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

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Outsourcing war: How foreigners and mercenaries power UAE's military


UAE’s futuristic cities and booming economy were built on foreign know-how and labour funded by petro dollars, and its military is no different

Military show at the International Defence Exhibition and Conference (IDEX) in Abu Dhabi, 19 February 2017 (AFP)


Josh Wood's picture
In California's Mojave Desert last year, an American man wearing a helmet and body armour stood in front of a line of rifle-toting Emirati troops who were in the United States for military training.

Ethiopia and Eritrea, Longtime Foes, Meet for Peace Talks


A video still of Ethiopia’s prime minister, Abiy Ahmed, center right, being welcomed on Sunday by Eritrea’s president, Isaias Afwerki, at the airport in Asmara, Eritrea.CreditERITV, via Associated Press

By Selam Gebrekidan-July 8, 2018



For the first time since a brutal border war in the late 1990s left a violent rift between Ethiopia and Eritrea, leaders of the two nations embraced on an airport tarmac on Sunday, hinting at a new era for the two countries.

Ethiopia’s prime minister, Abiy Ahmed, led his country’s first state visit to Eritrea since the war broke out in 1998 and sat for a meeting in Eritrea’s capital, Asmara, with President Isaias Afwerki.

At a state dinner on Sunday evening, Mr. Abiy announced that he had agreed with the Eritrean president to “resume the services of our airlines, to get our ports working, to get our people to trade and to open our embassies again.”

Leaders of Eritrea and Ethiopia Meet to End Tense Conflict Between Nations

Direct telephone lines had been restored between the two countries on Sunday afternoon for the first time in two decades.

“There is no longer a border between Eritrea and Ethiopia, because a bridge of love has destroyed it,” Mr. Abiy said at the dinner.

Mr. Abiy surprised his nation last month when he announced that Ethiopia would “fully accept and implement” a 2000 peace deal that was supposed to end the border conflict with Eritrea.

More than 80,000 people have died in the war, according to some estimates, and the Ethiopian prime minister was among thousands who fought on the front lines.

The rapprochement between the two countries followed the ascent to power in April of Mr. Abiy, who at 41 is one of the youngest leaders on the continent.

Ethiopia, which has been a landlocked nation since Eritrea achieved independence in the early 1990s, has a strategic interest in a key Eritrean port, Assab, which it had heavily relied on before the start of the border war. The United Arab Emirates has used a military base in Eritrea to deploy its soldiers for the war in Yemen, which sits across the Red Sea from Eritrea.

The two countries still have not agreed on a demarcated border.

On Sunday, Mr. Abiy expressed condolences to the families of Eritrean soldiers killed in the war.
“You deserve peace and calm,” Mr. Abiy said at the dinner on Sunday addressing Eritreans in Tigrinya, a language spoken in both countries. “Enough with war and the talk of war.”

He later joked that he had been appointed the new foreign minister of Eritrea, a comment that might once have unleashed another war but only led to raucous laughter on Sunday.

In a brief speech, Mr. Afwerki vowed to resolve challenges through consultation.

“We are in this together,” Mr. Afwerki said. “To our guests, I am happy you saw the true feelings of the Eritrean people today.”

Mr. Abiy’s overtures, and his state visit, were welcomed by residents of Asmara on Sunday. They took to the streets waving palm fronds and the flags of the two nations. Videos posted on social media showed Eritrean women singing for peace along the city’s main boulevards.

“This is no ordinary visit,” said Mesfin Negash, an Ethiopian human rights analyst in Sweden. “This is no ordinary diplomatic relationship. It is an emotional day. The peace process now belongs to the people. Both leaders cannot deny the public pressure anymore.”

The visit to Asmara on Sunday is among the changes that the Ethiopian prime minister has made in a series of surprise announcements since April.

His government has released prominent political prisoners and given amnesty to those charged with treason and other political crimes. The second-most-populous country in Africa, Ethiopia also plans to sell parts of its state-owned enterprises, including the national airline, a move that its ruling party opposed for decades.

The “no war, no peace” stalemate between the two countries, coupled with a government crackdown on dissent, has contributed to Eritrea’s economic and social isolation in recent decades. Many of its young and able-bodied citizens have fled the country, choosing treacherous routes along the Sahara over military service at home.

At the height of Europe’s migration crisis, Eritreans were among the largest group landing on Mediterranean shores. The United Nations estimates that nearly 170,000 Eritrean refugees live in Ethiopia.

