Trump’s latest rage-tweets about Mueller and border wall reveal GOP weakness

Michael Cohen flipping? Opinion writer Jennifer Rubin says the Mueller investigation is looking more and more like a mafia case. (Gillian Brockell, Kate Woodsome/The Washington Post)

THE MORNING PLUM:

By Greg SargentJuly 30 at 10:07 AM

Over the weekend, President Trump escalated his rage-tweets about special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, threatened a government shutdown to get his great wall on the southern border, and blasted the news media for selling out the country, while basically shrugging at the idea that egging on his supporters’ hatred of the press might be placing independent journalists in greater danger. It’s a reminder that Trump’s authoritarianism and bigotry will be front and center in this fall’s midterm elections.

An important new analysis of the House map by Nate Cohn of the New York Times may help explain Trump’s escalations on all those fronts — or if not, it certainly provides crucial context for understanding how those escalations might shape the battle for control of the lower chamber.

Cohn’s central finding is that the House map is turning out to be a lot broader than we expected. The districts that are in play aren’t merely suburban ones in which Hillary Clinton did well in 2016; they also include many working-class and rural districts that voted for Trump. Cohn analyzed the 60 GOP-held House seats that are rated competitively (Lean Republican, Toss Up, and Lean/Likely Democratic) by the Cook Political Report. Here are the key conclusions about the aggregate electorate in those districts:

• The electorate in those 60 districts is 78 percent white, whereas the United States is 70 percent white overall.
• The electorate in those 60 districts is 65 percent suburban, whereas the United States overall is 55 percent suburban.
• The electorate in those 60 districts boasts about 31 percent college graduates, whereas the United States overall is 28 percent college graduates.
• Forty-nine percent of the electorate in those 60 districts voted for Trump in 2016, while 46 percent voted for Hillary Clinton. (Nationally, of course, Clinton actually won the popular vote by over two points.)

In short, the House battleground is only a bit more suburban and educated than the United States overall, and crucially, it’s whiter and more pro-Trump. The data is complicated by the need to use different voter pools to break out different demographic categories, but that’s the overall picture. The bottom line: The fact that this electorate shows Democrats with so many pickup opportunities suggests, as Cohn says, both that Democrats have recruited strong candidates in tough areas and that the national political environment may be “more favorable to Democrats than the generic ballot polls imply.” What’s more, Cohn notes that in special elections, Democratic candidates have already been running further ahead of Clinton in Trump districts than in Clinton-friendly ones.

In that context, Republican hopes of holding the House may turn on energizing core supporters and Trump voters.  If the map were narrower, and largely focused on suburban pro-Clinton districts, Republicans might have a better shot running on the GOP tax cut and the good economy, which could win back more affluent, better-educated, GOP-leaning whites who might be willing to overlook Trump’s ongoing lunacy on that basis.

But Republican incumbents are campaigning much less than expected on the tax cut, and the broader map may help explain why: Working-class whites (and, of course, minorities) are not the tax cut’s beneficiaries. Indeed, a new Politico analysis finds that some of the “biggest winners” from the tax cut are “corporate executives who have reaped gains as their companies buy back a record amount of stock, a practice that rewards shareholders by boosting the value of existing shares,” even as it is producing “less clear long-term benefits for workers.” Not exactly a potent message in fabled Trump country.

Enter Trump’s weekend rage-tweets. Trump went further than ever before in casting Mueller as corrupt (blasting unspecified “conflicts of interest“) and his investigation as illegitimate (an “illegal Scam“). Trump claimed he is “willing” to shut down the government if Democrats don’t support his wall. After New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger privately informed Trump that his anti-press rhetoric could lead to more violence against journalists, Trump only escalated his assaults on the media, claiming its “anti-Trump haters” are selling out the country.

It is not clear whether Trump deliberately intends these escalations to juice the base in advance of the midterms. But some Republican candidates have already been embracing Trump’s race-baiting immigration rhetoric and policies. And as the Mueller probe advances — and the news media fills in new details about possible Trump obstruction and collusion — Trump’s public rage will intensify, and GOP candidates will likely amplify his attacks on the investigation and on the press, to keep pro-Trump voters sufficiently energized behind them, an imperative on this broadening House map.

Trump’s latest rage-tweets, then, signal that an election that Republicans hoped would be about how their awesome tax cuts are supercharging the Trump economy may end up being shaped to no small degree by Trump’s bigoted and authoritarian appeals.

* REPUBLICANS AREN’T CAMPAIGNING ON TAX CUT: The New York Times reports that in races across the country, Republicans are saying little about the Trump/GOP tax cut. But guess who is talking about it:

Democrats are weaponizing the tax law — which is mired in only middling popularity — against Republican opponents in some key races. Their critiques have been fed by government statistics showing that wages for typical American workers have not risen over the past year, after adjusting for inflation, even though Republicans promised the tax cuts would unleash rapid wage growth.

Remember how the tax cut was supposed to juice the GOP base?

* DEM CANDIDATES EMBRACE GUN CONTROL: A Reuters analysis finds that Democratic candidates are embracing gun regulations in far greater numbers than in the past:

Thirty-eight of the 59 Democrats backed by the party’s “Red-to-Blue” campaign — targeting vulnerable Republican districts — have supported gun restrictions in their official platforms, a review of campaign websites shows. … Nearly all the Democrats in the three dozen most competitive races for the U.S. House of Representatives wrote multiple social media posts touting their support for anti-gun legislation.

A lot of this has to do with the high-visibility organizing of the Parkland kids, but some of it surely represents an outlet for the energy of the anti-Trump backlash.

