What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas but not when in Colombo

 OCT 21 2018

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas or President Maithripala Sirisena appeared to have believed so when he made a comment to his Cabinet members of his belief that Indian intelligence service may have a link to the alleged assassination plot against him.

What happens in Vegas stays... by on Scribd

GMOA’s shenanigans

---

PEOPLE AS TAX PAYERS DON’T HAVE TO FUND HEALTH SERVICE IF THEY ARE IGNORED BY THE SLMC

A NEW MEDICAL LAW TO BE DRAFTED TO REMOVE ALL SHORTCOMINGS IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCE

GMOA WRITES TO ALL EXCEPT THE MEDIA

ENACTING A NEW ORDINANCE IN TWO MONTHS IS TOO SHORT; AT LEAST SIX MONTHS AND PUBLIC DELIBERATIONS NEEDED 

2018-10-19

The GMOA, under the signatures of their President Anuruddha Padeniya and Secretary Haritha Aluthge had sent a two page letter in Sinhala to President Maithripala Sirisena, with copies to the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, to the Speaker of Parliament, to all Cabinet Ministers, to all MPs, to the Attorney General and many others except the media, with the long title “To keep you informed of damage caused to the Sri Lanka Medical Council and to the whole health system by Health Minister Rajitha Senaratne”.  

The letter was dated 15 October 2018 and was followed by an “Internal Memo” on the same day written in English, sent to all GMOA branches titled “Abolition of current Medical Ordinance and SLMC”, signed by GMOA Secretary Aluthge.  

This pleading of a sort made to President Sirisena comes after their very fiery threat made at the media briefing on September 6, 2018 in response to the statement made by Prof. Colvin Gunaratana, who said this “the SLMC has to be restructured for the benefit of people”. 

 They warned this government, the GMOA would lead a massive strike never seen in the history of Sri Lanka, immediately and without warning “if the SLMC is touched in any manner”.  

The tone of thuggery with which this threat was shouted out, cannot now be watched and listened to, as this particular video clip has been removed from the official GMOA website.  That being out of reference, now comes a very pleading letter, after Minister Rajitha Senaratne appointed a Committee of five by letter dated September 20, 2018, to “Draft a new enactment in place of the existing Medical Ordinance” within two months, in order to provide the service expected by the public. 
The Committee consists of two Professors, Nilanthi de Silva (Actg. President SLMC) and Harendra de Silva, along with DG Health Services Palitha Fernando PC (Former AG) and Dr Palitha Abeykoon. Acting Registrar/SLMC was appointed Secretary to the Committee. 

The mandate given to the Committee is plain and clear.  A new Medical Law to be drafted to remove all shortcomings in the existing Medical Ordinance to provide for a new SLMC that would serve the people.  

Minister Senaratne very clearly says, “02. Examine the legislations that govern the General Medical Council (GMC) of the United Kingdom and other countries comparing with the Medical Ordinance for the purpose of identifying positive developments in the field of regulations of medical and allied health professions in other countries”.  

Now, what on earth is wrong with that? How can such improvements called for, “Damage the SLMC and the whole health system” as stupidly claimed by the GMOA leadership?

The whole 02 page plead made to President Sirisena by the GMOA is a total distortion of facts and events, churned out to maintain their grip on the SLMC and the Health Service, obviously for selfish reasons.  

Their pleading to President says,  “as you are well aware, the main task of the Medical Ordinance is to (1) safeguard the medical profession and (2) to safeguard the standard of medical education”. IF that is the purpose of the existing Medical Ordinance, that alone demands replacement of this Medical Ordinance with one, that would “serve the people”.  

We don’t have to contribute to “safeguard a medical profession” that selfishly serves itself and we don’t have to safeguard a medical education that turns out medical doctors who can only diagnose illnesses and write out (illegible) prescriptions to mint money.  

We need State University medical faculties that can turn out decent, disciplined and well cultured medical practitioners who are truly professionals.  

It is interesting and amusing too, that all six allegations levelled against Minister Senaratne by the GMOA and listed in their pleading to the President, tend to say that since 2006 with Minister Senaratne, the SLMC was wholly devalued, the medical education and the required minimum qualifications to enter medical faculties have also been brought down.  

The amusing fact is, sadistic medics who allegedly rape and kill innocent young girls (Negombo Hospital case. Read http://transyl2014.blogspot.com/2018/10/blog-post_96.html) medics who allegedly drink and drive, who provide false certifications to clear colleagues of criminal faults and groups of medical professionals who behave like hooligans, fighting for parking slots holding patients as hostage, were all products when the SLMC as the GMOA claims was in better shape before 2006 and before Minister Senaratne.  

If the primary purpose of the SLMC under the present medical ordinance is to “safeguard the medical profession”, the SLMC by now should have suspended all those medical doctors who insulted their own profession from its registry of medical practitioners. But they don’t. That itself is proof, the SLMC in the hands of the medical profession does not safeguard standards and ethics in the medical profession.  

All that speaks for the ‘public need’ to revamp the SLMC. The GMOA allegation that Minister Senaratne had not filled the vacant posts of President and Registrar of SLMC was not necessitated, with the new draft law to be finalised in just two months. This SLMC is on its way out.