Starving and Bombed Children of Yemen Seek Entrapment in Flooded Thai Cave

In short, while the 12 boys and their coach were rescued after 17 days trapped in a flooded cave in Thailand which required a sophisticated and expensive international effort, during the same period around the world, 850,000 children were killed by human adults. Why is this paradox?

by Robert J. Burrowes-
( July 11, 2018, Victoria, Sri Lanka Guardian) While the world watched and waited with bated breath for the outcome of the substantial global effort – involving over 100 cave divers from various countries, 1,000 members of the Thai Army and 10,000 others in various roles – to rescue a team of 12 young football players and their coach, who were trapped inside a flooded cave in Thailand for 17 days, 850,000 children were killed by human adults in other parts of the world, many of them simply starved to death in Yemen or other parts of Africa, Asia and Central/South America.
But other children were killed in ritual sacrifice, many children were killed after being sexually trafficked, raped and tortured, many were killed in wars (including in Yemen), many were killed while living under military occupation, many died as child soldiers or while working as slave laborers, and vast numbers of other children suffered violence in a myriad other forms ranging from violence (including sexual violation) inflicted in the family home to lives of poverty, homelessness and misery in wealthy industrialized countries or as refugees fleeing conflict zones. See ‘Humanity’s “Dirty Little Secret”: Starving, Enslaving, Raping, Torturing and Killing our Children’.
Why did the world’s corporate media highlight the flooded Thai cave story so graphically and why do so many ordinary people respond with such interest – meaning genuine emotional engagement – in this story? But not the others just mentioned?
And what does this tell us about human psychology and geopolitics?
Needless to say, a great deal.
During the Thai cave drama, major corporate media outlets, such as the Washington Post and the BBC, were routinely releasing ‘breaking news’ updates on the status of the rescue effort. At high points in the drama, reports on this issue were overshadowing major political and other stories of the day. At the same time, there were no ‘breaking news’ stories on any of the many myriad forms of violence against children, which were (and are still) killing 50,000 children each day.
So why the corporate media interest in this essentially local (Thai) story about a group of 12 children trapped in a cave? And why did it attract so much support, including foreign cave divers, engineers and medics as well as technology billionaire Elon Musk, who flew in to investigate rescue options and assist with the rescue effort. They and their equivalents are certainly not flying in to rescue children in a vast number of other contexts, including where the provision of simple, nourishing meals and clean water would do wonders.
Well, in essence, the story was a great one for the corporate media, simply because it reported on something of little consequence to those not immediately impacted and enabled the media to garner attention for itself and other (western) ‘heroes’ drawn into the story while engaging in its usual practice of distracting us from what really matters. And it was an easy story to sell simply because the media could use a wide range of safe emotional triggers to draw people into the dramatized story without simultaneously raising difficult questions about the (appalling) state of the world and responsibility for it.
In simple language: like sports events and other forms of entertainment, the cave rescue provided a safely contained time and space for people to feel emotionally engaged in (this case) a real-life drama (with feelings like fear and relief allowed an outlet) while carefully reinforcing their unconscious feeling of powerlessness to do anything about it and their acceptance of this. This is why it was so important that expert rescue efforts were highlighted: the key media message was that ‘there is nothing you can do’.
Of course, in this context, this was largely true. The problem is that the corporate media coverage wasn’t aimed at this context. It was aimed at all those other contexts which it wasn’t even discussing, let alone highlighting: the vast range of issues – including the many ongoing wars and endless military violence, the threat of nuclear war, the climate catastrophe and innumerable threats to our biosphere posed by such activities as rainforest destruction, the refugee crisis, military occupations, as well as the ongoing violence against children in so many contexts as touched on above – that need a great deal of our attention but for which the elite uses its corporate media to distract us and reinforce our sense of powerlessness.
Another aspect of the story was the way in which it highlighted the ‘accidental’ nature of the incident: no one was really responsible, even the hapless coach who was just trying to give his young players an interesting excursion and whom, according to reports, none of the parents blamed.
By focusing on the logistical details of the story (the distance into the cave, the narrowness of certain passages, rescue possibilities, equipment, the threat of monsoon rains…), without attributing blame, the media could reinforce its endless message that ‘no-one’ is responsible for the state of the world. Hence, no individual and no organization is responsible for doing anything either. Again, this message is designed to deepen a sense of powerlessness and to make people disinclined to act: to make them powerless observers rather than active participants in their own fate.
As an aside, of course, it should be noted that in those contexts where it serves elite interests to attribute blame, it certainly does so. Hence, elites might contrive to blame Muslims, Russians, Palestinians or the other latest target (depending on the context) for some problem. However, in these contexts, the story of ‘blame’ is framed to ensure that elites have maximum opportunity to act as they wish (often militarily) while (again) engendering a sense of powerlessness among the rest of us.
The tragedy of the Thai cave incident is that one man died and many boys spent 17 days in a situation in which they were no doubt terrified and suffering genuine physical privation. But elite media cynically used the event to distract us from vitally important issues, including ongoing grotesque violence against children in a large number of contexts, and to reinforce ‘The Delusion “I Am Not Responsible”’.
In short, while the 12 boys and their coach were rescued after 17 days trapped in a flooded cave in Thailand which required a sophisticated and expensive international effort, during the same period around the world, 850,000 children were killed by human adults. Even in Thailand during this 17-day period, apart from those children violated and killed as a result of sex trafficking and other violence, 119 children drowned (at the rate of seven each day). See ‘Swim Safe: Preventing Child Drowning’. Obviously, these children were ignored because there was no profit in reporting their plight and helping to mobilize an international effort to save them.
So what can we do?
Well, for a start, we can boycott the corporate media and certainly not spend any money on it. What little truth it contains is usually of even less value (and probably gets barely beyond a good sports report). Instead, invest any money you previously spent on the corporate media by supporting progressive news outlets. They might not have reported events in relation to the Thai cave rescue but they do report on the ongoing violence inflicted on children in more grotesque circumstances such as the war in Yemen. They will also report and analyze important global events from a truthful and life-enhancing perspective and will often offer strategies for your engaged involvement.
If you want to understand why most people are suckered by the corporate media, whose primary function is to distract and disempower us, you will get a clear sense from reading how adults distract and disempower children in the name of ‘socialization’. See ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.
If you want to nurture children to be powerful agents of change who will have no trouble resisting attempts (whether by the corporate media or any other elite agent) to distract and disempower them, you are welcome to consider making ‘My Promise to Children’.
If you are easily conned yourself, you will vastly enhance your capacity to discriminate and focus on what matters by ‘Putting Feelings First’ which will, among other things, restore your conscience, intuition and ‘truth register’, vital mental functions suppressed in most people.
You are also welcome to consider participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’ which maps out a fifteen-year strategy for creating a peaceful, just and sustainable world community so that all children (and everyone else) has an ecologically viable planet on which to live.
And for the vast range of other manifestations of violence against children touched on above, you might consider using Gandhian nonviolent strategy in any context of particular concern to you. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy or Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy.
You might also consider signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’ which explicitly identifies the role of the corporate media, among many other elite agencies, in promoting violence.
Am I pleased that the 12 children and their coach in Thailand were rescued? Of course I am. I just wish that an equivalent effort was being made to rescue each of the 50,000 children we will kill today, tomorrow, the next day and the day after that.
Robert J. Burrowes
Biodata: Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is flametree@riseup.net and his website is here.
 