* HOW DEMS HOPE TO DEFEAT KAVANAUGH: Politico reports that Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) is urging red-state Democrats to remain noncommittal on Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh for as long as possible:

Schumer’s strategy starts like this: Hold his caucus in line and force Republicans to cough up 50 votes on their own. While his red-state members stall in the face of attacks from their GOP challengers, Schumer hopes to place massive pressure on moderate Republicans by raising damaging questions about Kavanaugh’s views on abortion, health care and presidential power.

The targets of this strategy, of course, are Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska). Meanwhile, Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) meets with Kavanaugh Monday, which looms as a key test of Dem stalling power.

* GENDER GAP WIDENS BETWEEN PARTIES: The Wall Street Journal looks at all the House primaries this cycle with at least one woman and one man running, and finds:

66% of Democratic women have so far won their races, or 70 out of 106 contests, according to the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. By contrast, only 38% of GOP women have won open primaries this year, or 11 out of 29 races.

Also, female lawmakers already make up a third of House Dems, while white men constitute almost 87 percent of the House GOP. Thanks to Trump, these trends are only likely to grow more marked.

* BANNON AND THE KOCHS ARE AT WAR: The Koch brothers’ retreat was marked by widespread criticism of Trump’s trade war. Politico reports that Stephen K. Bannon is none too pleased with the Kochs, insisting that supporting Trump’s full agenda is the only way for Republicans to win this fall. As Bannon put it: “What they have to do is shut up and get with the program, okay?”

Memo to Bannon: If Trump’s trade war is good politically for Republicans, they don’t appear to be aware of this, as many of them are distancing themselves from it as fast as they can.

* INCREASING TIES BETWEEN RUSSIA AND U.S. RIGHT WING: E.J. Dionne Jr. has a nice op-ed looking at the increasing affinity between the American right and Vladimir Putin’s Russia:

Putin’s Russia is creating a new Reactionary International built around nationalism, a critique of modernity and a disdain for liberal democracy. … The deepening ties … should give pause to all conservatives whose first commitment is to democratic life. The willingness of traditionalists and gun fanatics to cultivate ties with a Russian dictator speaks of a profound alienation among many on the right from core Western values — the very values that most conservatives extol.

And as Dionne notes, to the degree that conservative Republicans allow Trump to undermine the Mueller probe, that will also help Putin.

* AND RUDY CLAIMS MUELLER IS ‘BLUFFING’: Axios’s Jonathan Swan reports the latest from Trump’s lawyer [sic] Rudy Giuliani:

Giuliani told me that President Trump is fed up with Robert Mueller and wants him to “put up or shut up.”

What he’s saying: “Why don’t you write a report and show us what you have, because they don’t have a goddamn thing. It’s like a guy playing poker. He’s bluffing and he’s only got a pair of twos.”

Maybe Giuliani slept through all the indictments and plea deals Mueller has already rolled out? Somebody is bluffing here, but it isn’t Mueller.

Julian Assange and the betrayal of Latin America’s “left”

Assange was granted asylum by the previous Ecuadorian government of President Rafael Correa in 2012 because of the clear evidence that he faced political persecution for exposing crimes.

by Bill Van Auken-Jul 29, 2018

( July 29, 2018, Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian) Lenín Moreno, the president of Ecuador, made it clear on Friday that his government is actively negotiating the handover of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the British authorities, whose police are waiting outside the Ecuadorian embassy to grab him the moment he sets foot on the London sidewalk.

If he were to fall into the clutches of the British authorities, he would be subjected to lengthy imprisonment pending extradition to the US, where he could face life imprisonment or even the death penalty on espionage and conspiracy charges.

Moreno, who is conducting a European tour seeking to ingratiate himself and his government with the major imperialist powers, went out of his way on Friday to vilify Assange.

“I’ve never agreed with the activity Mr. Assange performs,” Moreno said. “I’ve never agreed with the intervention in people’s emails to obtain information despite how valuable it is to shed light on some undesirable acts by governments and people… There are correct and legal ways to it.”

Previously, Moreno called Assange a “hacker,” an “inherited problem” and a “stone in our shoe.”

There is no evidence whatsoever that Assange or WikiLeaks hacked into anyone’s emails or violated any law, for that matter. Assange has carried out invaluable work as a courageous and resourceful journalist, making available to the people of the world information kept secret from them about imperialist war crimes, mass surveillance and anti-democratic machinations and conspiracies carried out by Washington and other governments and transnational corporations.

Assange was granted asylum by the previous Ecuadorian government of President Rafael Correa in 2012 because of the clear evidence that he faced political persecution for exposing these crimes.

Announcing Quito’s decision to grant Assange asylum, Ecuador’s foreign affairs minister, Ricardo Patino, had declared that Washington’s retaliation for Assange’s exposures “could endanger his safety, integrity and even his life.” Patino added, “The evidence shows that if Mr. Assange is extradited to the United States, he wouldn’t have a fair trial. It is not at all improbable he could be subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and sentenced to life imprisonment or even capital punishment.”

What has changed since then? Assange has spent the past six years trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy. The Trump administration has only made US intentions more explicit, with former CIA Director and current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declaring WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,” and proclaiming that its reporting is not protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has insisted that bringing Assange to the US in chains to face a rigged prosecution is a “priority” for the US Justice Department.

In his statement on Friday, Ecuadorian President Moreno said: “The only thing we want is a guarantee that his life will not be in danger. We have spoken to, and, of course, we are dealing with this with Mr. Assange’s legal team and with the British government.”

It would appear that the only condition being laid down by the Ecuadorian government in return for withdrawing Assange’s asylum and handing him over to his persecutors is a worthless promise from the British and US authorities that Assange will not be executed. The other threats to Assange cited by the Ecuadorian authorities in 2012, including “cruel and degrading treatment” and “life imprisonment,” are apparently now acceptable.

In addition to his talks with the British government, Moreno has visited Spain, signing a security agreement with the right-wing Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) minority government led by Pedro Sánchez, while guaranteeing Spanish capitalists unfettered access to Ecuador’s markets, resources and cheap labor.