Bottom line is, it is the people (tax payers) who fund “free” education, medical education, the public health services including salaries and all perks and privileges enjoyed by medical doctors, their duty free ‘permit’ vehicles, and the State run SLMC as well.  

People don’t have to fund any of these, if they are ignored by the SLMC and if the GMOA claims the SLMC is there to safeguard medics.
Their “internal memo” says:  

“Dr Senaratne claims that this move is to introduce laymen into the Medical Council in order to ensure ‘high quality’ inquiries with ‘better’ outcomes against doctors based on patients’ complaints”.  

While there is a serious need to have high quality independent inquiries on complaints against medical doctors made to the SLMC, these are lies and utter lies.  

This very statement in their “internal memo” proves the GMOA leaders would stoop to any low, in satisfying their greed. There is no mention to that effect anywhere in the whole letter that appointed the Committee.  

The GMOA leaders seem to suffer from what I diagnose as “chronic lie-mania”.  

As mentioned in their pleading to the President, they also say in their “internal memo”,  

“He further claims, that the demand to abolish the Medical Ordinance was made by persons such as Saman Rathnapriya, Ravi Kumudesh and Kusal Perera”.  No person is named in the letter signed by the Minister appointing the Committee which says:  

“I am in receipt of number of representations from the members of Parliament, the general public, professional bodies, and the Sri Lanka Medical Council (SLMC) regarding deficiencies in the existing medical ordinance and the necessity for a new legislation to amend status of affairs of the SLMC in order to provide the service expected by the public. Several members of Parliament highlighted this matter at the debate held on September 07, 2018 for second reading of the ‘Medical Amendment Bill’ which introduced the Specialist Registry.”  

While I do not know what the other two persons named by the GMOA leaders had to with this restructuring of the SLMC through a new law, I take pride if the Hon. Minister had heeded my arguments and requests to enact a new law and overhaul the present SLMC to include other professionals and reputed and recognised laymen and women.  

A necessary change I lobbied for, through these pages in the DM. In these pages I wrote over one year and six months ago on March 3, 2017 an article titled “SLMC needs overhaul” that was accessed by over 5,500 online readers wherein I said:  

“In our culture of professional selfishness and arrogance, the SLMC to be left in the hands of the medical profession alone would be too dangerous to the health of the nation.”  

Therefore, in providing for an alternate option I wrote:  

“The way out would be to include other professions as ‘community’ representations. It has to provide for provincial community representation as well, to make it a nationally representative body”. I made references to the Medical Board of Australia (MBA) and to the Medical Council of Canada (MCC) that have federal representations and also to the British GMC. All these bodies have good gender representation as well as “lay members” who are not medical professionals. On GMOA arguments, these countries must therefore be in a huge medical crisis by having “lay members”.  

Ignoring all the lies and misinterpretations by the GMOA, what needs to be stressed here is that, the Committee appointed by Minister Senaratne should be further improved including few more lay persons and with more women representation.  

Health of a country is more about “mothers and children”. It is also necessary to provide at least six months to the Committee to have public consultations and have the Draft enactment in the public domain for social dialogue, before the Minister goes to the Cabinet with it.  

If as the Minister says it should serve the interest of the people and no doubt it should, then the people have the right to discuss it, before it becomes law.  

If as the GMOA says, the Minister accedes to my requests, I wish he would accede to this request too, to further improve in producing a law that can serve the people and keep out selfish and greedy professional interests.  

MR Abruptly Ends Press Conference When Questioned About Shirani Bandaranayake’s Hastened Impeachment

OCTOBER 19, 2018

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa abruptly ended a press conference yesterday when journalists questioned about the removal of former Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake through a hastened impeachment process.

At the press conference where the former President talked about the “lopsided” law enforcement process of the current government, a journalist asked how the former Chief Justice Bandaranayake was removed within three days, under the previous administration.

“Everything was done according to the Constitution,” Rajapaksa responded curtly, indicating he did not wish to take further questions on the matter.

However, the journalist kept asking questions about the process, especially about the inordinate haste with which the former Chief Justice was removed.

Without responding to the question, Rajapaksa asked which media organization the journalist was representing. The journalist said he was working for the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation (SLRC), the former President accused him of carrying out a “contract'”. JO MP Wimal Weerawansa too joined in blaming the reporter without answering the question about Shirani Bandaranayake’s removal.

At this point, several other journalists too asked questions from the former President about the flawed impeachment process, prompting Rajapaksa to call it off abruptly.

He hurriedly left the press conference saying the proceedings were over, while journalists were still asking questions.

Meanwhile, the journalists from the state TV station and Sirasa complained to the former President that they were obstructed at the entrance by the organizers of the press conference.

Read More

Charges against Nizamdeen dropped, threatens to sue Police

Saturday, October 20, 2018

Australian Police have decided to drop terrorism charges against Mohamed Kamer Nizamdeen, (25), a Sri Lankan studying at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, after having accused him of plotting to assassinate Australian politicians, reports the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).
Nizamdeen’s lawyer has threatened to take legal action against the police.

