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

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

ICC charges Sanath Jayasuriya in anti-corruption probe


Camelia Nathaniel-Tuesday, October 16, 2018

Sanath Jayasuriya has been charged with two counts of breaching the ICC Anti-Corruption Code, and has been given 14 days from October 15 to respond.

The International Cricket Council (ICC) has charged Sanath Jayasuriya with two counts of breaching the ICC Anti-Corruption Code.

The charges relate to failure or refusal, to cooperate with any investigation carried out by the ACU, including failure to provide any information or documentation requested by the ACU and obstructing or delaying any investigation carried out by the ACU, including concealing, tampering with or destroying any documentation or other information that may be relevant.

According to an ICC statement Jayasuriya, the former Sri Lanka Cricket Chair of Selectors, has been charged with the following offences under the Code:

Article 2.4.6 – Failure or refusal, without compelling justification, to cooperate with any investigation carried out by the ACU, including failure to provide accurately and completely any information and/or documentation requested by the ACU as part of such investigation.

Article 2.4.7 – Obstructing or delaying any investigation that may be carried out by the ACU, including concealing, tampering with or destroying any documentation or other information that may be relevant to that investigation and/or that may be evidence or may lead to the discovery of evidence of corrupt conduct under the Anti-Corruption Code.

Sanath Jayasuriya was the former Chairman of the Sri Lanka Cricket Selection Committee, which resigned in September 2017. He had also served as the Chief Selector on a previous occasion from 2013 to 2015. Some media reports said that the charges against him are pertaining to incidents that took place during his second stint.

The ACU had recently visited Sri Lanka and had briefed President Maithripala Sirisena, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and Sports Minister Faiszer Mustapha about their ongoing investigations into serious allegations of corruption in cricket in the country.

However, Minister Faiszer Mustapha said in Parliament last week that the International Cricket Council (ICC) Anti-Corruption Unit had only cautioned that as the Sri Lankan team consists of all young players, they are more vulnerable to being exposed to match related crimes, but had not mentioned any of the cricketers specifically.

He said the ICC had had not mentioned names of any cricketer in the Sri Lankan cricket squad in its detailed briefing handed over to President Maithripala Sirisena, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and himself on the serious allegations of corruption in cricket in the country.

Meanwhile, when contacted by the Daily News, Sri Lanka Cricket CEO Ashley de Silva said he was unaware of Jayasuriya’s response and said that he too was only aware of the charges leveled by the ACU. 

The Books are here: Where are the authors?

  


2018-10-17

Another chapter of the Colombo International Book Fair has ended, and October, dubbed ‘the month of literature’ (Sahithya Masaya) is already here. The publishers (the big names at any rate) will have reason to congratulate themselves, as well as the caterers, while the crowds will look forward to next year’s ambling from stall to stall in between resting their aching feet at the food stalls.

Since October is dedicated to literature, I hope they are busy reading the fiction, non-fiction and the poetry they bought at the book fair. Being optimistic, one could put the figure at seventy per cent. Or bring it down to fifty, which is still an impressive figure. It may actually be thirty, which isn’t bad. Anything below that is depressing.


Many people tell me they have no time to read, which is really a damning condemnation of their priorities. No one will tell you that they have little or no money left to buy books for leisure reading, because that would amount to an admission of incipient and incurable poverty. You can blame inflation, economic mismanagement or anything else under the sun for that, but books will not be priorities for many when the going gets hard (and when has the going ever been easy?).
You can blame inflation, economic mismanagement or anything else under the sun for that, but books will not be priorities for many when the going gets hard
Development should include art and culture alongside roads and bridges, and it’s unfortunate when those who can afford private libraries and collections will emphasise road building over a reading culture for the masses. This lop sided development will only make us culturally poorer than ever. There are a few drops in this intellectually murky ocean, such as a revamped Colombo Public Library and even a new library for the Welikada Prison, but the overall picture remains dismal.

A small-scale publisher tells me that it’s so hard to sell quality fiction or non-fiction. People who win literary awards won’t go to someone like him. In any case, the awards are so designed that the author has no choice in the matter and those who award the prize are working with a big name publisher of their choice.

Is the award more important than the author? This isn’t a fatuous question. When someone wins the Nobel Prize or the Booker, it’s the writer who is always more important. In our case, one hardly remembers the author after the initial flurry of media coverage. Having attended all but one of the September book tamashas, I try to remember in vain a case of a novelist, poet, or a non-fiction author being spotlighted, with their publishers introducing them to the reading public, with live interviews being aired, and giving them time and space on a regular basis so that people remember them and think of them as important.

We do not care about authors. Writers are having a hard time all over the world. In the West, where writing looks more lucrative because of the best sellers, publishing deals and contracts, many writers are suffering economically and the reason given by all major publishers is Amazon.com. What they don’t tell you is that none of them plan to close the shop and invest in something more lucrative (such as Amazon.com). Book publishing still pays, as it always has. French author Simone de Beauvoir, writing about her publisher Gallimard many years ago, said monsieur Gallimard gave more and more lavish parties each year, and all the writers were invited. But their incomes remain the same while Gallimard keeps getting rich. What she said in a letter to her lover, American novelist Nelson Alagren, was a universal truth.