Wily Musharraf pushed weak Sharif into disastrous war with India

 

  • Kargil war (May-July 1999) was a milestone in the history of India-Pakistan relations
     
  • Both countries have successfully conducted nuclear tests in late 1990s
     
  • Musharraf believed that a state of war with India was “eternal” 
2018-07-10 
It was 19 years ago, on July 26, 1999, that the two-month long Pakistan-India war over Kargil in Kashmir ended, after claiming the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of soldiers on both sides. 
In many ways, the Kargil war (May-July 1999) was a milestone in the history of India-Pakistan relations. It was the first war in which the two countries faced each other as nuclear powers, both having successfully conducted nuclear tests in the late 1990s setting off alarm bells in the US, the world’s only superpower at that time.   
But most importantly, the war resulted in cataclysmic political changes in Pakistan from which it took almost a decade to recover.   
After the war ended in the complete withdrawal of Pakistani forces from Indian territory, the civilian Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif sacked Army Chief Gen. Pervez Musharraf. But Musharraf in turn sacked Sharif and ushered in era of direct and indirect military rule which could be thrown off only in 2008 by a long and hard peoples’ struggle.   
The war alienated the US so much that President Bill Clinton told Sharif that if he did not withdraw his troops from Indian territory, the US would begin to openly support India on the Kashmir issue. According to The Clinton Tapes, A President’s Secret Diary by Taylor Branch, Sharif told Clinton that if he ordered withdrawal, Musharraf would overthrow him. But  Clinton told him bluntly that it was Sharif’s problem not his.   
For Sharif, the choice was between the devil (a full scale disastrous war with India) and the deep sea (being overthrown and imprisoned for treason by Musharraf).   
Musharraf’s unilateral action 
Army Chief Musharraf,who believed that a state of war with India was “eternal” had secretly launched the Kargil operations without informing PM Sharif and the cabinet. He had decided to fight the war with the army’s own financial resources.   
Musharraf’s strategy was: occupy posts in the mountains of Kargil overlooking a key road linking Indian Kashmir’s capital Srinagar with Leh in Ladakh; send Jehadi insurgents into Ladakh; attack and destroy Indian troops rushing to tackle the insurgency in Ladakh; and lastly provide logistic support to an insurgency in all parts of Kashmir. He believed that the Indians would be unable to oust the Pakistanis from their hill top posts, and would sue for peace to settle the Kashmir question in favour of Pakistan. 
Musharraf did not keep Sharif in the loop because he feared that the Prime Minister would not like to go for a military confrontation with India in view of the February 1999 peace pact with Indian Prime Minister A. B.Vajpayee called the “Lahore Declaration”. 
When Musharraf did tell Sharif about the Kargil operation on May 17, the impression he gave was that pro-freedom insurgents (the Mujahideen) had entered Kashmir to help local Kashmiri separatists to step up their campaign. Sharif later told India Today that he assented to the operation because it was to be conducted only by insurgents with the Pakistani army giving only logistic support without entering India. 
It was Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee who first told him that the attackers were Pakistan’s regular army troops and asked him to pull the troops back, to prevent Indian counter measures. But Sharif could not. 
However, as Nasim Zehra points out in her new book: From Kargil To The Coup: Events That Shook Pakistan’,there were many in the Pakistan Establishment who openly criticized the move or raised doubts about the operation.   
The Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)’ s point man for Afghanistan and Kashmir, Lt. Gen Gulzar told Sharif  told about the limitations of the Mujahideen, and that the Mujahideen were not present in the area of the operation as claimed by Musharaff. Later, Gulzar branded the operation as “a blunder of Himalayan proportions.” 
Likewise, the head of the ISI’s analysis wing, Maj. Gen. Shahid Aziz, later wrote that the operation was an ‘unsound military plan based on invalid assumptions, launched with little preparation, and in total disregard to the regional and international environment.”   