He was arrested in August and accused of writing in a notebook about plans to kill former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his former deputy Julie Bishop.

Thereafter, prosecutors conceded a handwriting expert could not prove he had written the notes in the notebook.

Australian Police yesterday dropped the charge of collecting or making documents likely to facilitate terrorist acts after “definitive advice” on the handwriting in the notebook was received on Thursday.
ABC further reports: Speaking outside court on Friday,Nizamdeen’s lawyer Moustafa Kheir said the process had taken a toll on the student, who spent a month in a maximum-security prison after being charged.

“He’s gone through super max jail — unforgivable circumstances.”

Police had alleged Nizamdeen possessed a blueprint to target several “symbolic” Sydney locations, after officers from NSW’s Joint Counter-Terrorism Team (JCTT) arrested him at Kensington in Sydney’s south-east in August.

Police had alleged the blueprints were found in a notebook in a desk that Nizamdeen used at the University of New South Wales.

His arrest and time in jail sparked protests in his Sri Lankan hometown as well as concerns from classmates at The University of New South Wales. Kheir said Nizamdeen would be suing the police for compensation.

“We are seeking justice through every avenue we can,” he said.

Speaking on Friday, NSW Police Counter-Terrorism Assistant Commissioner Michael Willing declined to comment on the legal threat, calling it a matter for Nizamdeen’s lawyers and family.

Trade Liberalization or Rationalization? — What is more Desirable?

As I write this article, there is this news from the World Bank arrogantly announcing “Aging population makes Sri Lanka’s welfare programs unaffordable”

by Laksiri Fernando-Oct 19, 2018

( October 19, 2018, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) Trade liberalization or free trade has come to a sharp controversy in the context of recent and ongoing rupee depreciation. However, it has been thoroughly a discussed topic internationally, both theoretically and empirically, although not conclusively.

There is a school of thought closer to the economic decision making in Sri Lanka quite surprisingly argues that the country’s rupee depreciation and related economic ailments like the adverse balance of payment, sluggish export growth, low influx of FDI and the depressed economic growth are due to the absence or non-implementation of a full scale liberalization policy. They want to see everything in one basket.

There are critics on the other hand who point out that the reckless free trade agreements, excessively liberal BOI conditions, non-monitoring of external trade and recent liberalization of para-tariffs are the primary reasons for the above predicaments in addition to long term and external factors.

There is an unfortunate possibility of Sri Lanka now going from excessive liberalization to excessive protectionism, under the rupee depreciation and foreign exchange difficulties.

From One Policy to the Oher 

‘Open economy’ was the earlier term for trade liberalization particularly in our country. Complete closed economies or complete open economies have never existed, and never will be. Since independence, Sri Lanka has experienced the economy going from one direction to the other, without forging at least a broadly agreed national policy or model by different governments and schools of thought. The reasons can be both national and international compulsions.

Peter Watson traces the long-distance trade from circa 150,000 years ago, but the Sri Lankan chronicles talk about Thapassu and Bhalluka, two merchant brothers, who apparently traded between Bharata and Lanka, apart from their role in the spread of Buddhism, 250,000 years ago.

At independence, Sri Lanka inherited an open export economy of peripheral nature which naturally encountered balance of payment difficulties as the time passed by. That is why when Donald Snodgrass wrote his exploration of the Sri Lankan economy in 1966, he titled it as ‘Ceylon: An Export Economy in Transition.’ Balance of payment difficulties was a major reason why the country opted to implement import substitution policies in addition to ideological preferences. Sri Lanka was pushed for extremely closed policies in early 1970s, not necessarily by choice, but rather under compelling circumstances.

It was under an evolving new international division of labour (NIDL) that the country could open up the economy again since 1977, yet at a cautious pace. The experience in many East and East-Asian countries has also shown that when a country is ‘opened up’ for trade without neglecting the other sectors (i.e. agriculture, public sector, small business, manufacturing for the local market etc.), economic growth could take off. Another necessary element is state monitoring or intervention (not control). That is what we can call a balanced and a rational economic policy.

What is Desirable?  

An economic opening up is not a panacea, but an opportunity that should be rationally followed up through concrete measures for export promotion. Before trade, or along with it, production should come. That has been what lacking or lagging behind in Sri Lanka. What might be best for export promotion is economic planning with market mechanisms. Two engines – public and private – can work together. The success or the failure, or their degree, should be assessed not by pure theory or ideology, but by empirical evidence.

In this context it is pertinent to ask, whether Sri Lanka needs full trade ‘liberalization’ or trade rationalization? What is more desirable under the given circumstances?

Trade rationalization could encompass a certain degree of liberalization, but not fully. Trade rationalization requires a clear (sophisticated) state intervention and monitoring. Apart from the balance of payment, the trade deficit has to be closely monitored and the currency rate should be kept within a reasonable range. In order to promote exports, concessions can be given, but not of exorbitant nature.