It was reportedly Spain’s protests over Assange’s condemnation of Madrid for the arrest of former Catalonian regional President Carles Puigdemont that led the Moreno government to cut off Assange’s access to the Internet and prevent him from receiving phone calls or visitors, reducing him to a state of incommunicado detention with fewer rights than a prisoner.

What is involved here is a sharp turn to the right, not only by the government of Lenín Moreno, but by all of the governments of Latin America’s so-called Pink Tide and their pseudo-left satellites.

Moreno is the hand-picked successor to former president Rafael Correa, who proclaimed himself a partisan of the “Bolivarian Revolution” of Venezuela’s late Hugo Chávez. While Moreno and Correa have had a bitter falling out, the right-wing policies of rapprochement with imperialism and escalating attacks on the working class were initiated under Correa, whose government was the first to cut off Assange’s Internet access in retaliation for WikiLeaks’ publication of emails exposing the Democratic Party’s rigging of the 2016 primary campaign to assure the victory of Hillary Clinton and defeat of Bernie Sanders.

Meanwhile, other governments identified with the so-called “turn to the left” in Latin America have been thoroughly discredited. Chávez’s successor, Nicolás Maduro, has placed the full burden of Venezuela’s desperate economic crisis onto the backs of the working class, while assuring the wealth and privileges of the country’s oligarchs and military commanders, as well as the debt payments to the international banks.

Nicaragua’s Sandinista President Daniel Ortega has unleashed a bloodbath to crush popular protests against austerity measures, resulting in over 400 deaths. And in Brazil, Lula, the former president of the Workers’ Party (PT), is in jail, while the PT has been thoroughly discredited by its own antidemocratic measures and attacks on workers’ rights, opening the path to the most right-wing government since the military dictatorship and to the openly fascistic candidate Jair Bolsonaro.

The Latin American pseudo-left—dominated by petty-bourgeois nationalism and oriented to the national labor bureaucracies, the pursuit of parliamentary posts and adaptation to identity politics—has largely ignored the attacks on Assange, refusing to lift a finger in his defense and failing to inform Latin American workers of the decisive democratic and social interests that are bound up with his fate.

Typical is the reaction—or, more accurately, lack of reaction—of the main pseudo-left parties in Argentina, the PTS (Partido de los Trabajadores Socialistas) and the PO (Partido Obrero), which, whatever their differences, are united in an unprincipled electoral “Front of the Left and the Workers” (FIT).

The last major article on Assange posted on the PTS’s website, Izquierda Diario, was on April 3, 2017. It proclaimed in its headline: “With the victory of Lenín Moreno, Julian Assange has avoided his expulsion from the Ecuadorian embassy.” Sowing illusions in the right-wing bourgeois politician Moreno and complacency about the dangers posed to Assange, the PTS actually undermined the defense of the WikiLeaks editor.

As for the PO, it has completely ignored the question of Assange, writing nothing about his case for more than five years. This party, oriented toward an alliance with the Peronist union bureaucracy at home and the extreme right-wing forces of Russian Stalinism abroad, exemplifies the reactionary outlook of Latin American petty-bourgeois nationalism, which in the Assange case, as on every other major political question, serves as conduit for imperialist pressure upon the working class.

The task of defending Julian Assange—and more broadly the defense of the social and democratic rights of working people, together with the liberation of Latin America from imperialist oppression, social inequality and poverty—can be achieved only through the political mobilization of the working class independently of all of the supposedly “left” bourgeois parties and the petty-bourgeois pseudo-left groups that support them.

The working class constitutes the only genuine constituency for the defense of democratic rights, which can be secured only as part of the fight to unite workers internationally to put an end to the capitalist system, which threatens humanity with world war and dictatorship.

Latin American workers must join ranks with workers all over the world in coming to the defense of Assange, demanding that the government of Ecuador halt its reactionary bid to rescind his asylum, fighting for his immediate freedom from persecution by US and British authorities and preparing mass protests and strikes against any attempt to arrest or extradite him. ( WSWS)

Enhanced bilateral trade is Imran Khan’s path to peace with India

 Monday, 30 July 2018

Imran Khan after the victory

Imran Khan, leader of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) party, which swept the 25 July Pakistan National Assembly elections, brings to the office of Prime Minister the unusual dynamism and sense of purpose which marked his leadership of the Pakistan cricket team when it bagged the World Cup in 1992.


Occupying the Premiership for the first time in his two-decade-old political career, one marked by street level agitations, Imran brings to the office a fresh and questioning mind, not burdened by ‘administrative experience’, a mind attuned to change rather than continuity.

Like a good cricket captain, Imran has analysed the pitch and drawn a game plan which, if implemented, could fundamentally transform Pakistan, which is currently mired in rampant corruption, wasteful expenditure and lack of concern for the poor.

Imran’s approach to foreign policy appears to be fundamentally different from that of most of his predecessors. He plans to base his relations with key countries like the US and India on the basis of engagement and cooperation aimed at mutual gain and not on confrontation or bellicosity.

Wracked by Islamic terrorism and tension with neighbours India and Afghanistan, Pakistan needs peace to pursue its well-being.  “No other country needs peace more than Pakistan,” Imran said in his maiden post-election TV address on Thursday.

Olive branch to India

In his extempore address, Imran held out an olive branch to arch rival India. Avoiding generalities and platitudes, he declared that he would pitch for enhanced trade with India on the grounds that trade promotes people-to-people contacts, which in turn will help remove misconceptions and prejudices which plague political relations.