According to Zehra, Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz expressed reservations on two counts: one, that it was in-congruent with the spirit of the Lahore Declaration, and, two, that the US would not support the operation.Sharif’s Minister for Kashmir and Northern Areas, Majeed Malik, a former General, asked how supplies would reach the troops under “adverse weather conditions and in a hostile environment.”  
Malik further asked: “What if the Indians do not remove their troops from the valley and instead induct air power in the conflict theatre?” The Air Force and the Navy Chiefs complained that they had not been consulted. 
Defence Secretary, Lt.Gen (Rtd) Iftikhar Ali Khan, said that operation “would either end in all-out war or a total military disaster for Pakistan.” He pointed that the army should not carry out operations without prior approval from the government   
The Defence Secretary confronted Sharif later and asked him two questions: Did the military leadership get his permission to cross the Line of Control (LoC) which is the border between India and Pakistan in Kashmir? The Prime Minister asked him whether the army had actually crossed the LoC. Khan replied in the affirmative and said that no insurgents were involved.   
Iftikhar’s second question was whether crossing the LoC would mean war with India. Sharif said that war was ruled out as neither side had crossed the LoC. Sharif had swallowed Musharraf’s claim that only insurgents had crossed, hook, line and sinker.   
In another meeting, Defence Secretary warned that escalation would be inevitable as the “Indians would not take it lying down.” A few “paper tigers” had started the Kargil adventure without consulting anyone, he complained.   
Zehra recalls that Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz also complained that his Ministry had no clue about the operation. Malik protested that he was Minister for Kashmir Affairs and he was shocked that he had not been taken into confidence.   
Senior Foreign Office officials in the meeting warned that this operation would be indefensible on global forums. Additional Secretary UN, Riaz Mohammad Khan, categorically stated, “If it comes to the UNSC [UN Security Council], our position will be undercut.The Chinese along with other UNSC members would simply ask Pakistan to respect the LoC and vacate the areas occupied across the LoC in Indian Occupied Kashmir,” he said.   
Musharraf did not keep Sharif in the loop because he feared that the PM would not like to go for a military confrontation with India
Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmad expressed concern regarding the possible expansion of the conflict and told the participants: “I cannot guarantee that India will not attack on the international borders.”   
Ahmad cautioned the army against repeating the miscalculation made prior to the 1965 Operation Gibraltar, when the key military and civilian officials had guaranteed that India would not retaliate across the international border.   
Sharif himself asked no tough questions himself.“He wanted a resolution of the Kashmir issue and appeared convinced that Op KP (the code for the war )would advance that objective,” Zehra comments.   
And Sharif could be an accomplice in Musharraf’s plan.Zehra recalls that in March, a month after the summit with Vajpayee in Lahore, Sharif had approved an ISI-convened meeting to “upgrade the freedom movement in Kashmir.”
The confident Musharraf dispelled these concerns and maintained, “We can defend every inch of our territory.” Discussions bordered on being polemical rather than strategic. One of the generals asserted, “Whatever we may say here, our animosity with India is eternal.”   
After this Sharif asked Musharraf if the army had indeed crossed the LoC and if so if he had taken permission for it.Mushrraf admitted that the army had crossed the LoC and that he ordered it on his own volition. But he offered to withdraw from all captured areas if ordered to do so. Musharraf’s approach worked. Sharif said that the army is part of the government and that its actions must be approved.   
But by the end of June it was clear that the Indians were driving the Pakistani intruders out and that Islamabad ought to seek American help to pull its chestnuts out of the fire. Sharif told India Today that Mushrraf pressed him to go the US and meet President to Clinton to intervene on Pakistan’s behalf. But that meeting too was a disaster.    