The tariff system should be simplified by abolishing the cumbersome tariffs such as para-tariffs, and having a standard tariff rate/s, which could be increased or decreased given the circumstances (not haphazardly). Even the shipping procedures could be streamlined however with agreement of the local agencies. Shipping industry is an area that can be developed exponentially, given Sri Lanka’s favourable location.

Lessons from the First Phase    

When trade ‘liberalization’ was introduced in 1977 in the name of an open economy, there was a rationale. People were fed up with scarcity, food controls, rice barriers (harl polu), long queues to obtain provisions etc. Foreign exchange controls affected many who wanted to pursue postgraduate studies abroad or travel overseas. The business community was fed up with import-export controls, politically/ethnically tainted import-export licence system, lack of investment goods, capital funds, etc. Therefore a major change was necessary.

Did the open economy of 1977 succeed? Yes, to a great extent, but not fully. Perhaps what prevented a major transformation was the internal political conditions, particularly the civil wars in the North as well as in the South. On the other hand, these conditions were propelled by the open economy itself, according to some research findings (Newton Gunasinghe).

Haphazard liberalization of external trade largely ignited ethnic frictions which led to the July 1983 riots against the Tamils. Import liberalization also affected the peasants both in the North and the South, the younger generations becoming the backbone of the insurgency movements (LTTE and JVP). When R. Premadasa was trying to strike a balance in the open economic policy with social welfare measures, it was rather too late.

The rest is history, but the lesson is clear that major ‘liberalization’ efforts should not be undertaken unless the policies are balanced, rational, incremental, and implemented with the people’s consent, or otherwise there could be political backlashes. Even at present, the liberalized trade sector has created frictions between the Sinhalese and the Muslims.

As I write this article, there is this news from the World Bank arrogantly announcing “Aging population makes Sri Lanka’s welfare programs unaffordable” (economynext, 16 October 2018). The apparent advice is clear. It might not be the whole World Bank who is responsible, but a small group of neoliberals who have gathered around the Sri Lanka programme to dictate terms and experiment their theories.

No Clear Mandate for Liberalization   

When the UNFGG, led by the UNP, put forward its manifesto before the August 2015 elections, it proclaimed a strategy to ‘strengthen the economy’ but not about liberalizing it. There were 16 points in it, but none of them talked about ‘liberalization’ in that sense, apart from saying ‘strengthening Sri Lanka’s position in the international market.’

It is true that the UNP has always been having a more liberalized economic policy, but what they talked about at the elections was a ‘social market economy’ and not liberal market economy. Now that talk has been terminated for the sake of mere liberalization.

The government that was formed after the August 2015 elections was not a UNP or a UNFGG government, but a coalition government with the SLFP which has a different economic perspective, right or wrong. Therefore proper consultation should have been conducted before unleashing many of the major policy initiatives. Otherwise mixed signals could be related to the prospective international partners and the investors.

The major burden of ambiguous policies have to be finally faced by the ordinary people. It is difficult to talk about economic prospects of the country without looking at the political factors. A political-economy perspective might be the best policy approach for the country. The country’s future is too important to leave it to the neoliberal economists alone.

Current Ambiguous Phase of the Open Economy  

The current phase of the open economic policies did not start with the new government in 2015. It started with the political change in 1994 which declared an ‘open economy with a human face.’

It meant the preservation and promotion of the social security and welfare framework along with the public sector initiatives. This is what continued in the country until recently, whatever the mistakes or blunders. What was dreadful during the last phase of the new phase was corruption, nepotism and waste which are unfortunately unabated under the present dispensation.

In addition, the UNP wing of the government had unleashed a neoliberal policy quite bureaucratically in several areas, two can be highlighted as follows.

(1) Following some of the old recommendations of the WTO and others, the government first tried to introduce a cash grant instead of fertilizer subsidy as a measure of artificial marketization of the agricultural economy. But it was a dismal failure without any pilot studies, proper preparation or people’s support.

(2) A similar policy still in the offing is to give vouchers instead of school uniforms to school children following some American neoliberal experiments in ‘charter schools.’ Even in this policy implementation, there was no pilot study, proper research or education for the people to perhaps appreciate the market mechanisms.

Free trade is not a bad idea if it is implemented properly and gradually. Not only the middle class but also the working people can benefit as advocated by Henry George (‘Protection or Free Trade,’ 1886). However the primary concern should be the people and their wellbeing.

Import side of free trade is easy, but the difficult side is exports. Sloganeering per se cannot promote exports. Before exports, there should be production and industries. This is what is lagging in Sri Lanka and the present government and the previous one have not done much to improve the situation. It is insane to talk about new free trade initiatives or agreements within an unfavourable international atmosphere as at present. What should be prioritize is the consolidation of the national economy.

Some Conclusions

Trade liberalization has been going on in Sri Lanka well before India since 1977, of course with ups and downs. However, the country has not yet been transformed into an export oriented economy. Considering the continuing large disparity between imports and exports, it is fair to consider Sri Lanka as an ‘import economy’ than an export economy.