Imran is clearly aware of the enormous potential of Indo-Pakistan bilateral trade. It now stands at $ 2.6 billion annually, but can grow to $ 19.8 billion. Some even say that it could go up to $ 40 billion if the obsession over security is removed from both the governments. Some analysts say that imports of India’s machinery, machine parts, electronic appliances and chemicals by Pakistan are keeping these sectors buoyant in India. Thus, India has much to gain by the enhancement of bilateral trade with Pakistan.

The bright spot is that both Indian and Pakistani traders are keen on trading with each other. Today, a great deal of the $ 2 billion worth of goods is route through third countries like the UAE. But, this is senseless because costs are raised and both countries are denied customs revenue.

On Kashmir   

On the seemingly intractable issue of Kashmir, too, Imran has constructive ideas. Kashmir remains the ‘core issue’ between Pakistan and India, he said. But, at the same time, he suggested to India a way to disentangle itself from the mess that it is in with the disputed State. He appealed to New Delhi to end the agony of the civilians in Kashmir, and suggested that the army not be used to quell agitations in urban areas. “Deployment of the army in urban areas invariably leads to violations of human rights,” Imran said. Asking India to settle the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan through dialogue, Imran made a sporting offer.

“If India takes one step forward, Pakistan will take two,” he said.

Sharif’s India policy lauded

An early indication of Imran’s interest in making peace with India came in an interview to Dawn newspaper early in July in which Imran praised former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for trying to make up with India through the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. “Nawaz Sharif tried his best to mend relations with India. I will give him the credit. Nawaz Sharif tried everything, even personal gestures like calling Modi over to his house. No one got in his way. But, I think it is the policy of the Narendra Modi Government to try and isolate Pakistan. They have a very aggressive anti-Pakistan posture because Modi wants to blame Pakistan for all the barbarism they are doing in Kashmir. What can one do in the face of this attitude?” Imran asked in anguish. Imran wants the “blame game” indulged in by both India and Pakistan, to stop, and solutions to problems found through a genuine assessment of the underlying issues.

“India blames Pakistan for all the violence in Kashmir while we Pakistanis blame India for the violence in Balochistan. This blame game leads us nowhere, and must stop,” he said.

Learning from China

As a leader of a poor country, Imran openly acknowledges the need to learn from other countries which have pulled themselves out of poverty and backwardness. Referring to China in this context, Imran said that he would not only welcome investments from China, but also learn how that country had lifted 700 million people out of poverty in thirty years. “My Government will send a team to China to learn how they did it,” Imran said.

Pakistan has been having a very uneasy relationship with the US, with Pakistan accusing the US of using it for its geo-political purpose and throwing it out when the need is over. Imran now plans to engage the US to replace the present “one-sided relationship” by one which is “balanced” and in which the US is not the “only gainer”. 

Domestic issues

In regards to his plan for the people of Pakistan, Imran said that he would concentrate on improving the quality of life of all Pakistanis, especially the poor, workers, farmers, women and the minorities. He would encourage domestic and foreign investment to generate wealth and employment. He would revamp institutions to rid them of corruption and dysfunctions.

 “The poor struggle hard but get little in return. We will see to it that they are enabled to make money and feed their children. As for the minorities, they have issues with some laws,” Imran said, apparently referring to the draconian Blasphemy Law which carries the death penalty even for minor offenses. 

Systemic change

Since corruption in the public sphere has been his main political plank since 1996 and has been the main issue in this year’s elections, Imran promised to fight it in a unique way.

In his view, corruption thrives when institutions become “dysfunctional”. Realising that simply jailing the corrupt would not get rid of corruption, Imran committed himself to reforming institutions to make them function as they should.

And realising the importance of the leaders setting an example for the rest of the country, Imran said that he would not be using the tax payers’ money to lead a luxurious life. He said he would not let elected leaders to live off the peoples’ taxes. He would not stay in the palatial house allotted to the Prime Minister but move into a more modest house. Governors’ houses in the provinces will be turned into public institutions or hotels to make money which would be ploughed into people-oriented development schemes. Promising to set up an administration which will have the welfare of the poor as its main consideration, Imran said that social justice is the crying need of the hour given the dismal state of human development in the country. In 2017, Pakistan ranked 147th in the UNDP Human Development Index, which was 12 ranks lower than in 2000. Pakistan currently scores much lower on human development than Kenya, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Cambodia, Ghana, Zambia and many others with lower per capita income. Pakistan shows 42% lower health spending per capita, less public health spending by 1.6% of GDP and 27 more infant deaths per thousand than similar countries. It has 11% higher babies born with low birth weight, 19 excess child deaths per thousand, and 23% less share of population with access to sanitation. In literacy, Pakistan ranks 144 out of 160 countries with a rate of 56.7 %.  Over 40% of Pakistani adults are illiterate, which is about 24% more than what is normal for a country of its income level. 25 million kids are not going to school, Imran said.

Macro-economic issues

The macro-economic situation is worrying, Imran said, and mentioned the areas which need urgent attention. The Pakistani rupee had slipped from PKR 105 to a dollar to PKR 122 in 11 months. Devaluation reflects the depletion of foreign currency reserves.  The current account deficit stands at over $ 14 billion against the full-year target of $ 8.9 billion. Pakistan may have to go for another IMF bailout.Unaccompanied by structural reforms, devaluation has only increased the import bill which  has pushed inflation, raised the cost of credit, widened trade gap, slowed down growth and forced more external borrowings. The trade gap has widened to $ 33 billion, against the original full-year target of $ 25.7 billion.  Foreign currency reserves have gone down on account of external debt servicing.

At long last: Prime Minister Imran Khan 

Rajan Philips-July 28, 2018, 6:05 pm

Winning the World Cup in cricketwas a much easier task for Imran Khan. That was in 1992, in Melbourne, Australia. He was 40 years old then, took on Pakistan’s captaincy on his terms for team selection, and played a captain’s role as an all-rounder throughout the tournament and most memorably in the final against England. Along with Richard Hadlee (New Zealand), Kapil Dev (India) and Ian Botham (England), Imran Khan was one of four in a generation of all-time great cricket all-rounders. In a fast bowling contest during his playing days, Imran Khan was ranked the third fastest bowler after two fast balling greats: Australia’s Jeff Thomson and West Indian Michael Holding.