India cuts Iranian oil imports in June ahead of U.S. sanctions

Sample bottle of crude oil are seen in this illustration photo June 1, 2017. REUTERS/Thomas White/Illustration/Files

Nidhi VermaSai Sachin Ravikumar-JULY 11, 2018

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Indian refiners cut imports of Iranian oil last month as they started weaning their plants off crude from the country to avoid sanctions by the United States that are set to take effect in November.
India’s monthly oil imports from Iran declined to 592,800 barrels per day (bpd) in June, down 16 percent from May, according to data from industry and shipping sources.

The United States in May said it would reimpose the sanctions after withdrawing from a 2015 agreement with Iran, Russia, China, France, Germany, and Britain, where Tehran agreed to curb its nuclear activities in return for the lifting of earlier sanctions.

The government of India, Iran’s top oil client after China, asked refiners last month to prepare for drastic reductions or even zero Iranian oil imports.

The first set of sanctions will take effect on Aug. 6 and the rest, notably in the petroleum sector, following a 180-day “wind-down period” ending on Nov. 4.

U.S. officials said in June they would push countries to reduce their Iranian oil imports to zero. The Indian refiners will want to comply with the limits to maintain their access to the U.S. financial system.

“Trump administration will push for zero crude, condensate and products exports from Iran,” said Sri Paravaikkarasu, Head of East of Suez Oil at energy consultancy FGE. “The zero tolerance policy and the pace with which it is moving no doubt concerns Iran’s current crude buyers.”

Overall, India’s oil imports in June rose 10.1 percent from a year ago to 4.82 million bpd, the data showed. Overall purchases climbed on a higher intake of crude from Mexico, the United States and Azerbaijan. Imports from other Middle East suppliers also increased.

Lower purchases by private refiners dragged down India’s June imports from Iran although state refiners stepped up purchases.

Sources told Reuters last month that private refiners Nayara Energy and Reliance Industries Ltd plan to halt Iranian oil imports. The two firms significantly cut their imports from Iran in June.
HPCL-Mittal Energy Ltd continued to skip Iran oil imports for a second month in June, the data showed.

State refiners, accounting for about 60 percent of India’s nearly 5 million bpd of refining capacity, lifted 10 percent more Iranian volumes in June compared to May, at about 454,000 bpd, the data from the sources showed. The sources declined to be identified since they are not authorized to speak to the media.

On a yearly basis, India’s imports from Iran were 19.5 percent higher, the data showed.

Indian state refiners had cut Iranian oil imports in the 2017/18 financial year because of a dispute over the development rights for an Iranian natural gas field.

However, the state refiners raised their imports in the current fiscal year starting in April after Iran offered free shipping and an extended credit period of 60 days.

For the first six months of 2018, India’s Iranian oil imports increased by 8.4 percent to 585,000 bpd.
In April to June 2018, the first quarter of this fiscal year, India’s oil imports from Iran rose by about 24 percent from the previous quarter to about 647,000 bpd, the data showed.

Imports by state refiners during the period more than doubled to about 413,400 bpd from 191,700 bpd, the data showed.

Indian refiners will likely gain more clarity on how much the United States would like them to cut after a meeting with U.S. officials scheduled for July 16 to 17, said an official with a state-run refiner who declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter.

Reporting by Nidhi Verma; Editing by Christian Schmollinger

India’s Secularists Have an Authoritarianism Problem

Indians are increasingly forced to choose between Hindu nationalism and egalitarian dictatorship.

Hundreds of thousands of Indian Trinamool Congress Party (TMC) supporters attend a mass meeting addressed by West Bengal chief minister and TMC chief Mamata Banerjee in Kolkata on July 21, 2016. (DIBYANGSHU SARKAR/AFP/Getty Images)

No automatic alt text available.
BY -
JULY 10, 2018, 2:07 PM

BIRBHUM, India — Anubrata Mondal is the undisputed ruler of Birbhum, a poor and rural district of around 3.5 million people in the Indian state of West Bengal, yet he has never run for office. The unelected local party boss of the All India Trinamool Congress, a regional outfit that dominates Bengali politics, Mondal flaunts his arbitrary power. When he visits his party’s local offices, they are arranged like the durbars of Mughal emperors, with a wooden throne for Mondal and little plastic chairs for other functionaries and politicians. Mondal, who is the size of a bear, literally looks down on his inferiors.