I don’t know if our book publishers give parties. Perhaps, the September book fair is their party, though we have to buy tickets and refreshments. But it isn’t just the publishers who are at fault. Books aren’t meant to be just read and thrown away. Only a few will stand the ‘test of time’ and become the kind of text loved by publishers who make money by re-printing them as classics. But millions more are preserved in relative obscurity in libraries, archives and private collections, and they have stories and information of much value. As such, they aren’t entirely forgotten. To each book which ‘lives’ (in publishers’ dreams), there are thousands of ‘dead’ books lovingly looked after by someone, somewhere.

What about the people who write them? Take it from me, writing is one of the most thankless jobs around, and writing novels or books running into hundreds of pages is hard labour. It’s a lonely job, too. Once it’s done, just try finding someone reliable to proofread or give an opinion. It’s such a thankless task, and only a few ever get rewarded enough in terms of money. Some get rewarded very well, even outrageously. Like everything else in life, rewards for writing books too, are unfair. Many work at it, without ever getting the financial breaks and the recognition they deserve, while others write voluminous potboilers and get into the best seller lists (at least in the West).
Is the award more important than the author? This isn’t a fatuous question. When someone wins the Nobel Prize or the Booker, it’s the writer who is always more important
Over here, writers generally hope for recognition, not money. That’s where the awards business comes in, but that’s like the lottery. What happens to those who don’t win them and even to those winners in subsequent years? Those who have what it takes to stick through monumental pain and despair to go on writing book after book, year after year, deserve respect, whether they win awards or not. They deserve to be remembered. They do it for the sheer love of writing, nothing more. But do we remember them?

In this country, the homes of authors Martin Wickremasinghe, W.A. Silva and K. Jayathilake are preserved (in Koggala, Wellawatte and Kannimahara respectively). These were men of some means and unusual determination and perseverance. But what happened to the others? Going back in time, we can start with Piyadasa Sirisena, Munidasa Kumaratunge, P.B. Alwis Perera, Sagara Palansuriya (Kayes), G.B. Senanayake, T.B. Ilangaratne, Mahagama Sekara, Karunasena Jayalath, Monica Ruwan Pathirana and many more. I don’t want to leave out Deeman Ananda, because ‘pulp fiction’ too is a literary genre and he has no successor who can write like him.

Where did these writers live? Did they own their own homes or live in rented houses? Where they sheltered and worked, finding inspiration to write despite all that life threw at them, is worthy of preserving.  Poet and novelist Mahagama Sekara owned his own house, in the same village as author K. Jayathilake. It was sold by his descendants about a decade ago. No one can blame them for that decision. Preservation of such historic places must come from societies. In government as well as the world of business, there must be people who read the works of these writers and poets, and found inspiration. The impetus for preservation of that heritage must come from them.

To take an example from cinema, since such heritage isn’t limited to literature, take the case of Dr. Lester James Pieris and his wife Sumithra. They lived in a rented house off Dickman’s Road for several decades, and the situation finally became untenable due to inflation and rising real estate prices. That is where a fund must take over to compensate the owner, restore the premises and open it to the public as an archives and museum.

It isn’t just homes that need to be preserved. In K. Jayathilake’s ancestral home, now a library and museum, on display are many manuscripts of various authors collected by him over the years. That indefatigable and scholarly monk brought out the nine-volume ‘Sinhala Puwathpath Sangara Ithihasaya’ in the 1960s. He even collected the signatures of prominent writers and editors and left for us an invaluable heritage.

But the rest are mostly horror stories of neglect and oblivion. An acquaintance told me that someone discovered the poetry manuscripts of Monica Ruwan Pathirana in a gram seller’s cart after her death. If that person had the wits to buy them from the gram seller, where are they now? What do we know about one of the most influential Sinhala poets of our times? (I’ve been trying to piece together biographical information about Lakdasa Wickremasinghe, called the most radical of our poets in English, but I’ll leave English writing out of this discussion. You can’t even a find his photograph).
I was told that the house, national hero Puran Appu lived in existed somewhere in Moratuwa till the 1970s, very much as it had been a century ago. But it was bought by a businessman and demolished. Not even a photograph of it exists now. If that’s what happens to the legacy of national heroes, celebrated in movies and even stamps, what can you say about writers?
Over here, writers generally hope for recognition, not money. That’s where the awards business comes in, but that’s like the lottery
The book fair can raise public awareness on the need for such conservation. It can help launch a fund too, with part of the income from ticket sales, for example. The major publishers can get together and invite authors, contemporary as well as those now living in obscurity, to meet the public, with panel discussions on their lives and work. The works of those who are no longer living too can be discussed. The public can be asked to join in a literary quiz. Our insane television is direly in need of a channel giving time to the arts, modeled along BBC lines. Don’t tell me the money isn’t there – why do we always have to be so poor when it comes to culture?

There are many ways to promote literature. The idea that literature is much more than each year’s award winning books, and that people who write books too, are as important, needs to be promoted.
It’d be interesting to see how the heritage of authors is being cared for in other counties, and we’ll do in another article before long. 