Four years after the Melbourne World Cup, Imran Khan entered politics in Pakistan, launching a new party - Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI – Pakistan Party for Justice), and vowing to rid Pakistan of corruption. His and his Party’s first electoral test came one year later, in 1997. It was a rout. Imran Khan called his then wife, Jemima Goldsmith, on the phone and said, "It’s a clean sweep". After a pause, as she gasped, he added, "the other way," and roared with laughter. That was the sportsman’s sense of humour and the ability to treat "triumph and defeat … just the same." In the 21 years that followed, Imran Khan showed his true mettle. As Ms. Goldsmith tweeted in congratulation after Imran Khan’s impressive electoral victory last week, "It’s an incredible lesson in tenacity, belief and refusal to accept defeat." Genuinely proud to see her son’s father at long last become Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Ms. Goldsmith added, "The challenge now is to remember why he entered politics in the first place." Indeed!

The reactions to Khan’s victory have been wide and varied within Pakistan and outside. There is euphoria among his party supporters, especially among the Pakistani youth, called ‘youthias’ in Pakistan, a country of 212 million people with 30% under the age 10 and 65% under 30 years of age. The two mainstream parties, Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), which have exchanged power between them for the last 30 years have called the 2018 elections the worst rigged election in history. Khan also has been accused of being the favoured ‘Prime Minister’ of the Pakistani military and civilian establishments. In India, sections of the media have called him a "Bollywood villain", and resurrected the old insult of him as "Taliban Khan." An American commentator has opined that "the next Prime-Minister of nuclear-armed Pakistan really hates the US."

There is some truth in all of this although the characterization in India of Imran Khan as a "Bollywood villain’ might be more reflective of those close to the Modi government than the mainstream media and commentators generally in India. It is also true, however, that all past elections in Pakistan have been rigged and it has been a job requirement for every previous Pakistani Prime Minister to be in the good books of the military. Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Muslim League (PML-N), who has been the longest serving Prime Minister since independence, owes his first induction in office, in 1990, to the military’s intervention and the removal of Benazir Bhutto who had been elected Prime Minister only two years earlier. Sharif ran foul of the military and was removed by General Musharraf in a military coup in 1999. He returned as PM after winning the general election in 2013 but was not able to complete his term ending in 2018. In July 2017, the Supreme Court disqualified Sharif to hold public office for life, over an offshore investments scandal that came to light with the leaking of the Panama Papers. He and his daughter are also serving prison sentences now. Nawaz Sharif’s younger brother, Shehbaz Sharif, stepped in place of his brother as the leader of the PML-N and presided over the party’s defeat last week.

The disqualification and imprisonment of Sharif was seen by some Pakistani observers as the result of the military and the judiciary colluding to get rid of Sharif. The same observers have been calling the 2018 elections as a setup for Imran Khan’s victory. But that does not explain or do justice to the nearly 55 million voters who turned out to vote just as they had done in 2013 under similar circumstances. That was the first time when Pakistan experienced a civilian succession of power - from the Bhutto’s People’s Party led by Benazir Bhutto’s widower, Asif Ali Zardari, to Sharif’s Muslim League. Last week’s election makes it the second time Pakistan has experienced electoral succession. When the courts ruled against him, Nawaz Sharif left Pakistan to his safe house in Saudi Arabia and returned during the elections expecting to create a massive sympathy wave among the voters in favour of his party. There was no wave at all, not even in Punjab that has been the Sharif brothers’ and the PML-N’s main electoral bastion. Imran Khan’s PTI did very well even in Punjab. Overall, the contest was not even close to call PTI’s success a rigged victory.

Imran Khan has dismissed allegations of large scale vote rigging and has called this year’s election as the "fairest" in Pakistan’s history. But he has agreed to assist anyone wanting to investigate specific instances of fraud or irregularities. Mr. Khan knows that it was he who set the precedent for protesting against election rigging and rejecting election results as he did with his Azadi march against the 2013 elections. This time, the defeated PML-N has declared that despite its misgivings the party will not challenge the overall results and will accept the outcome of the elections for the sake of democracy. That clears the way for Imran Khan to become Pakistan’s Prime Minister at long last.

Imran Khan’s victory and its challenges

Khan’s and the PTI’s victory has exceeded expectations. Based on the results released at the time of writing, PTI has won 115 of the elected total of 272 seats in the National Assembly. (The National Assembly has a total of 342 members, with 70 more members added proportionately to the elected seats won by each party to give representation to women (60) and minority groups (10)). The ruling PML-N managed only 64 seats, the PPP 43 seats, the smaller parties 32 seats and independents 13 seats. Although short of the 137 majority of elected representatives, the PTI can easily form a coalition with any of the smaller parties or independents without having to get into horse-trading with PML-N or PPP.

The PTI’s victory is even more impressive because of its national reach and good performances in each of the four Provinces of Punjab (141 seats), Sindh (61), Khyber Pakkhtunkhwa (39), Baluchistan (16). (The remaining 15 seats are distributed between the Islamabad Capital Territory (3) and Federally Administered Areas (12)). The PML-N has always been a Punjabi party and Punjab alone, with 141 seats, can elect a majority government for the country. The PPP of the Bhuttos has been Pakistan’s only national party, but it is now reduced to a rural force in the Province of Sindh, the home of the Bhuttos. Now, Imran Khan’s PTI has taken over the mantle of being a national party.