West Bengal is India’s fourth most populous state, making Trinamool a significant force in national politics. It rules in the name of an increasingly precious social agenda: supporting India’s minority groups. Since it took power in 2011, Trinamool has condemned the majoritarianism of India’s ruling party, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP); elevated Muslims to positions of leadership; and celebrated symbols of liberal Bengali culture such as the poet Rabindranath Tagore. More substantially, Trinamool has also expanded the number of Muslims in the civil service and higher education.

The moral authority the party might earn from these measures is being undermined, however, by Trinamool’s use of violence and intimidation to retain power. During a month of travel through rural Bengal earlier this year, including two trips to Birbhum, I saw decadence in the ruling party and disaffection in its rural base. The BJP, meanwhile, is effectively spreading its ideology while working to discredit Trinamool.

West Bengal has long been seen as the citadel of India’s tradition of secular politics. If the BJP ultimately takes over the state, many Indians would fairly conclude that Hindu nationalism had become firmly entrenched as the country’s new political consensus.

I met Mondal on May 14, the day of West Bengal’s elections to panchayats, the local councils that govern rural India. He and his fellow party leaders were solemnly facing forward in their appointed spots, with proximity to Mondal signifying each person’s place in the hierarchy. There was none of the commotion normally associated with political parties on the day of the polls. “In my Birbhum,” Mondal said happily, “there is no election.”

This was more than a figure of speech. Across West Bengal, the Trinamool candidates for 34.2 percent of seats had run entirely uncontested. Of the state’s 23 districts, Birbhum was the least democratic. Trinamool reportedly faced no opposition in more than 87 percent of panchayat seats elected from villages and sub-districts. In the districtwide panchayat, the highest level of the body, the ruling party won each of the 42 seats by default. Winning a panchayat vote guarantees prestige and access to development funds, which is coveted in the impoverished Bengali countryside. The elections occur only every five years. That so many people would pass up such a rare and valuable opportunity is almost inconceivable.

Trinamool leaders from all over the state attribute the startling lack of competition to their party’s popularity. “It’s not our duty to field opposition candidates,” Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar, a Trinamool member of parliament, told me before the elections. “They have no organization, and people don’t like them.” As for Birbhum, Mondal gave me the same diagnosis: “I’m telling you a fact: There is so much development that no one wants to run.” Regarding Bolpur, the area where Mondal lives — and where every single seat was uncontested — the party boss said, “The development rate is so high that 100 percent uncontested is too little. It should have become 110 percent.”

In situations less formal than an interview with the foreign press, Mondal has suggested he tampered with the election. “There is a mosquito net in place to prevent mosquitoes from coming in,” he told the Hindustan Times in a discussion of why members of the opposition could not get nominations in Birbhum. During one rally, he said that politicians from other parties could not file election papers because they found “development” was blocking their path on the road — a double entendre referring to both economic growth and the goons who were widely reported to have blocked paths to the administrative offices that candidates were required to visit.

Interviews with local journalists, political activists, and at least two dozen eyewitnesses to violent attacks, some of whom supplied video and photographic evidence, all indicate that West Bengal’s election was rigged by bruisers acting on behalf of the ruling party.

Trinamool’s behavior gives Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister and the most popular figure in the BJP, good reason to claim — and his followers good reason to believe — that “democracy was murdered” in the West Bengal panchayat elections. This is a pattern in Indian politics. India’s pluralist parties — including the Rashtriya Janata Dal, the Samajwadi Party, the Bahujan Samaj Party, and the Indian National Congress — have long faced accusations of thuggery and graft. Voters have responded: These parties are all at a low ebb of power, particularly the Congress, which led the federal government for most of Indian history but is now steadily diminishing under the questionable leadership of Rahul Gandhi, the great-grandson of India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Even though the BJP also faces allegations of financial malfeasance and, as I’ve written elsewhere, undemocratic conduct, it benefits from the lack of a credible opposition. Trinamool’s bogus victory suggests that the BJP’s harshest critics are themselves unfit to govern.

Bengali politics have been tarnishing the reputation of India’s left for decades. The Communist Party of India (Marxist), Trinamool’s predecessor as West Bengal’s ruling party, slowly degenerated from radical grassroots activism into the pursuit of power for its own sake. The coalition the party led, known as the Left Front, became infamous for its “scientific rigging” of elections, which included manipulating voter rolls and threatening the personnel of polling booths. In the 2003 panchayat elections, conducted under the rule of the Communists, 11 percent of seats went uncontested — a shocking figure at the time.

The CPI(M) was gradually undone by the violence its rule entailed. The climactic moment came in 2006 and 2007, when local police and CPI(M) cadres killed at least 14 villagers who were protesting the government’s appropriation of their land for industrial development. Trinamool founder Mamata Banerjee — who remains today a figurehead of the party — went on a hunger strike and led a campaign to highlight injustices committed by the CPI(M).