Monday, October 15, 2018

Khan al-Ahmar: Israeli forces detain activists as demolition fears grow


Three Israeli and foreign activists were briefly detained while a Palestinian remains in custody, as villagers fear demolition is imminent

Israeli police officers tackle activists who had blocked bulldozers from reaching Khan al-Ahmar (MEE/Akram al-Wa'ara)

Akram Al-Waara-Monday 15 October 2018 

KHAN AL-AHMAR, Occupied West Bank - Clashes erupted between Israeli forces, Palestinians and activists in the Bedouin village of Khan al-Ahmar in the occupied West Bank on Monday morning as residents fear imminent demolition of the village. At least four people were detained by Israeli police.
Israeli forces are expected to raze Khan al-Ahmar and evict nearly 200 Palestinian residents after approval for the plan officially came into effect earlier this month.
Israel's Supreme Court has twice ruled in favour of demolishing the village, first on 24 May and again on 5 September, following a desperate appeal by the occupants.
Residents of Khan al-Ahmar and activists who have gathered in the village since Israeli authorities ordered its demolition woke up on Monday to a large pool of water formed in the valley near the village - and in the same location where a lake of sewage appeared last week.
While reports indicated that a water pipe belonging to Israeli national water company Mekorot had burst, some locals speculated that activists had purposefully broken the pipe to block a path to the village and stall the demolition, noting that wood pallets, tin sheets and other debris seemed to have been placed to prevent the water from flowing towards the village.
“This pathway wraps around the entire village, so they (Israeli forces) need to use it to surround the whole area,” Yousuf Abu Dahouq, a resident of Khan al-Ahmar, told Middle East Eye. “The Israeli police were surprised to see the water here, and it broke their plan for the day.
“Because this is one of the main roads they were planning to use to bring jeeps and bulldozers to destroy the village, they need to clear the road to go forward with the demolition.”
Around 50 Israeli police and border police officers arrived at Khan al-Ahmar between 7am and 8am with at least three bulldozers and tried to clear away the water, prompting villagers and activists to come down to the area.
Palestinian and Israeli activists jump on top of an Israeli bulldozer as it attempts to clear out the water-filled path that serves as an entryway for military forces into the village. (MEE/Akram al-Wa'ara)
Palestinian and Israeli activists jumped into the pool to stop one of the bulldozers, at which point Israeli forces arrested one activist.
Meanwhile, confrontations broke out between Israeli forces and activists in other areas of the village, as activists attempted to prevent the officers from entering the village.
Israeli officers were seen pushing several Palestinian and foreign women and elderly to the ground, and at least five people were treated for injuries, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health.
Israeli forces did not allow Palestinian ambulances into Khan al-Ahmar, forcing medics to enter the village on foot to treat people.
Israeli police officers push down a Palestinian woman and foreign activists as they attempted to prevent the forces from entering Khan al-Ahmar (MEE/Akram al-Wa'ara)
Israeli forces detained at least four people on Monday morning, which were identified as Palestinian activist Reyad Salahat, Israeli activists Jonathan Pollak and Kobi Snitz, and Dutch activist Robin Licker. On Monday afternoon, Licker posted on Facebook to confirm that he, Pollak and Snitz had all been released, but that Salahat remained in Israeli custody.
Pollak and Salahat were both reportedly injured by Israeli forces as they were detained.
Abu Dahouq, a Khan al-Ahmar resident, told MEE he feared that demolition was imminent.
“We think that they will come to destroy the village any minute now, especially since the deadline for us to leave passed 10 days ago,” the 43-year-old said.
Israeli forces handed out notices on 23 September to the residents, telling them to clear and demolish their homes by 1 October or else they will be forcibly removed.
The 35 families who live in Khan Al-Ahmar are from the Jahalin tribe, a Bedouin family expelled from the Naqab desert - also referred to as the Negev - after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
Khan al-Ahmar is located on the eastern desert hillside of Jerusalem, beside an Israeli highway that leads to the Dead Sea, in part of the West Bank which Israel has illegally occupied for 50 years according to international law.
A Palestinian man stands with his hands raised to the sky in prayer as a group of Israeli police officers stand looking on in the background (MEE/Akram al-Wa'ara)
By removing Khan al-Ahmar, the authorities will be able to construct units linking the illegal settlements of Kfar Adumim and Maale Adumim with East Jerusalem in the Israeli-controlled Area C, splitting the West Bank in half.
Amnesty International has called the Israeli plan a "forcible transfer" and "war crime".
“We, the residents of Khan al Ahmar, have a lot of pressure on us, and there is a lot of pain and hardships being felt by the people of the village,” Abu Dahouq added. “The Israelis are using all kinds of military and psychological attacks against us to kick us out. We are living in war times, and it has become a part of our life.
“The occupation is trying to test the Palestinian people, to see if they will react to the demolition of Khan al-Ahmar ... If Palestinian people don’t show up to defend the village, then it is giving the Israelis the green light to get rid of us.”

Palestinian prisoner suspends hunger strike after 66 days

Palestinians in Gaza City protest in solidarity with Palestinian political leader Raja Eghbaria, who was in Israeli detention, on 2 October.  Mahmoud AjourAPA images

Tamara Nassar-15 October 2018

Palestinian activist and political leader Raja Eghbaria was released by Israel on Monday more than a month after his arrest.

Eghbaria, a Palestinian citizen of Israel and a leader of the Abna al-Balad political movement, is now under house arrest and barred from using the internet.

He was arrested on 11 September over Facebook posts he made in the last year, according to Adalah, a legal advocacy group for Palestinians in Israel.

Eghbaria was accused of “incitement to violence and terrorism” and “support of a terrorist organization through social media,” according to the publication Arab48.

Although multiple errors were found in the translation of the Arabic posts made by Eghbaria, Israeli authorities asserted that “it doesn’t matter.”

