance of success and the proportionality of the response are possible. But as an internationally binding norm, it nonetheless obliges outside powers, albeit only if sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council, to intervene to halt a genocide or crimes of mass atrocity in countries where either the government of the country in question is committing the crimes at hand or is otherwise unable to prevent these horrors from continuing.

The claims made for both R2P and the ICC were sweeping. One of R2P’s principal architects, former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, wrote that its emergence brought us much closer to “ending mass atrocity crimes once and for all.” The promise contained in the vow “Never Again” — first coined by the prisoners of the Buchenwald concentration camp just after their liberation and repeated ad infinitum, if hollowly, since that moment in 1945 — was at last to become a reality.

The promises regarding what the ICC was going to accomplish were only slightly less extravagant. When the Rome Statute, the treaty that paved the way for the court, was signed, then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan hailed it as a “gift of hope to future generations and a giant step forward in the march toward universal human rights and the rule of law.” Indeed, Annan concluded, “It is an achievement [that], only a few years ago, nobody would have thought possible.”

But only a few years later, both R2P and the ICC look like just that: doctrines that are not possible in the world as it actually exists. Some of these wounds were self-inflicted. Politically, it was a huge mistake on the part of the ICC’s first chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, to appear to focus his investigations almost exclusively on Africa — even if he was right on legal grounds, since a disproportionate number of the early referrals to the court were from African governments themselves. The result has been a widespread perception that Africa is being unfairly targeted. In 2017, a number of African countries even attempted to organize a massive withdrawal of African Union members from the ICC. The fact that this effort was beaten back should not be taken as evidence that the ICC’s crisis of legitimacy in Africa is over and done with.

And the global obligation, articulated in R2P, to act militarily in extremis to stop mass atrocity crimes has taken place only once: in Libya in 2011. But the intervention in Libya to protect the civilian population soon morphed into regime change, as a minority of supporters of R2P have since conceded. The widely held view among R2P champions is that the Libyan intervention was right — it’s just that the implementation was faulty.

Regardless of whether it was right or wrong, there is very little likelihood of another R2P intervention in the foreseeable future. Syria, Yemen, and the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya in Myanmar have demonstrated that all too painfully.

Deeper moral and political reasons explain why the ICC and R2P have failed to live up to what, in retrospect, seem like completely outlandish expectations for what they could achieve. In the case of the ICC, the court was created without a police force to carry out its instructions. Moreover, several of the world’s most powerful states — China, the United States, India, and Russia — haven’t ratified or joined the Rome Statute. A legal institution that is only in a position to target war criminals who don’t enjoy the protection of powerful states is likely to be intermittently effective at most. It will also be of questionable legitimacy no matter how many other nations officially recognize it. Legitimacy and legality, of course, do not necessarily go together. The intervention in Libya was legal; the intervention in Kosovo in 1999 was not. It is anything but an outlandish view to believe that the former was morally illegitimate and the latter undertaken on a far sounder moral basis.

An institution that is based on a double standard, as the ICC seems likely to remain for the foreseeable future, cannot be seriously considered to be an important step toward universal justice.

In the case of R2P, the nonmilitary features of the doctrine have been successful in a number of instances. Annan invoked R2P in his back-channel negotiations with the Kenyan government after deadly riots broke out during the country’s national elections at the end of 2007, which almost led to civil war. But useful as it was as a negotiating tool to Annan in Kenya, R2P has not transformed classical diplomacy. Instead, its moral force came from its claim to be able to halt genocide and mass atrocity crimes.

Defenders of R2P and the ICC might argue that the world is better off in the long run, as the court and the doctrine will eventually lead to the desired transformations of reality on the ground. But this is precisely the same mistaken assumption that has thrown the human rights movement into crisis as democracy is rolled back across the globe. Both the ICC and R2P were, from the beginning, unworkable ideas for the world we live in, one in which authoritarianism is growing stronger.

Calls to action by human rights activists, therefore, are not enough, given that the move away from democracy and toward authoritarianism may be resisted but is highly unlikely to be reversed in the foreseeable future. If the human rights movement has a future at all, it should consist of defending what remains of Ignatieff’s revolution of moral concern, not pretending that — for now at least — it can be expanded.ƒ

This article originally appeared in the April 2018 issue of Foreign Policy magazine.
Many people—maybe even you—are perpetuating this surprisingly modern and surprisingly pervasive evil.