Banerjee was already a symbol of courage in the face of political violence. In 1990, a CPI(M) supporter repeatedly hit her on the head with an iron rod, inducing a bloody injury to her skull that might have been fatal. Again and again, Banerjee was getting into fights in the street, starving herself, and leaving her home in Kolkata to stay in poor rural villages, all with the stated aim of removing the CPI(M) and ending the debased political culture they had created.

Yet since Trinamool gained power, the party has found itself accused of the very absolutism it once inveighed against. Two years after Trinamool took office, in 2013, the panchayat elections were again nearly 11 percent uncontested, approaching 2003’s worst-ever rate under the CPI(M). In this year’s election, when the veteran leader of the CPI(M) from Birbhum, Ram Chandra Dome, accompanied fellow members of his party to a local administrative office to file nomination papers, he was the one given a grievous head wound by supporters of the ruling party. Bengali papers the next day featured pictures of Dome covered in blood. In an interview with Foreign Policy, Dome named two local Trinamool leaders he saw during the attack whom he accused of being “masterminds.”
Many accuse Trinamool of having co-opted the local enforcers used by the Left Front. In Birbhum, Mondal’s deputy is Abhijit Sinha, who was formerly the deputy of a locally powerful Left Front politician. Sinha told FP that the members of the previous dispensation who had not joined another party were those deemed to be a “spoiled child.”

While candidates tried to file their nominations last month, local news reports were full of horrifying anecdotes. The 7-year-old son of Tumpa Guha Majumdar, a Congress candidate, had a pistol pointed at his head. Many other nominees said they had received death threats from Trinamool supporters demanding they withdraw their candidacies. Violence reached a crescendo during and immediately after the election, when there were at least 30 deaths. The BJP alone said that 52 of its supporters were killed. People died from gunshot wounds, bomb explosions, immolation, and gashes caused by “hacking.”

Interviews with politicians and voters in four sub-districts of Birbhum indicated that, for some, violence is seen as necessary to effectively oppose Trinamool. In at least two sub-districts, armed processions of hundreds of supporters were needed for candidates to file nominations. On a visit to Kadamhir, a village of members of the Santal indigenous tribe, I met Shibu Marandi, a 46-year-old farmer. Marandi showed me his aahpharee, a traditional bamboo bow and arrow. He and his fellow villagers said they’d all brought their weapons to the local administrative office to help the BJP candidates of their choice file nominations. As rudimentary as these weapons look, they appear to make a powerful impression in Birbhum, where bombs and pistols are handmade, few people have expertise in shooting, and the Santal are viewed as exceptional marksmen.

The BJP’s ideologues greatly hope to bring India’s indigenous tribes, which have their own distinctive religious traditions, into the Hindu fold. Marandi and his fellow villagers, for their part, have found in the BJP an amenable political alternative to Trinamool. Birbhum’s Muslims, on the other hand, have nowhere else to go. In Nutan Dihi, a village near Kadamhir, I met a group of eight Muslims who, like most of their coreligionists in West Bengal, once supported the Left Front and then switched to Trinamool. The group quickly grew disenchanted with the new party. “There is huge corruption in the party,” said Khursid Mia, who described himself as a truck driver’s assistant. “Whatever money was there for development of the people or the village was captured by the leaders.”

After protesting these conditions, the eight men said they were threatened. They tried going back to the Communists, but “when we were fleeing, our CPI(M) could not help us out,” said Jiaul Ansari, a farmer and trader. “They didn’t have the money or the manpower.” Fearing for their lives and in need of political support, the Muslims made a surprising decision. “We joined the BJP,” explained Ansari, “because we saw the CPI(M) could not provide us with shelter.” Anyway, he reasoned, “It’s better to join a party that’s gaining power.”

I brought up with the men the story of Mohammed Afrazul, a West Bengali Muslim who was working in Rajasthan, a state ruled by the BJP, when a Hindu fanatic murdered him and filmed the killing, claiming that Afrazul was romantically involved with a Hindu woman. There was an awkward silence. “We felt sad,” said Ansari. “That’s a bad thing, that someone went to be a migrant laborer and was murdered in such a brutal manner.” But he declined to extrapolate: “How can we talk about something that happened so far away?”

Yet the virulent strain of Hindu nationalism that has taken over so much of India is encroaching on West Bengal. The BJP, for example, has held thundering marches there — some, Hindu nationalists say, with at least 600,000 supporters — for Ram Navami, a Hindu festival without much history in Bengal during which some worshippers brandish swords and tridents. “If Ram Navami does lead to polarization, let it be. We will do it,” state BJP President Dilip Ghosh told the Indian press. “Lord Rama carried bow and arrow. So how can his puja [religious ceremony] be done with empty hands?”

Such frightening displays of Hindu militarism provide the best justification for keeping Trinamool in power. Yet it’s a troubling irony that West Bengal’s tradition of high-minded secularism is devolving into an electoral ploy, while crude chauvinism is waging, and winning, the war of ideas.