Eghbaria appeared in court on 7 October, where an Israeli prosecutor revealed “that the state has only ever sought detention until the end of court proceedings for Arab suspects in online incitement to terror cases – but never for Jewish suspects,” according to Adalah.

Israel considers a wide range of political expression and opposition to its violations of Palestinian rights to constitute “incitement.”

“During the hearing, it was revealed that the state was unable to point to one case of suspected online incitement to terrorism in which detention without bond until the end of trial was sought for a Jewish defendant.”

There have been multiple cases where Israel requested the detention of Palestinian defendants until the end of proceedings.

The arrest of Eghbaria comes after the high-profile prosecution of Dareen Tatour, a poet and also a Palestinian citizen of Israel.

She was released in September after three years of legal proceedings and serving a prison sentence for poetry and Facebook postings that Israeli authorities also deemed to be incitement.

Fighting for basic rights

Palestinian prisoner Omran al-Khatib, 60, ended his hunger strike on Sunday after he came to an agreement with the Israel Prison Service to provide him with treatment and allow his children to visit.

Al-Khatib was on hunger strike for 66 days to protest his solitary confinement at Ramle prison and to obtain conditions that should have been granted by right.

Al-Khatib, from Jabaliya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, has spent more than 20 years of a 45-year sentence in prison.
He’s one of several Palestinian prisoners who have launched hunger strikes in recent weeks.

Third long-term hunger strike

Khader Adnan’s health has deteriorated as his hunger strike has exceeded 40 days to protest his latest arbitrary detention, the Palestinian Prisoners’ Club stated.

Adnan’s lawyer was able to visit him in Ramle prison and said that Adnan attended the meeting in a wheelchair.

Adnan is refusing to take supplements and has refused to undergo medical examinations since the beginning of his strike.

Adnan sent a message through the lawyer, urging Palestinians to support him in his struggle.


Palestinians holding pictures of Khader Adnan at a protest to show solidarity with prisoners held in Israeli jails, in front of the Red Cross office in Gaza City on 8 October.
 Mahmoud AjourAPA images
The prisoner’s club said that since he began his protest, Israeli authorities have transferred Adnan several times, most recently to Ramle prison, in an attempt to isolate and humiliate him.

Adnan is from the occupied West Bank city of Jenin. He previously undertook two prolonged hunger strikes: 66 days in 2012 and 55 days in 2015.

He was arrested again on 11 December, and has been held in so-called administrative detention – indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial – ever since.

40 days indoors

Meanwhile, Palestinian women held at HaSharon prison are continuing to protest the prison authorities’ decision to turn on surveillance cameras in the prison yard in September, after a visit by Israeli internal security minister Gilad Erdan.

The women have refused to go out to the yard, the only outdoor area they are permitted to use, for more than 40 days. They plan to continue their protest until the surveillance cameras are covered again.

Prison authorities tried to negotiate multiple times with the women to turn on the cameras for two and a half hours a day, but the prisoners have refused.

Living conditions at HaSharon prison are very difficult, the Palestinian Authority’s Commission of Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs stated.

Women at HaSharon complain of pressure and overcrowding. There are currently 35 detainees in the prison, three of whom sleep on the floor.

Prisoners have to spend long hours inside cramped, humid rooms, which is bad for their physical and psychological health.

The cameras were installed years ago but were shut down after prisoner protests.

The women at HaSharon previously threatened to escalate their protests, including a hunger strike, if the cameras are not turned off.

How the US invents enemies to maintain its dominance

2018-10-12
Enemies are really friends. This oxymoron serves as a secret motto of some countries, particularly the United States.  One wonders whether US Vice President Mike Pence’s broadside last Thursday at China was part of a bid to fast track the process to make an enemy out of China, if it has still not become one. It came against the backdrop of President Donald Trump taking a series of anti-China measures, including a dangerous trade war, and provocative US warship manoeuvres, like what happened last week, when a US warship in the South China Sea veered into what China calls its territorial waters but the US regards as international waters.
In his broad attack, Pence accused China of “predatory” economic practices, military aggression against the US and of trying to undermine President Trump and harm his chances of winning re-election.