For all its political predicaments, Pakistan has got its electoral organization right. Elections are held simultaneously for the National and the Provincial Assemblies, rather than holding them selectively and separately as is done in Sri Lanka. Imran Khan’s PTI did well in the Provincial elections also and is poised to form provincial governments in Punjab and Khyber Pakkhtunkhwa (formerly North-West Territories). PTI will be the leading opposition party in the other two provinces.

In his first public address from his home after the elections, Imran Khan attempted to answer the criticisms levelled at him in Pakistan and elsewhere. He clarified why he entered politics in the first place. "Politics could not have given me anything", he said. "I wanted Pakistan to become the country that my leader Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah had dreamed of." He envisioned a state that would be like the "state that was established in Madina, where widows and the poor were taken care of." "Today our state is in shambles. [But] all our policies aim to help the less fortunate prosper" the Prime Minister elect added."Farmers are not paid for their hard work, 25 million children are out of school, our women continue to die in childbirth because we can't give them basic healthcare, we can't give the people clean drinking water. A country is not recognized by the lifestyle of the rich, but by the lifestyle of the poor. No country that has an island of rich people and a sea of poor people can prosper."

He claimed that he had "suffered the worst kind of personal attacks" unlike any other political leader in Pakistan. But "this is all behind me now", he assured as he embarks on building the Naya (a new) Pakistan of his campaign promise. His stated priorities at home are about governing for the benefit of ordinary citizens; much better managing of government finances; strengthening institutions and institutionalizing accountability; emphasizing youth employment and supporting farmers and businesses; investing in development. As Prime Minister, Imran Khan will have to lead the country through formidable economic challenges including a significant balance of payment crisis and high unemployment while navigating between meeting the demands of the IMF and expanding the economic ties with China.

Externally, Imran Khan has indicated that he looks forward to reconfiguring Pakistan’s ties with China, Afghanistan, Iran, US and India. There is some curiosity about how Imran Khan will engage with Donald Trump given the latter’s offensive attitude towards Pakistan. Some critics have compared Imran Khan to Donald Trump, because the two men appear to be putting each one’s country first. In reality, there is a difference between Trump’s ‘America First’ boast, and Imran Khan standing up for his country that is beleaguered by external forces beyond its control. It is true that Imran Khan’s predecessors and Pakistan’s military establishment have been wholly complicit in dragging Pakistan into the current regional and religious imbroglio. But it will be impossible for any Pakistani government to go to war with a section of its own people to fight international terrorism the way America wants it done. Equally, it will be impossible for any Pakistani Prime Minister to order the army into subordination just because he has won an election.

Imran Khan’s answer to dealing with the military establishment is "good governance." In his view, when democratic governments perform and deliver there will be no occasion for military intervention. In Pakistan, he said, "we have had military influence on politics because we have had the worst political governments. I am not saying it is justified but where there is a vacuum something will fill it." He went to add that "under crooked and corrupt governments, people welcome the military with open arms. In 1999 when Musharraf’s martial law was declared, people were celebrating in Lahore – Nawaz’s political centre!"He cited the premiership of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as an instance of prime-ministerial strength in Pakistan when a civilian Prime Minister was "totally in charge of the country’s affairs" including the military. This may have been true in the first half of the late Mr. Bhutto’s premiership, but not in the second half - when he became unpopular, was overthrown by a military coup, was put on trial on framed up charges and was eventually hanged under orders from the then military dictator Zia-ul-Haq.

On engaging with Pakistan’s militant groups, the Prime Minister elect, remains insistent on a dual policy approach: "one is dialogue and the other is military action. I have been labeled ‘Taliban Khan’ just because I did not agree with this one-dimensional policy that Pakistan implemented under American pressure." He considers the war in Afghanistan as a classic example of how military solutions alone do not work: "The US has been there for 15 years with a military option but has failed. If there is consensus among the American and Afghan governments and allies that they want unconditional peace talks with Taliban, it means the military option has failed."

Apart from his Oxford PPE, cricketing genius, genuine popularity, capacity for teamwork and leadership abilities, Imran Khan also differs from his prime-ministerial predecessors, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, in other important respects. He is a Pashtun, born and raised in Lahore in Punjab, who went to Oxford and London to study and play. Nonetheless, Imran Khan has been able to transform himself from being an upper class sports celebrity in England into a political mass figure in Pakistan. More by circumstances than choice, Imran Khan has been, until now, involved in the politics of agitation rather than the politics of governance. For 20 years, he has grounded his agitation in the terrain of Pakistan instead of seeking safe houses in the West, like Benazir Bhutto, or in Saudi Arabia, like Nawaz Sharif. Rather than cultivating political sponsors outside, Imran Khan has relied on resources within the country, which invariably included interactions with the army and the militants and the espousal of controversially conservative social and religious practices. These differences in attributes and experiences make Imran Khan a different prospect for Pakistan than Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif. No one can predict how he will fare on the sticky wicket of governing Pakistan after acquitting himself well on the firmer pitches of political agitation. All the same, Imran Khan is the country’s new hope for a new Pakistan.

Zimbabwe election: long queues to vote in first post-Mugabe poll

Voters choose between current president Mnangagwa and opposition leader Chamisa

Mugabe votes in first Zimbabwe election without him on ballot – video

Jason Burke in Harare-Mon 30 Jul 2018 17.53 BST

Millions of people have voted peacefully in Zimbabwe’s first election since the removal of Robert Mugabe, with the result determining the former British colony’s future for decades.

Turnout on Monday appeared extremely high, with long lines of voters forming outside polling stations across the country when they opened at 7am (0600 BST).

By early afternoon, polling officials in the capital, Harare, and surrounding towns were reporting that between 75% and 85% of registered voters had cast their ballots. Full results are not due until much later in the week, and possibly as late as the weekend.