Of course, if tourism is named as an export industry, the situation or the picture might improve. What is necessary however is not a cosmetic change but the promotion of tourism as a key industry in the country. Even for this purpose, certain internal conditions should improve like transport, banking facilities, tourist attractions, people’s acceptance etc. Switzerland is a country which became a developed economy mainly through tourism and banking. To develop the tourist industry to new heights, the country may need its own Belt and Road and also Air initiative (BRAI).

The failure to transform Sri Lanka has been basically due to the mistaken priorities and the contradictions in economic fundamentals. Liberal imports can and have expanded the retail trade, but with adverse effects as we have discussed. Trade deficits are not something that a country can ignore in the long run. Vietnam also faced trade deficits when the country was opened up first, but as the national economy was on a good footing, soon the situation changed, and the exports took off.

A fundamental defect in the economy in Sri Lanka is the neglected agricultural sector where nearly 30% of the population are dependent, but the contribution to the GDP is less than 10%. This is also one reason for the low government revenue, which is a cornerstone of budget deficits. Food industry has to be promoted, and processed and natural food exports can be a lucrative industry. Considering all these requirements of restructuring and public policy initiatives, rationalization is the correct approach instead of mere liberalization.

US ACSA and Chinese presence in Hambantota Port

by Rajeewa Jayaweera-October 20, 2018, 7:47 pm 

US Vice President Mike Pence recently addressed a gathering of distinguished personalities at the Hudson Institute, a Washington based Think Tank. His remarks were related to the Trump administration’s policy toward China.

Pence accused China of using "debt diplomacy to expand its influence today." The example used to drive home his point was; "Just ask Sri Lanka, which took on massive debts to let Chinese state companies build a port with questionable commercial value. Two years ago, that country could no longer afford its payments – so Beijing pressured Sri Lanka to deliver the new port directly into Chinese hands. It may soon become a forward military base for China’s growing blue-water navy."

The US Vice President is a member of America’s National Security Council. It is the US President’s principal forum to appraise national security and foreign policy matters with his senior national security advisors and cabinet officials. Therefore, his comments cannot be dismissed as uninformed.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe rejected Pence’s assertion during his address at the Oxford Student’s Union as "imaginary." He stated it was a commercial joint venture between our Ports Authority and China Merchants - a company listed in the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and its security arrangements entrusted to the Sri Lankan Navy. He did not state, the debt to equity deal was a GoSL initiative and not due to Chinese pressure.

Considering US concerns over one of Sri Lanka’s key ports becoming a Chinese military installation, it would be worthwhile to examine to what extent, all ports and airports in the island had become accessible to US armed forces for use in times of crisis as a result of the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA).

The first proposal by the US made to the then UNP government in 2002 did not materialize due to Indian objections. The agreement was eventually signed between USA and GoSL on March 5, 2007, during the Rajapaksa administration after overcoming Indian objections.

ACSA is perhaps best explained in a position paper titled ‘United States Security Strategy for the Asia-Pacific Region’ to the U.S. Army War College in Pennsylvania by two US military officers in 2004 which states;

"Agreements (ACSA) formally establish terms and conditions for exchange of logistics support for joint training and exercises, peacekeeping operations, humanitarian and disaster relief operations and contingency operations. As the United States reduce its forces in the region, ally support will become increasingly important. Negotiating more ACSAs with host nations can enhance operational readiness and reduce the logistics tail. In addition, ACSAs allow visiting military forces to receive logistic support in the form of supplies; petroleum; transportation; base operations support; use of repair and maintenance facilities; and access to airfields and ports."

"In addition to host nation supplies and services, ACSA can give U.S. access to basing and infrastructure necessary for force projection in and through the USPACOM (US Pacific Command) area of responsibility.

"ACSAs proved critical during Desert Storm/Desert Shield when a significant percentage of strategic aircraft, combat aircraft, and naval vessels were staged from or through USPACOM’s area of responsibility (US Pacific Command) in support of operations. Agreements of this nature continue to prove critical as countries in the USPACOM area of responsibility currently provide access in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraq Freedom."

USPACOM was renamed US Indo-Pacific Command or USINDOPACOM in May 2018. Sri Lanka falls under the area of responsibility of USINDOPACOM.

Potential examples of ACSA in action are illustrated in the appended slide from a PowerPoint Presentation for USAFRICOM Personnel (US Africa Command) available through the link

https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/ccap/cc/corhb/Files/ACSAs/AFRICOM_Resources_ACSA_Training_Slides.pptx

Even though the agreement allows the United States and Sri Lanka to transfer and exchange logistical supplies, support, and refueling servicesduring peacekeeping missions, humanitarian operations, and joint exercises, it forbids the exchange of lethal weapons and ammunition, a particular clause relevant to ACSA with Sri Lanka. Such a provision significantly diminished the value of the agreement for a country embroiled in an internal armed conflict and with no armament industry of its own. As per the illustrated slide, Host Nation may receive ammunition on a replacement basis.

Sri Lanka’s armed forces play no overseas role other than UN Peace Keeping missions. Hence, they have no requirements for logistical support and refueling facilities. The benefits of the agreement are mostly from training.