Though he cited what he called US intelligence reports, he offered no solid evidence to back up his claim, except to cite China’s alleged military designs in countries such as Sri Lanka. He said Beijing was using billions of dollars in infrastructure loans to countries across the world to tie them to the Chinese government and described this practice as “debt diplomacy.”
“The terms of those loans are opaque at best, and the benefits flow overwhelmingly to Beijing,” he said and, referring to Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port, he added that it was commissioned by Sri Lanka with Chinese funds in 2010, but when Sri Lanka was unable to pay back its loans, a Chinese state-owned company took ownership. “It may soon become a forward military base for China’s growing blue-water navy,” Pence warned.
Pence’s tirade against China raises a question as to why the US wants to make China a hostile nation. It also gives credence to claims that the US needs an enemy to survive. As a matter of fact, it has always had one, two or more enemies at any given time. The US is not alone.  The enemy creation is part of statecraft. The behaviour of Israel and, in our neighbourhood, of India and Pakistan, indicates that states gain many advantages by having an enemy.  Once the enemy is found or invented, the enemy perception is whipped up in the minds of the populace while the state seeks to achieve its geopolitical goals.  There are domestic political advantages, too. At election times, it is not uncommon to see heightening tensions between enemy states, with campaign speeches full of real or imagined threats from the enemy.  Because the enemy exists, politicians are able to inflate their egos and project themselves as the only leaders who could give the enemy a fitting reply.  
At the macro level, the bogey factor helps rulers to divert the people’s attention from real issues; from the secret deals and immoral wars they wage with ulterior motives. Remember George W. Bush’s wars?
Communism as an ideology, and the Soviet Union as its ‘evil’ face, had been the enemy of the US for some 45 years since the end of World War II.  The US fought many wars and propped up dictators in Africa, Asia and Latin America in the name of containment or to prevent Communism from gaining ground, or, in other words, to help capitalists plunder the global resources and to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. 
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1991, the US wanted a new enemy to continue its domination of the world through military means and cover up its blatant aggressions, subtle regime change campaigns and profiteering through wars. Imagine the US without an enemy.  For a short period after the end of the cold war, it was without an enemy.  It was the sole superpower and it came under immense pressure from within and outside the country to give leadership to a world order where peace and justice would prevail and international law would be respected. The post-cold war elation became a rallying point for greater democracy and improving human rights. It was during this period that the campaign for the setting up of a world criminal court gained momentum.  Sadly, such a world order was not on the US realpolitik agenda. 
Then the US invented an enemy. Radical Islamists, Islamic extremists, Islamic terrorists and jihadists, whatever name one calls them, became the enemy, though they were once the United States’ allies, armed, trained and financed to take on the rival superpower, the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan during the cold war.  They were fondly called the Mujahideen, the plural of Mujahid meaning Jihadist.  The Americans called them freedom fighters and compared them with those who fought for US independence.
The friends became foes, just as George Orwell explains in his famous dystopian novel ‘1984’.  The 9/11 attacks carried out by the enemy led to the undoing of the progress the world was making in strengthening democracy and human rights. The enemy helped the sole superpower to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and create chaos in Libya, Syria and the rest of the Arab world. 
Now that the so-called Islamic terrorist is on the run or, more or less, wiped out, it is time to find a new enemy. China fits the bill.  To put it in a more US-friendly way, while Washington was on the hunt for the Islamic terrorist, China emerged, without much noise, as a possible contender for the US.
Alarmed by China’s assertive diplomacy in the South China Sea and, of late, in the Indian Ocean, the US is now in a hurried attempt to prepare the American people for a bigger and more intensified campaign against China. It need not be military. 
Pence’s Thursday’s speech was largely an attempt to take the case against China to the American people. “The American people deserve to know…” he underlined.
According to Thucydides’ theory, the dominant world power will not give up its number one position without a fight. Are we witnessing a preamble to such a major confrontation? The only solace is that nuclear powers do not go to war if they are ruled by rational leaders. 
It appears that China is doing in the South China Sea and parts of the Indian Ocean what the US did in the Caribbean and the Pacific in the 19th century. The 1823 Monroe doctrine, named after the then US President James Monroe, was a virtual warning to European powers, especially Britain, that they should not return to the Caribbean to dominate the region through colonialism or through client states.  Just as the US in the 19th century ousted Britain, the then superpower, from the Caribbean or from the US neighbourhood, without a fight and while maintaining friendly relations, China is now on a campaign to oust the US from the seas in China’s neighbourhood, while maintaining ‘friendly’ relations. Just as the US resorted to the ‘dollar diplomacy’ and economic hegemony, China is now resorting to ‘Yuan diplomacy’ and trying to become a world power through its belt-and-road initiative. 
The US is not unaware of these moves. The US will not let the fate that befell Britain in the Caribbean befall it in the South China Sea region. That is the reason why the US keeps challenging China’s sovereignty over islands and coral reefs in the South China Sea. But at present, the conflict is more a battle of wits than military. 

6 takeaways from Trump’s ‘60 Minutes’ interview

 President Trump’s interview for “60 Minutes” touched on a wide range of topics, including climate change, North Korea and his mockery of Christine Blasey Ford. 


President Trump sat down this weekend for what is an increasingly rare thing: A non-Fox News, nonconservative interviewer peppering him with questions in a full-length interview.
Below are six takeaways.

1. Trump is still downplaying Russian interference

The latest tack seems to be suggesting it is nothing compared with what China is doing. Trump has claimed before that China is interfering in the 2018 election, even as the administration has provided no actual instances of specific electoral interference.

And in Sunday’s interview, Trump quickly parried a question about Russian interference by arguing China also interfered — in 2016:
LESLEY STAHL: Do you believe that the Russians interfered in the 2016 campaign election? Our election — 
TRUMP: They — they meddled. But I think China meddled too.
STAHL: But why do you — 
TRUMP: And I think other countries — 
STAHL: — say China meddled too? 
TRUMP: And you want to know something? 
STAHL: Why do you say Chi— why don’t you just say — 
TRUMP: Well, let me ask you — 
STAHL: — the Russians meddled? 
TRUMP: Because I think China meddled also. And I think, frankly, China — 
STAHL: This is amazing. 
TRUMP:  is a bigger problem
STAHL: You are diverting the whole Russia thing. 
TRUMP: I’m not doing anything. 
STAHL: You are, you are. 
TRUMP: I’m saying Russia, but I’m also saying China.
Trump is indeed diverting. He’s been doing it for the past two years. And the latest strategy here seems to be whataboutismYeah, Russia may have interfered, but what about China now interfering to help the Democrats! The problem is it’s not apples to apples.