BY JOEL HILLIKER AND JEREMIAH JACQUES • APRIL 4

What do you think of when you hear the word slavery?
theTrumpet.comFor most of us, slavery seems like a relic of the distant past, something from ancient Egypt or ancient Rome or the early American South. Large-scale slavery ended in 1863 with the Emancipation Proclamation, didn’t it?
Listen to the full story here on Trumpet Hour 

Prostate cancer: Four in 10 cases diagnosed late, charity says


Two prostate cancer cells in the final stage of cell division (cytokinesis
Image copyright


  • BBC9 April 2018
  •  Four in 10 prostate cancer cases in the UK are diagnosed late, a study suggests.
    The report by charity Orchid found a "worrying trend" of late diagnosis with 37% of prostate cancer cases diagnosed at stages three and four.
    The report found one in four cases of prostate cancer was diagnosed in A&E.
    In February figures showed the number of men dying from prostate cancer had overtaken female deaths from breast cancer for the first time in the UK.
    With an aging population, the charity has called for urgent action to prevent a "ticking time bomb in terms of prostate cancer provision".
    Orchid chief executive Rebecca Porta said: "With prostate cancer due to be the most prevalent cancer in the UK within the next 12 years, we are facing a potential crisis in terms of diagnostics, treatment and patient care. Urgent action needs to be taken now."
    The report canvassed the opinion of the UK's leading prostate cancer experts and looked at previously published data to get a picture of the prostate cancer care across the UK.
    The data came from organisations such as NHS England, charities and the National Prostate Cancer Audit.
    The report says that 42% of prostate cancer patients saw their GP with symptoms twice or more before they were referred, with 6% seen five or more times prior to referral.

    Greater awareness

    Prof Frank Chinegwundoh, a urological surgeon at Bart's Health NHS Trust said: "25% of prostate cancer cases in the UK are diagnosed at an advanced stage.
    "This compares to just 8% in the US where there is greater public awareness of prostate cancer and greater screening," he added.
    He said while there was controversy over the effectiveness of the standard PSA test used to detect the cancer, "it is still vital that patients are diagnosed early to assess if they need treatment or not as advanced prostate cancer is incurable".
    The report also said there needed to be renewed efforts to develop better testing methods.
    Presentational grey line

    Prostate cancer symptoms

    • prostate cancer is diagnosed by using the prostate specific antigen (PSA) test, biopsies and physical examinations
    • there can be few symptoms of prostate cancer in the early stages, and because of its location most symptoms are linked to urination
    • needing to urinate more often, especially at night
    • needing to run to the toilet
    • difficulty in starting to urinate
    • weak urine flow or taking a long time while urinating
    • feeling your bladder has not emptied fully
    • men with prostate cancer can also live for decades without symptoms or needing treatment because the disease often progresses very slowly
    Presentational grey line
    The PSA test is available free to any man aged 50 or over who requests it, but the report said this can "create inequity" with tests being taken up by "more highly educated men in more affluent areas".
    Prof Anne Mackie, director of programmes for the UK National Screening Committee, said the test was not offered universally because it was not very good at predicting which men have cancer.
    "It will miss some cancers and often those cancers that are picked up when using the PSA test are not harmful," she explained.
    "Treatment for prostate cancer can cause nasty side effects so we need to be sure we are treating the right men and the right cancers.
    "There is a lot of research into screening and treatment for prostate cancer and the committee, along with NICE and the NHS, is keeping a close eye on the evidence as it develops," she added.
    A spokesperson for NHS England said:
    "NHS England is working closely with leading clinical experts to bring the latest research on prostate cancer into practice. Targeted work is also being undertaken to ensure prostate cancer is diagnosed quickly and that everyone receives the best care wherever they live across the country."

    Sunday, April 8, 2018

    Honour the Vision of the Late Ven. Sobitha Thero


     

    The President himself saw the complete rejection of his No Confidence Motion against the Prime Minister; But all is not lost, he still has a couple of years left for him to rectify the damage done.