Speaking as he queued at a primary school on the outskirts of Harare – an opposition stronghold – Tinashe Musuwo, 20, said: “I am very optimistic this morning. Things will get better now.”

The two main candidates could not be more different: the president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, 75, was a longtime Mugabe aide and is head of the ruling Zanu-PF party.

Nelson Chamisa, 40, who leads the main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), is a lawyer and pastor whose only experience of power was a stint as a minister in a coalition government several years ago.

The two represent dramatically different ideologies and political styles, as well as generations. Mnangagwa offers continuity; Chamisa a radical rupture.

Nelson Chamisa of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change attends a church service in Harare. Photograph: Jerome Delay/AP

Addressing reporters as he voted on the outskirts of Harare, Chamisa said: “This is a great moment for Zimbabwe. The people have spoken. I know we are winning. I know we have won.”

The MDC leader later claimed there was an attempt to “suppress and frustrate” the vote in urban areas where he has strong support through “unnecessary delays”.

International observers offered varying impressions of the election, but they all noted it had been peaceful.

Elmar Brok, the EU’s chief observer, said the voting had been “very smooth” in some cases and “totally disorganised” in others. Other observer missions said they had seen “nothing abnormal and nothing to question the poll’s credibility”.

Nyari Musabeyana, 30, a hairdresser in Kuwadzana, near Harare, said she had got up early to vote for change. “We wish things to be OK in our village. We have no jobs, no cash, no economy. It is the fault of the past government,” Musabeyana said.

Almost four decades of rule by Mugabe has left Zimbabwe with a shattered economy, soaring unemployment and crumbling infrastructure.
An election officer applies indelible ink to a voter’s finger during early morning voting in Kwekwe. Photograph: Jekesai Njikizana/AFP/Getty Images

Polls give Mnangagwa, a dour former spy chief known as “the Crocodile” for his reputation for ruthless cunning, a slim lead over Chamisa, a brilliant if sometimes wayward orator.

Support for Zanu-PF has historically been strongest in rural areas, particularly its Mashonaland heartland, where more than two-thirds of Zimbabwe’s 17 million people live.

Daniel Chiwesengwa, 74, a retired municipal officer who voted at a remote polling station, said: “The story of our country is the story of this party. They have always done a lot for the people. Chamisa is a young guy. This country needs someone mature.”

If no candidate wins more than half the votes, there will be a runoff in five weeks, though analysts believe this scenario is unlikely. Another possibility is negotiations to form some kind of coalition government if the result is very close.

Although the campaign has been free of the systematic violence that marred previous polls, the MDC has repeatedly claimed it has been hindered by a flawed electoral roll, ballot paper malpractice, voter intimidation, bias in the Zimbabwe electoral commission and handouts to voters from the ruling party.

Diplomats in Harare say the “playing field has not been level”.

There are also widespread fears among opposition activists and supporters that the government or the powerful military will refuse to cede power if defeated. This would provoke massive protests, MDC loyalists said.

“If we are robbed, we will go to the streets,” one MDC supporter said.

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the former Liberian president and a leader of one of the observer missions accredited for the first time in Zimbabwe, spoke of “a critical moment in Zimbabwe’s democratic journey”.

Children look through a window above election posters featuring Emmerson Mnangagwa. Photograph: Siphiwe Sibeko/Reuters

“The elections today provide an opportunity to break with the past,” Sirleaf said at a polling station in a school in Harare. “The lines and voter enthusiasm we are seeing … must be matched by an accurate count and their choice must be honoured.”

Zimbabwe’s rulers know that a fraudulent election would block the country’s reintegration into the international community and deny it the huge bailout package needed to avoid economic meltdown.
Mnangagwa has stressed foreign investment and “unity” during campaigning.

On Monday, he urged Zimbabweans to be peaceful, tweeting: “We are one people, with one dream and one destiny. We will sink or swim together.”

For the first time since Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980 after a brutal guerrilla war against a white supremacist regime, Mugabe is not on the ballot paper. In an astonishing intervention on Sunday, the former president said he would not vote for his former party, Zanu-PF, or the current president, and endorsed Chamisa.

“I cannot vote for the party or those in power who caused me to be in this condition,” he said.
Almost all voters who spoke to the Guardian in recent days said they were happy with a “free and fair” campaign.

Masiwa Nachipo, 45, an unemployed teacher from Norton, 25 miles from Harare, said: “I am very happy. It is a very important election for me, my kids and the future of generations. We need a big change. We want a fresh start.”

Mexico Can’t Handle Your Tired, Poor, and Huddled Masses

Ever since Donald Trump's election, America's southern neighbor has become a growing destination for migrants—and the country is already buckling under the strain.

 

BY MAYA AVERBUCH-JULY 30, 2018, 12:59 PM

TAPACHULA, Mexico—At midnight, the immigrants outside the gate of the local office of the Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance know that only the first arrivals will get past the security guard in the morning. They prepare to buy gum, cigarettes, or breakfast pupusas—a traditional Salvadoran stuffed dough—from those who have made a business out of serving those waiting. Once they register, they will have weeks before the first interview. In the interim, some bring their children to sleep in the central park, while others make their way to local shelters.

Mexico Can’t Handle Your Tired, Poor, and Huddled Masses.docx by Thavam on Scribd

Autonomy in Southern Philippines tipped to end decades-long conflict

By A. Azim Idris | 30th July 2018

(File) Government soldiers take cover during a firefight with Muslim rebels from the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) in Zamboanga city in southern Philippines September 12, 2013. Source: Reuters

FILIPINO President Rodrigo Duterte announced a new law granting autonomy to minority Muslims in the south last week, moving the restive region a step closer towards self-governance by 2022 in a bid to tackle extremism, end a decades-long separatist conflict, and revitalise the poverty-stricken economy.