2. He’s still downplaying human rights abuses, too

And that’s whether we’re talking about Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or any other place. Trump has generally made clear he views these things as an impediment to cutting deals, and that was again the case Sunday.
Trump, not for the first time, suggested he doesn’t like the idea of scaling back an arms deal with or imposing sanctions on Saudi Arabia for Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi’s disappearance and alleged murder, if indeed the Saudis were responsible. He suggested such a thing would unnecessarily punish U.S. companies:
STAHL: What are your options? Let’s say [the Saudis] did. What are your options? Would you consider imposing sanctions, as a bipartisan group of senators have proposed? 
TRUMP: Well, it depends on what the sanction is. I’ll give you an example: They are ordering military equipment. Everybody in the world wanted that order. Russia wanted it, China wanted it, we wanted it. We got it.
STAHL: So would you cut that off — 
TRUMP: Do I — well — I tell you what I don’t want to do. Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, all these com I don’t want to hurt jobs. I don’t want to lose an order like that. There are other ways of punishing, to use a word that’s a pretty harsh word, but it’s true.
Perhaps the most telling part of this is that Trump views the mere idea of “punishing” as being “pretty harsh.”
Trump has also downplayed the idea of punishing Saudi Arabia by noting that Khashoggi “is not a[n American] citizen.” (Update: He again noted this Monday.) And he did the same Sunday when it comes to Russia’s targeting of dissidents, noting that they aren’t Americans:
STAHL: Do you agree that Vladimir Putin is involved in assassinations? In poisonings? 
TRUMP: Probably he is, yeah. Probably. I mean, I don’t — 
STAHL:  Probably? 
TRUMP: But I rely on them. It’s not in our country.
It’s not a coincidence that he keeps bringing this up. And his track record is pretty consistent on this stuff.
Trump also suggested, yet again, that Kim Jong Un’s human rights record is a nuisance more than anything, after Stahl noted he recently said that he and Kim “fell in love”:
STAHL: I want to read you his resume, okay? He presides over a cruel kingdom of repression, gulags, starvation. Reports that he had his half-brother assassinated, slave labor, public executions. This is a guy you ‘love?’ 
TRUMP: Sure. I know all these things. I mean -- I’m not a baby. I know these things.
...
STAHL: But you love him. 
TRUMP: Okay. That’s just a figure -- 
LESLEY STAHL: Just like  -- 
TRUMP: -- of speech. 
STAHL: No, it’s like an embrace. 
TRUMP: It -- well, let it be an embrace. Let it be whatever it is to get the job done.
STAHL: He’s a bad guy. 
TRUMP: Look. Let it be whatever it is. I get along with him really well. I have a good energy with him. I have a good chemistry with him. Look at the horrible threats that were made. No more threats. No more threats.

3. Something may be afoot with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis

A preview clip airing Sunday morning on “Face the Nation” featured Trump leaving open the idea that Mattis might be leaving soon.
And in the same comments, Trump rather curiously argued that Mattis is a Democrat — a comment that is thick with subtext and suggests possible discord:
STAHL: What about General Mattis? Is he going to leave? 
TRUMP: Well, I don’t know. He hasn’t told me that. I have — 
STAHL: Do you want him to — 
TRUMP: — a very good relationship with him. It could be that he is. I think he’s sort of a Democrat, if you want to know the truth. But General Mattis is a good guy. We get along very well. He may leave. I mean, at some point, everybody leaves. Everybody. People leave. That’s Washington.
Also suggesting discord is Trump’s claim that he knows more about NATO than Mattis and argued that Mattis might be wrong when he says NATO has prevented war:
STAHL: Are you willing to get rid of that Western alliance? 
TRUMP: Now, I like NATO, NATO’s fine. But you know what? We shouldn’t be paying almost the entire cost of NATO to protect Europe. And then on top of that, they take advantage of us on trade. They’re not going to do it anymore. They understand that. 
STAHL: Okay, but are — it does seem this — are you willing to disrupt the Western Alliance? It’s been going for 70 years. It’s kept the peace for 70 years. 
TRUMP: You don’t know that. You don’t know that. 
STAHL: I don’t know what? 
TRUMP: You don’t know that. 
STAHL: Is it true General Mattis said to you, “The reason for NATO and the reason for all these alliances is to prevent World War III?” 
TRUMP: No, it’s not true. 
STAHL: What’s not true? 
TRUMP: Frankly, I like General Mattis. I think I know more about it than he does. And I know more about it from the standpoint of fairness. That I can tell you.

4. 'What’s an ally?’

You could have missed it if you didn’t look at the transcript, but at one point, Trump seems to suggest that our allies aren’t actually our allies — and perhaps that the traditional concept of allies is something he doesn’t subscribe to:
STAHL: You have also slapped some tariffs on our allies. 
TRUMP: I mean, what’s an  
STAHL: And — 
TRUMP: — ally? We have wonderful relationships with a lot of people. But nobody treats us much worse than the European Union. The European Union — 
STAHL: But why — 
TRUMP: — was formed in order to take advantage of us on trade, and that’s what they’ve done. 
STAHL: But this is hostile. 
TRUMP: And yet, they — it’s not hostile. 
STAHL: It sounds hostile. 
TRUMP: You know what’s hostile? The way they treat us. We’re not hostile.