Angela Merkel hits back at Donald Trump at Nato summit

Germany makes independent decisions, chancellor says in response to claim it is controlled by Russia

 'Germany is totally controlled by Russia': Trump at Nato summit – video

 -

Angela Merkel has pushed back against Donald Trump’s extraordinary tirade against Germany on the first day of the Nato summit in Brussels, denying her country was “totally controlled” by Russia and saying it made its own independent decisions and policies.

In less blunt language than the US president’s, the German chancellor made the point that she needed no lessons in dealing with authoritarian regimes, recalling she had been brought up in East Germany when it had been part of the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence.

Arriving at Nato headquarters only hours after Trump singled out Germany for criticism, Merkel said: “I have experienced myself how a part of Germany was controlled by the Soviet Union. I am very happy that today we are united in freedom, the Federal Republic of Germany. Because of that we can say that we can make our independent policies and make independent decisions. That is very good, especially for people in eastern Germany.”


 Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, and Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg speak at the start of the summit in Brussels. Photograph: Reinhard Krause/Reuters

She also hit back at Trump’s criticism that Germany contributed too little to European defence. “Germany does a lot for Nato,” she said.

“Germany is the second largest provider of troops, the largest part of our military capacity is offered to Nato and until today we have a strong engagement towards Afghanistan. In that we also defend the interests of the United States.”

Earlier the US president had accused Berlin of being a “a captive of the Russians” because of its dependence on energy supplies.

At his first meeting of the summit, with the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, Trump described the relationship between Germany and Russiaas “inappropriate”.


Woman beats a 91-year-old Mexican man with a brick, tells him to ‘go back to your country’

Rodolfo Rodriguez suffered broken ribs and bruises after being struck by a brick on July 4 while taking a walk in Los Angeles. 



The Fourth of July fireworks display was just beginning when Erik Mendoza realized his 91-year-old grandfather was missing. Thinking he might have gone for his daily walk, Mendoza wandered around the Los Angeles neighborhood searching for him.

What he found was a bloodstained sidewalk.

Mendoza told The Washington Post that Rodolfo Rodriguez, a permanent resident of the United States, had been attacked with a brick and taken to the hospital with a broken cheekbone and two broken ribs.


Published on Jul 7, 2018

Misbel Borjas saw the assault as it happened.

Traffic had slowed Borjas’s car at a corner in Willowbrook, Calif., around 7 p.m. on July 4. Rodriguez accidentally bumped into a young girl while walking on the sidewalk, Borjas told The Washington Post. Borjas, a 35-year-old Los Angeles resident, watched the child’s mother — a black woman — push the elderly man to the ground and repeatedly bash him in the face with a concrete brick while yelling, “Go back to your country.”

“I tried to help him, but the lady said, ‘If you come over here I’ll hit your car with the same brick,’ ” recounted Borjas, who had attempted to pull over and rescue Rodriguez.

Instead, Borjas photographed the mother and her child. Then she called 911.


Rodolfo Rodriguez in the hospital after the July 4 attack. The photo was taken by his grandson. (Erik Mendoza)

Minutes later, however, the attack continued, Borjas said. A group of young men bounded down the street, accusing Rodriguez of trying to snatch the young girl. They kicked Rodriguez, who was already crumpled on the ground, and stomped on his head.

“ ‘Why? Why are you hitting me,’ ” Borjas recalled Rodriguez crying in Spanish. “ ‘Please get away.’ ”
Once the men fled, Borjas exited her car and waited with Rodriguez for the ambulance to arrive.
“It was terrible, terrible, terrible,” she said. “There was a lot of blood on his head and face. He looked like his mouth and teeth were broken.”

Meanwhile, around 8:30 p.m., Mendoza and his family had gathered outside to watch the Independence Day fireworks, but Rodriguez was nowhere to be seen.

Mendoza didn’t learn what had happened to Rodriguez until later that evening.

“I was in shock that someone would hurt my grandfather,” he said. “What kind of harm can he mean to anyone? He’s 91.”

Rodolfo Rodríguez, his wife, Hermelinda Rodriguez Fernandez, and grandson, Erik Mendoza, at his 91st birthday party in September 2017. (Aurelia Rodriguez)

Rodriguez’s attack comes after the Department of Justice released its recent hate crime statistics, reported by KCRA. The 2017 California report, which was the first published since President Trump took office, evinced an uptick of more than 17 percent, with anti-Hispanic and anti-Latino crimes soaring over 50 percent last year, according to the Sacramento Bee.
Rodriguez was released from the hospital on Thursday. The family set up a GoFundMe campaign for his medical costs.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is investigating the incident. Sheriff’s Det. Carlos Cueva said no one had been apprehended as of Monday evening.