Observers have compared the legislation, called the Bangsamoro Organic Law, to the devolved powers granted by Indonesia to its Muslim-majority province of Aceh over a decade ago, according to the South China Morning Post.

Although Mindanao has been granted partial autonomy in 1996, that the agreement did not accord crucial powers to the local government to spur the region’s economy.

However, the new law announced by Duterte looks to provide the Bangsamoro (Moro prople) with its own parliament and guaranteed five percent grant of national internal revenue. More importantly for the citizens in the region, the local government has the right to impose sharia law.

SEE ALSO: Deeper probe sought on killing of 8 tribal members in Mindanao 

The law also allows 75 percent of taxes collected in the area to be kept by the local government but the central government security and policing.

On Sunday, leaders of the Philippines’ mainstream separatist group called on the Muslims to support the new autonomy law in a referendum scheduled to be held later this year.

The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (Milf), which signed a peace deal with the government four years ago, gathered tens of thousands of supporters from all over the southern province of Mindanao to its base to begin a massive campaign for the law’s approval, Reuters reported.

(File) A signage of “I love Marawi” is seen in front of damaged houses, buildings and a mosque inside a war-torn Marawi city, southern Philippines October 26, 2017. Source: Reuters

End to conflict

The new autonomy legislation is also aimed at ending a conflict that has killed more than 120,000 people and displaced two million.

“Our real journey towards self-determination is just starting,” Mohagher Iqbal, the rebel group’s chief negotiator, said, adding there are still challenges ahead that could stop the implementation of the law.

Speaking earlier to thousands of supporters, including women and children, he asked them to vote for the approval of the law expanding the territories covered by the Muslim autonomous area in the south, although he warned of some potential obstacles.

“We still don’t know if there are groups or individuals who will question the new autonomy law before the Supreme Court,” he told a cheering crowd in a speech livestreamed on social media. Supporters chanted “Allahu Akbar” and “Yes to BOL” in the rebel camp in the middle of coconut and banana groves.

The green light is the culmination of a lengthy and rocky peace accord with separatists, during which militants linked to Islamic State have expanded their influence, most notably in their devastating occupation of Marawi City last year.

SEE ALSO: Preventing other ‘Marawis’: Battle for hearts and minds of Philippine Muslims 

Duterte signed the measure into law after a visit to a southern city, his spokesman, Harry Roque, said last week.

Ebrahim Murad, chairman of the Milf said he was confident the law would help bring splinter separatist groups back into the political fold and eliminate prospects of any incidents like Marawi.

The Bangsamoro Organic Law has broad public backing, making it harder for foreign extremists to form alliances and win support, he told reporters.

“All these splinter groups are a result of the frustration with the peace process. The moment the small groups no longer accept the foreign elements, they can no longer come (to the Philippines).”

The Bangsamoro area includes part of the Philippines’ second-largest island of Mindanao, and a chain of dozens of small islands to the west notorious for piracy and banditry.

Additional reporting by Reuters

Hairdressing school gives Syrian refugees in Lebanon dream of independence

Women practice on hair mannequins at a training salon in Bar Elias town, in the Bekaa valley, Lebanon July 25, 2018. Picture taken July 25, 2018. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

Reuters Staff-JULY 30, 2018

BAR ELIAS, Lebanon (Reuters) - As a Syrian refugee in Lebanon, Nour knows life can be tough.
So the 15-year-old leapt at the chance to train as a hairdresser with L’Oreal, hoping one day to open her own salon in whichever country she ends up.

“Sometimes life can knock you down, so you need to be able to stand on your own feet,” she said, keeping water out of the eyes of a training mannequin having its hair washed in a classroom in Lebanon’s Bekaa valley.

Around 20 Syrian and Lebanese girls and women will study hairdressing for six months under the L’Oreal Foundation’s Beauty for a Better Life programme, earning an internationally recognised certificate if they are successful.

“The certificate will support us. We don’t know what could happen to us, especially me. Maybe I won’t be able to continue my education,” said Nour, who grew up in Syria’s Idlib before war forced her out. She declined to give her full name for safety reasons.

Lebanon has the world’s highest share of refugees compared with its population, with around one in four people a refugee.

Syria’s war has killed an estimated half a million people, driven some 5.6 million people out of the country and displaced around 6.6 million within it.

A woman practices on hair mannequins at a training salon in Bar Elias town, in the Bekaa valley, Lebanon July 25, 2018. Picture taken July 25, 2018. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

Many Syrians moved to the Lebanese town of Bar Elias where the training salon is located, just 10 km (6 miles) from the Syrian border, doubling its population and putting pressure on services and squeezing job opportunities.

The United Nations classifies Bar Elias as one of the areas in Lebanon with the most vulnerable refugee and host communities and aid has been directed there to help Syrians and Lebanese.

The salon sits within an all-girls school built by the Kayany Foundation, a Lebanese educational charity.

“The (L’Oreal) academy gives them the chance to be able to take their lives back in their hands and build a better future anywhere in the world, especially if one day they manage to return to Syria,” Nora Jumblatt, head of the Kayany Foundation, told Reuters.

As the Syrian army, backed by Iran and Russia, has recovered more territory, some Lebanese officials have stepped up calls for refugees to return to parts of Syria where violence died down.

However, U.N. officials and foreign donor states to Lebanon have said conditions for returns are not yet right, and many refugees say they are too scared to go home.

But it is difficult for Syrians to find legal, secure work in Lebanon, with many scraping by on aid and low-paid jobs in sectors such as agriculture and construction.

Manal, 30, who lost her husband to Syria’s war and fled to Lebanon with her children, is determined to get her certificate from the beauty academy and do the best for her family.

Slideshow (3 Images)

“I’m not educated and that’s the biggest blow for me ... I can’t work as anything,” she said, using a false name to protect her identity.

Reporting by Lisa Barrington; Editing by Alison Williams