5. He’s now arguing climate change will reverse itself

This isn’t a completely new argument on the conservative side of the climate science debate, but it’s notable that Trump is now picking up on it and confidently predicting it will reverse itself:
STAHL: Do you still think that climate change is a hoax? 
TRUMP: I think something’s happening, something’s changing, and it’ll change back again. I don’t think it’s a hoax, I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s man-made. I will say this: I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs. I don’t want to be put at a disadvantage.
. . .
TRUMP: I’m not denying climate change. But it could very well go back. You know, we’re talking about over a millions —
STAHL: But that’s denying it 
TRUMP: — of years. They say that we had hurricanes that were far worse than what we just had with Michael.

6. He tacitly confirmed the White House is chaotic — and said he doesn’t trust his own staff

Trump likes to say there isn’t actually chaos in his White House, but then he gives away the game like this:
STAHL: The first lady, Melania. She said that there are still people in the White House that she doesn’t trust and that you shouldn’t trust.
TRUMP: I feel the same way. I don’t trust everybody in the White House, I’ll be honest with you.
STAHL: You go to a meeting, do you have to wonder, “Is he wearing a wire — ”
DONALD TRUMP: I’m usually —
STAHL: — or whatever? 
TRUMP: Not so much a wire. I’m usually guarded. And I think I’m guarded anyway. But I’m not saying I trust everybody in the White House. I’m not a baby. It’s a tough business. This is a r— this is a vicious place. Washington, D.C., is a vicious, vicious place. The attacks, the — the bad-mouthing, the speaking behind your back. But — you know, and in my way, I feel very comfortable here.

Different Strokes

Mano Ratwatte
logoA notable Saudi journalist, who was/is an outspoken critic of the Saudi Arabian government enters the Consulate in Istanbul Turkey. His name was Jamal Khashoggi. He entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2 to obtain a document certifying he divorced his ex-wife. He has not been seen since.  He was also a contributory journalist to the famed Washington Post, and resided in the USA.
Turkish intelligence says he was abducted, assaulted and then murdered inside the Saudi Compound. Saudi officials have countered that claim, insisting Khashoggi left the building before vanishing. Turkey says it has video and audio surveillance to suggest otherwise.
USA is Saudi Arabia’s closest and oldest Arab ally. It profits immensely and so does the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) from bi-lateral trade and military transactions. KSA was the first foreign tour for President Trump; this was unprecedented for an incoming US President.  Usually, a new President visits his close traditional allies such as Canada (Obama), or UK or even Mexico (Bush-43).  To fete the vainglorious leader of the free-world, KSA pulled out all stops. They are believed to have flown in (by private plane) country singer Toby Keith from Oklahoma to sing 3 to 4 songs to an all-male audience, and paid a reported $3million dollars for his efforts. Toby Keith was told he cannot wear his trade mark cross, nor sing songs about women and booze. President Trump was ecstatic; the KSA signed on to about $110Billion dollars in weapons contracts with the world’s super power. KSA is ruled by smart thinkers who protect their interests. It was in their geo-political interests to rekindle the relationship with USA; it had taken a sour turn during Obama’s regime. During his visit, Trump brought several pictures of American weapons to a meeting with visiting Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman of Saudi Arabia. He boasted of multibillion-dollar sales of arms to the kingdom. Showing a sign to journalists at the meeting that read “12.5 billion in finalized sales to Saudi Arabia,” Trump boasted about all the money that US defense contractors would be getting for their products.
US is believed to have secret bases and stockpiles of weapons in the KSA as well.  KSA, despite recent hiccups when oil prices crashed also excels at feeding the appetites of the west.  It has tremendous oil wealth. They also see US as a partner in their long standing dispute with Iran; KSA views Iran as their ideological rival in the Muslim world.  They would love to see the USA take a more hostile stance against Iran.   
They were angered by Obama’s efforts to somewhat normalize relations with Iran with the nuclear treaty. In a pique of anger, Trump scuttled that agreement (all other signatories promised to uphold that international treaty; but not Trump; Iran had not violated a single condition imposed on it by the treaty either) for no reason other than that it was signed by Obama. He, in fact, has torn off or overridden so many executive orders related to the environment, TPP and other issues, just because Obama signed them. With Trump, and his hardcore hawkish top officials such as John Bolton, US is now following an aggressive policy towards Iran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was a hawk when he was in Congress. Iran also fishes in troubled waters by aligning itself with many forces that are sworn to the destruction of the State of Israel and sponsoring groups listed as terrorist groups in the USA. Iran is stupid if it thinks it can destroy Israel without a death wish upon itself.
The Geo-Political equation in the Oil Rich Middle East is very clear. KSA will also not mind normalizing relations with Israel if the conditions are suitable. Iran is hostile to Israel. Now in Trump’s USA, KSA and Israel has found a very reliable ally.
Trump made the necessary statements” I am angry, I will talk to the King of KSA” etc., about the missing presumably murdered dissident journalist. Then his son Donnie Jr.  retweets a message linking Khashoggi to terrorists; this is definitely to try to discredit the missing journalist (sounds familiar?). 
But Trump also said he will not impose sanctions or halt the $110Billion dollar value military sales; he says if? We don’t sell China and Russia will sell it to them”. It makes sense.  On October 13th Trump said United States would be “punishing” itself by halting military sales to Saudi Arabia even if it is proven that Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed inside the country’s consulate in Istanbul.  

Read More

Saudi Oil Threat in Khashoggi Disappearance Seen as a Bluff

Trump lowers the rhetoric, sends Pompeo to Riyadh.

Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih promised Monday to maintain oil supplies, after Saudi Arabia had earlier threatened to drive crude prices higher. (Mohammed Mahjoub/AFP/Getty Images)Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih promised Monday to maintain oil supplies, after Saudi Arabia had earlier threatened to drive crude prices higher. (Mohammed Mahjoub/AFP/Getty Images)

No automatic alt text available.
BY -
 


Tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United States escalated sharply over the weekend, with Riyadh issuing a veiled threat to use the oil weapon if Washington slaps sanctions on the kingdom over the disappearance of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

But most experts dismissed the rhetoric as mere bluster, saying Saudi Arabia doesn’t have the dominant position in the oil market that it did decades ago, and pointing out that if Riyadh cut output in order to cause a price spike it would boomerang spectacularly.

The Saudi government warned in a statement over the weekend that it would meet any response with “greater action,” stressing the oil producer’s “vital role in the global economy.”

“The kingdom affirms its total rejection of any threats and attempts to undermine it, whether by threatening to impose economic sanctions, using political pressures, or repeating false accusations,” it said.

The threat was made more explicit in a high-profile column Sunday by a figure close to Saudi Arabia’s leaders. “If the price of oil reaching $80 angered President Trump, no one should rule out the price jumping to $100, or $200, or even double that figure,” Turki Aldakhil wrote in Al Arabiya.
On Monday, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo headed for Saudi Arabia to meet with King Salman regarding Khashoggi’s disappearance. President Donald Trump, for his part, appeared to walk back some of the tough language he’d used just a day before, saying that he had spoken with Salman and that the Saudi king denied any knowledge of what happened to the missing journalist. Trump suggested “rogue killers” somehow entered the Saudi consulate in Turkey and killed the columnist.

If it were carried out, the veiled Saudi threat to use its weight as the world’s biggest oil exporter to hold the global economy hostage would be a sharp departure from the stabilizing role it has played since the disastrous 1973 to 1974 oil embargo OPEC imposed on Western countries to protest their support for Israel.
Still, few analysts were ready to take it seriously.

“It’s a bluff,” said Bruce Riedel, a Saudi Arabia expert at the Brookings Institution. “We have much more leverage than they do.”

Saudi Arabia’s role as a major oil producer is crucial right now to Trump as he increases economic pressure on Iran. Renewed U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil exports, which go into effect next month, have already led to a shortfall in global oil supplies and steadily rising prices. Riyadh, along with other big producers like Russia, had pledged to increase oil production this autumn to keep crude prices from rising beyond already-high levels.

If Saudi Arabia tried to retaliate against any U.S. actions with an oil cut, it would be “hugely self-defeating and probably ineffective,” said David Goldwyn, the head of Goldwyn Global Strategies, an energy consultancy.

He noted that any decline in Saudi exports would just push customers in Asia and Europe to accelerate their transition toward other forms of energy. And sending prices higher right as the United States is trying to keep Iran’s feet to the fire would undermine a key Saudi security priority, he said.

“I don’t think it’s a shift in policy, just a lapse of judgment,” said Goldwyn, who was a top State Department energy official in the Obama administration. “There’s panic in the kingdom.”

Saudi leaders were stung in particular by Trump’s threats Sunday of “severe punishment” if the investigation into Khashoggi’s disappearance implicates them, he said. “It was a pretty hard slap that the Saudis got from the president, so they reminded the president how important Saudi Arabia is to the global market.”

Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2 and has not been seen since. Turkish authorities say he was killed in the consulate.

On Monday, just hours after the threats from Riyadh, Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih tried to reassure markets. He said in a speech in India that the country would continue to act as a “shock absorber” for the global market, and he pledged to keep the global economy well supplied with oil.
“There’s no sign yet of a shift in Saudi oil policy,” said Matthew Reed, the vice president at Foreign Reports, an energy consultancy.

“I can’t imagine the Saudis engineering a price spike when market sentiment is so fragile, the facts remain disputed, and it’s unclear yet what the U.S. response will ultimately be,” he said. “Triggering a global recession doesn’t serve their interests.”

Merely brandishing the oil weapon as a possible way to hurt the United States underscores how the relationship between Riyadh and Washington is changing. Since World War II, the two countries have established a strategic relationship that—with rare exceptions like the 1970s embargo—saw Saudi Arabia keeping the world well supplied with oil in exchange for U.S. security.

But as other big oil producers have gained prominence, especially the United States itself over the past decade, Saudi Arabia’s relative importance as an oil supplier has declined. it still produces more oil than any other country inside OPEC, but it doesn’t have the same ability to provide stability to the much bigger global market that it once did. U.S. oil production in the meantime has soared, and imports (including from Saudi Arabia) have fallen.

“The relationship is at risk,” Goldwyn said. “We don’t need each other as much as we did.”
For Trump, preventing a break with Saudi Arabia is more about arms sales than about maintaining a decades-old relationship or even shoring up an anti-Iran bloc in the Middle East. He has repeatedly stressed his desire to complete the $110 billion in arms deals reached on his trip to Saudi Arabia last year.
“We used to have a strategic relationship with the Saudis, but the relationship has become transactional,” said James B. Smith, who was the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 2009 to 2013. “We saw it moving that way in the Obama administration, but now it’s clearly transactional.”
Given Trump’s focus on the pending arms deals, he said, “this administration will be looking to give the Saudis a ladder to climb down the limb they’ve gotten themselves on.”
 
Keith Johnson is Foreign Policy’s global geoeconomics correspondent. @KFJ_FP