On the other hand, the agreement is ideal for the world’s only superpower and largest armaments manufacturer. It fulfills US requirements in a conflict situation within the USINDOPACOM region concerning logistics supplies, support, and refueling services. Sri Lanka would also provide access to all its ports and airports for US air and naval craft.

Many support missions in Afghanistan and Iraq are known to have originated from this region.

The agreement signed during the internal armed conflict was not entirely devoid of benefits, and Sri Lanka did receive invaluable assistance primarily in the sphere of intelligence. That said, it was the type of caveat on lethal weapons and ammunition which drove Sri Lanka into the arms of the Chinese to procure such requirements.

An Indian writer on defense and security matters Muralidhar Reddy commented; "For all the sophistry and spin by the Americans, the ACSA is a military deal and, on the face of it, is loaded in Washington’s favor. For the U.S., it is as good as acquiring a base in the Indian Ocean and at little or no cost. In the immediate context, the ACSA suits the Mahinda Rajapaksa Government as an advertisement of its influence with the superpower in general and in its fight against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in particular.

The position paper by two US military officers in 2004 states "As the United States reduce its forces in the region, ally support will become increasingly important." Press Release issued by US Embassy in Colombo during the visit by David Bohigian, Executive Vice President of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and other U.S. government officials from October 3 to 5 stated among other things; "OPIC has a long history of partnering with allies in the region."

Sri Lanka has wittingly or unwittingly become an American ally, a status not claimed by the Chinese despite all the military support including lethal weapons given when required. 

The 2007 ACSA agreement expired on March 05, 2017. Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, responding to a question raised in Parliament in June 2017 stated; "extending the agreement with the U.S. will be utmost importance given the global situation today." Nevertheless, no announcement of the actual renewal has been made to date.

Despite the absence of a formal agreement, joint military exercises between Sri Lanka and US forces continue. Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) was held off Trincomalee in October 2017.Several US warships have called in Colombo including the Nimitz carrier strike group led by nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz that anchored in Colombo in October 2017. A US House Armed Forces Committee visited Colombo in May 2018."We are in Sri Lanka to find out what can be done to strengthen cooperation between the armed forces of the two countries," they said. A Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET) exercise was held in Trincomalee from July 2018. USS Anchorage joined the Sri Lankan naval ship ‘SLNS Suranimila’ for sea exercises in the Indian Ocean, in August 2018,

Such military activities did not take place between March 2007 when ACSA was signed and January 2015 when the Rajapaksa administration was voted out of office.

In comparison, Sri Lanka has not entered into any kind of agreement similar to ACSA with China. Their nuclear submarines involved in anti-piracy missions have been denied bunkering facilities in Colombo since May 2015 because of Indian concerns. Phase One of the only known joint military exercises between armed forces of the two countries, Silk Road Cooperation 2015 took place in Guangzhou in March 2015 and Phase Two in Sri Lanka in July 2015.

Despite mega investments in Asia and Africa, there are no known instances of Chinese interference in their internal affairs.

Under the circumstances, US fears of a Chinese military presence in Hambantota, as echoed by Vice President Pence is unfounded.

On the other hand, what is of immense concern is the increased presence of the US military in the seas and shores of Sri Lanka.

More than 100 Palestinians injured by Israeli forces during Gaza protest

At least two Palestinians were critically injured, including an elderly woman who joined protests in the buffer zone

Dozens of Palestinians had been injured from Israeli live fire according to the Gaza health ministry (MEE/Mohammed Alhajjar)

 

Friday 19 October 2018

More than 100 Palestinians were injured by Israeli fire during weekly protests on Friday, according to the Gaza health ministry, as Israel ramped up its military presence along the fence separating it from the blockaded Gaza Strip.

Gaza health ministry spokesman Ashraf al-Qidra said that among the 130 Palestinians injured, at least 77 were hospitalised.

Among the injured were 25 children, a journalist, medical staff, and two critically injured Palestinians, one of whom is a 70-year-old woman.

Palestinians who spoke to Middle East Eye from the Gaza buffer zone said they would continue protesting "until the siege is lifted".

"We have nothing to lose anymore. People in Gaza are dying slowly and the marches will not stop," Fatima al-Batsh told MEE.

The 15-year-old demonstrator added: "No matter who you speak with on the border, everyone will continue protesting until the siege is lifted." 

Palestinian protestors cover their eyes as Israeli tear gas is fired into crowds (MEE/Mohammed A Alhajjar)

This latest escalation comes as dozens of Israeli tanks amassed around Gaza ahead of Friday's protests.

A Reuters photographer counted about 60 tanks and armoured personnel carriers at a deployment area near the strip, calling it the largest number of military vehicles he has seen there since the 2014 war between Israel and Hamas.

Since protests began in March, at least 217 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces, according to the United Nations Office for Humanitarian Affairs. 

UN-OCHA's data also indicates that most of the 22,897 Palestinians that have been injured during the protests were wounded by live ammunition shot by Israeli forces. 

The large Israeli military deployment on Friday came a day after Nickolay Mladenov, the UN envoy for the Middle East, said "we remain on the brink of another potentially devastating conflict, a conflict that nobody claims to want, but a conflict that needs much more than just words to prevent".