    by Zulkfli Nazim-
    ( April 7, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Let us analyze the actions, reactions and transactions of our President, His Excellency, Maithripala Sirisena, since he broke off from the then President, Mahinda Rajapaksa.
    It is an undisputable fact, that Maithripala Sirisena, was elected President of the Republic of Sri Lanka on January 08, 2015, with the full backing of the United National Party Leadership under Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe, The Most Venerable Maduluwawe Sobitha Thero, The Chief Incumbent of the Kotte Naga Vihara who established the People’s Movement For Just Society for this very purpose, together with all the supporters of the United National Party including the support and assistance of all the minority parties – The Tamil and Muslim Communities, irrespective of race, religion, caste or creed. This was done with the sole purpose of not only bringing down a tyrannical regime; but also to take serious actions against all those who violated every norm, every human decency – Brutal Murders, summary terminations and executions, orchestrating disappearances of media personnel and those who stood in opposition against them – just to mention a few.
    During this period when Mr. Maithripala Sirisena rallied against, in opposition to the Rajapaksas, he was maligned, his character was dragged through the mud and the Rajapaksa regime used everything in their power, including the media to rain insults, abusements, revilements and vilifications against him. The then Chairman of the state Broadcasting Corporation, Hudson Samarasinghe, went one step further, by describing the sleeveless vest Mr. Sirisena wore as the dress of a primate who is being dressed in the same fashion, for street performance. These are still fresh in our minds and without doubt in the minds of Mr. Maithripala Sirisena as well.
    But as soon as Mr. Sirisena, came into power, he had seemed to have forgotten all about the slanderous defamations and all vitriolic attacks against him.
    He suddenly became the president of his party and not the country.
    The Most Venerable Maduluwawe Sobitha Thero, tried his utmost to remind the elected president, the reason for the country’s support to make him president. Most of the writers, journalists and organizations struggled in every way possible to make him see reason. So much so that Our Most Venerable Maduluwawe Sobitha Thero passed away, with much sadness, in a state of grief and with a heavy heart all the while trying to get the President back on track.
    Without any hesitation whatsoever, we can say that Mr. Maithripala Sirisena knew this and it was his conscience that made him make a vow and declare an oath on the dead body of a great priest, with a binding obligation that he will not violate his promise.
    But the magnetism of his party attracted him more, to protect and serve the members of his political party rather than serve the country. He kept on postponing, delaying and suspending everything that needed urgent attention.
    To add insult to injury, he started appointing persons who lost the elections, persons of questionable character, Well-known fraudsters, crooks and criminals. He publicly announces that he wants to have a clean house and dumps all the garbage inside his own house contradicting himself at every turn.
    Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe, The then Director General of Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, who was doing a wonderful job was forced to submit her resignation, because she was getting too close for comfort to the despots who were the president’s favourites. We understand that President Maithripala Sirisena had issued a statement to the effect that the Bribery Commission, the FCID and CID were functioning according to political agendas. Another death blow to an institution that was performing their duties without any fear or favour.
    Now we come to the Local Government Elections campaigns, where the President of a country, elected by the people as a common candidate, suffered a bout of Alzheimers, started aligning himself with his party and those opposed to the Government and he maliciously, unleashes an attack on the United National Party and specially, against the Leader and Prime Minister, Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe.
    When the Local Government Election results were seen as disastrous. It was indeed ironic to see that the President’s party who scored less than the JVP, asking the Prime Minister to take a step backwards. It is he who should take many steps back and submit his resignation at the same time.
    The Hon. President had also publicly announced that if all 96 SLFP MPs were prepared to support him, he could form a SLFP government, totally undermining the existing National Government and the United National Party.
    In addition, it was amazing to see, the President himself has been the first signatory to the No Confidence Motion against the Prime Minister, presented to the speaker – So a typical example of “honey in tongue and venom in heart”, attitude was made clearly manifest.
    With all these insults and more, that were being unleashed against the Prime Minister, not only by the President; but also by his party members and the joint opposition, the prime minister, dignified as usual, kept silent and allowed all the dogs to do the barking. If dogs bark at a mountain, what does the mountain care? This differentiates the calibre, excellence and quality of the Prime Minister and his supporters compared to the rest of the tribe.
    A President who was lauded as a political celebrity suddenly finds that he has lost all credibility both nationally and internationally; in that he was labelled as Brutus, the one who stabbed Caesar in the back as well as Judas who betrayed Jesus Christ.
    The President himself saw the complete rejection of his No Confidence Motion against the Prime Minister; But all is not lost, he still has a couple of years left for him to rectify the damage done. He can still recover and regain the lost dignity and once again become a luminary, a celebrity who can be an inspiration to others by shedding all differences, prejudices and preconceptions and sincerely joining hands with the Prime Minister and the unity government, to fulfill all the promises, vows and oaths he made on the 08th day of January 2015.
    A last word of advise coming from the bottom of our hearts – at the time of your stepping down, Mr. President, do not get yourself labelled as a man who supported tyranny, murder and mayhem., but as a rightly guided and a just ruler who fought against tyranny and liberated his people from the clutches of authoritarianism and evil.