"Gaza is imploding. This is not hyperbole. This is not alarmism. It is a reality," Mladenov told the UN Security Council on Thursday.

He cited World Bank figures that show a 53-percent unemployment rate in Gaza and more than 70 percent of Palestinian youth jobless in the small coastal territory.

One out of two Palestinians in Gaza also now lives below the poverty line, he said.

On Wednesday, two rockets were fired from the Palestinian enclave at Israel, with one destroying a house in the southern city of Beersheba.

In response, Israeli air strikes targeted around 20 Hamas targets in Gaza.

Big BDS legal win in Germany

German politicians have attempted to legislate the BDS movement in support of Palestinian rights out of existence.Anne PaqActiveStills

Riri Hylton-17 October 2018

Supporters of the BDS – boycott, divestment and sanctions – movement in Germany have won a two-year court battle against a local authority that could set a legal precedent for BDS activism in the country.

On 27 September, the administrative court of the northwestern German city of Oldenburg ruled that the municipality’s decision to cancel a 2016 BDS event had been unlawful.

It determined that the city council had “undermined the fundamental right of the applicant’s freedom of assembly” as well as freedom of expression, which, it added, “was (and is) severely interfered with.”

“The fundamental right to freedom of expression is, as the most direct expression of the human personality in society, one of the most distinguished human rights of all.”

The ruling, the first of its kind in Germany, could have broader political implications for BDS activism, said Ahmed Abed, the lawyer who represented event organizers in court. “This ruling could have a great impact because it is the first time an administrative court has said it is unlawful to disallow a BDS event.”

The case

In April 2016, the Oldenburg city council agreed to host a meeting titled “BDS – the Palestinian human rights campaign introduces itself” at PFL, a municipal cultural center. On 13 May, five days before the meeting was scheduled to take place, the municipality withdrew the permit, citing fear of violence.

Unconvinced, event organizer Christoph Glanz filed a lawsuit, triggering a long and protracted legal process.

The city claimed that at the time it had been warned to anticipate a protest of around 80-100 individuals if the meeting went ahead and so resolved to annul its written agreement in order to prevent public disorder.

Oldenburg, Glanz told The Electronic Intifada, is “dominated by anti-Germans,” a part of the German left which equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and which had reportedly begun mobilizing.
“Instead of protecting the event, they [the city] withdrew space from us,” Glanz said.

The real reason for the cancelation, however, became clearer over time. The court found that the decision to withdraw support had more to do with outside pressure than any fear of violence.

Court proceedings unearthed an email sent by Frank Hinrichs, a state official, on 17 May to staff at the Lord Mayor’s office:

“I’ve just spoken with the Lord Mayor again. The line of argument should not change. We’re pulling out for security reasons. If a court maintains otherwise, then so be it. We shall not buckle without a judgment.”

The city had suggested a local high school as an alternative venue for the meeting, only to withdraw its offer a second time. The court retrieved another email, also sent by Hinrichs on 18 May, the day of the scheduled event, which read: “The Lord Mayor wishes the event to remain canceled.”

The court discovered that the German-Israeli Society had contacted the offices of Lord Mayor Jürgen Krogmann, a member of the Social Democratic Party, urging him to cancel the event.

“This is about basic democratic rights and these rights were undermined by the pressures of the Zionist lobby,” Glanz told The Electronic Intifada.

Abed agreed.

“Before the court hearing the city council always denied that this was a political decision. In the court they changed their position and said that BDS was anti-Semitic. We rejected this and pointed out that it is about Palestinian human rights,” Abed said.

The municipality had, he added, simply “decided at one point that they would cancel [the event] because of outside pressure.”

Political response to BDS in Germany

Politicians have responded to growing grassroots support for BDS in Germany in a number of ways, often hoping to legislate the movement out of existence. Last year, for instance, Frankfurt and Munich resolved to prevent BDS activists from using public venues for political purposes.

In May, Berlin’s legislative council officially deemed BDS anti-Semitic, while parties across the political spectrum in the German parliament passed a resolution directing the judiciary to examine whether BDS could be classed as a criminal activity.


In June, Uwe Becher, Frankfurt’s deputy mayor, was quoted as saying artists who support BDS were “not welcome” in the city and said that events with BDS supporters on their schedule risked losing city funding.

The Oldenburg case is therefore an important win for BDS activists in Germany, but a challenge could still be filed in a higher court.

Abed, however, thinks this is unlikely.

“In this case, the violations to freedom of speech and freedom of association were so grave I don’t think they [the city] have a chance.”

Riri Hylton is a freelance journalist/editor working in both print and broadcast journalism. They are based between London and Berlin.

A shouting match inside the White House unmasks one of Trump’s biggest lies

(Carolyn Kaster/AP)

By Greg Sargent-Opinion writer-October 19 at 9:12 AM

A shouting match has erupted inside the White House between two of President Trump’s top advisers. While angry arguments are typical in the world of stressful, high-stakes White House decision-making, this one has true revelatory potential: It opens a window on a big, festering lie at the very core of Trump’s worldview.

That lie is actually two, interrelated lies. The first is that immigration to the United States is fundamentally a malicious, destructive force that Americans should feel taken advantage of or menaced by. The second is that it can be dealt with primarily through “toughness.” Those lies feed each other: If immigration represents a zero-sum threat, in which migrants or their countries of origin are merely driven by a desire to prey on Americans and America, then a “tough” response will overwhelm that predatory motive. Respond “weakly” and you’re a sucker, a victim.

Bloomberg reports that White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly and national security adviser John Bolton got into a furious argument over immigration. Bolton sided with Trump, who has raged at Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen for failing to stop families trying to cross the border. Kelly defended her.

The New York Times adds this crucial detail: “The two men also differed over how aggressively to push Central American countries to do more to discourage their citizens from seeking refuge in the United States.”

Trump has been in a seething fury over a recent spike in migrant families trying to cross the border, and more specifically over a caravan of Central American migrant families moving north through Mexico. Trump has accused Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador of waging an “assault” on the United States and absurdly threatened to use the U.S. military to “CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!”

We cannot be sure of the particulars of the Bolton-Kelly dust-up. But it appears Bolton agreed with Trump that DHS is to blame for failing to stop the migration, and that more must be done to force those countries to prevent it.

Opinion | John Bolton is smart and effective. That's why we should be concerned.

Democracy Post editor Christian Caryl says President Trump's new national security adviser is more capable than other officials. That's the problem. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

Some Trump advisers are cynically feeding his ugliest instincts

The backdrop for all this is the argument raging inside the White House over the rise in migrating families. Stephen Miller, the Trump kingdom’s Immigration Iago, has been whispering in Trump’s ear that the United States is being taken advantage of — whether by child smugglers or countries herding immigrants northward isn’t clear — to push Trump to reinstate some form of the family separations he canceled amid intense blowback.

Trump has come to believe that those family separations are the only thing that has worked — in other words, that a tough deterrent is the only answer. Except that this is highly questionable. The Post’s Nick Miroff and Josh Dawsey obtained new internal administration numbers on attempted family crossings, as measured by apprehensions:

The latest DHS figures show 107,212 members of “family units” were taken into custody during fiscal 2018, obliterating the previous high of 77,857 set in 2016.

Family crossings were much higher over the past year — during which the separations were implemented — than the year before. What’s more, Vox’s Dara Lind took a close look at the data and found that during the separations, attempted family crossings did not drop. As Lind concluded, there is “no evidence” that “harsh treatment” has a “deterrent effect.”

A core assumption of Trump’s immigration agenda is that making life as horrible as possible for immigrants — either those trying to cross the border or those living undocumented here — will reduce the flow of immigration and the size of that undocumented presence. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents now target longtime undocumented residents not just to remove them, but also to spread fear and misery so more “self deport.”

This latter policy, too, has been justified with lies. Trump regularly claims that having undocumented immigrants here means more crime, but much research contradicts this. Low-skilled 

immigration does not have a meaningful impact on Americans’ economic prospects. And do we even know if “self-deportation” is actually on the rise? I’ve seen nothing demonstrating that. Unleashing cruelty may not even be having that desired effect.

As for the question of whether making life more miserable for would-be migrants deters them, the verdict is in — it doesn’t. The explicitly stated goal of threatening the horrifying prospect of getting separated from your child is deterrence. But such migration is incredibly complicated and driven by all kinds of tangled causes. Alicia A. Caldwell’s in-depth reporting illustrates that these mainly include terrible conditions in origin countries, from severe deprivation to political unrest to crime and corruption and violence. This phenomenon is cyclical.

This is why Caldwell, too, concluded that “attempts to increase deterrence … haven’t been effective.” What is actually needed is more comprehensive regional solutions to those underlying causes, as the Obama administration (which, in fairness, also experimented with much tamer deterrence) at least tried to implement. But as Lind points out, this is made harder when Trump lashes out at those countries — which was at the core of the Kelly-Bolton dispute.

We are trapped in the worldview of Trump’s base

As Sabrina Siddiqui demonstrates, Republicans are running dozens of ads across the country that paint undocumented immigrants as violent criminal invaders. Trump tweets regularly that countries to our south are deliberately unleashing them on us. This latter idea is foundational to Trumpism: In his announcement speech, he didn’t merely slime Mexicans as rapists; he also repeatedly said Mexico is sending them, which is why he vowed to get revenge by forcing Mexico to pay for a wall.

Those vows of retribution — and the vow to build that wall — continue today. If migrants are merely predators, and their origin countries are suckering us by unleashing them northward, then you will of course believe that being “tougher” will both cause the immigrant predators to slink away and bully those countries into refraining from taking advantage of us.

These claims, we are told, will energize the Republican base in the midterms. If this is so, then the GOP base is fully in thrall to this terrible misreading of the situation. But, while public opinion on immigration is complicated, and while many Americans surely have legitimate objections to certain aspects of the globalizing order, majorities are now increasinglyinclined to see immigration as a positive force, in direct contradiction of this zero-sum worldview.

The problem is that far too much of our policy response to this complex problem is now springing from that very worldview. And we all have to live with that.