Can the President Alone Build a Border Wall?

 

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano-January 10, 2019 

When Donald Trump was looking for a catchy phrase during his 2016 presidential campaign to address the issue of immigrants entering the United States unlawfully — a line that would resonate with his supporters — he came up with the phrase "build the wall." The reference, of course, is to what Trump advertised would be a 30-foot-tall, thousand-mile-long Mexico-financed physical wall along our border with Mexico.

 

At first, most folks seemed to dismiss this a pie in the sky. Why would the government of a foreign country pay for a wall in the United States built so as to keep its own citizens and residents from entering the United States? The answer: It wouldn't.

 

So President Trump changed his argument that Mexico would pay directly for his wall by arguing instead that the $5.7 billion down payment he wants — on a $25 billion to $30 billion project — would indirectly pay for itself in reduced government welfare and law enforcement expenses. The idea of the wall never took hold during the first two years of his presidency, when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

Even Republicans were leery of the cost and the imagery. The federal government is running about $1 trillion a year in the red, and Republicans are looking to offer comfort in their party to Hispanics. Adding to that debt to build a wall that would affront other Hispanics did not rest well with them. Until now.

 

Now that the Democrats control the House of Representatives, where the idea of a wall is dead on arrival, it is easier for House Republicans to argue in favor of it. Because the Democrats numerically outnumber them, the House Republicans won't be forced to vote on it. The president is probably kicking himself for not calling in a few favors and addressing the wall before the Democrats took control of the House.
So, faced with intractable opposition in the House and only lukewarm, mainly symbolic support in the Senate, Trump has threatened to bypass Congress, declare a national state of emergency and build the wall on his own. Can he legally do this? In a word: No.
Here is the back story.

 

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Everyone who works in government takes a public oath of fidelity to the Constitution; that means to its very words and to the values that those words represent. All federal powers come from the Constitution — and from no other source. The states formed the federal government and limited its powers when they ratified the Constitution. These are all basic truisms of American government, yet we have veered so far from them that they bear repeating.

 

Now, back to the president's wall. President Trump has no power to build a wall or a fence or a doghouse on private property without an express or implied congressional authorization to do so. The vast majority of the property in Texas on which he wants to build is private, according to Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas, whose district contains a longer stretch of the border than anyone else's.

 

Thus, the federal government must use eminent domain, which gives each landowner the right to a trial to challenge the government as to the worth of the property the government wants. Rep. Hurd, a former CIA agent and conservative Republican who opposes the wall, has articulated the views of most of his 800,000 constituents: Not in my backyard.

We know from the plain wording of the Constitution and from history that all expenditures of money from the federal treasury and all federal use of private property must first be approved by Congress. In 1952, the Supreme Court ruled on this when President Harry Truman seized American steel mills during a labor strike and directed the secretary of commerce to hire folks to operate the mills, pursuant to his own emergency declaration that steel was vital to the war effort in Korea. The court held that only Congress could authorize the seizure or adverse government occupancy of private property and the expenditure of money needed to operate the mills.

 

Then, in 1976, Congress provided a definition — which, shortly thereafter, the courts refined — of a national emergency: the existence of events truly beyond the ordinary, wherein there is a palpable and immediate threat to lives, safety or property that cannot be addressed by the employment of ordinary government assets or the exercise of ordinary governmental powers. That is hardly the case today with the former Central American caravan in Mexico now settled in and housed by the Mexican government away from the border.

 

Nevertheless, the 1976 law requires that all ordinary assets — our president prefers the military — be determined useless before a lawful emergency can come into effect. The military useless in an emergency? And if this is such an emergency, why did the president wait until it abated before addressing it?

 

Perhaps the answer is that his frustration with the Democratic House has reached a boiling point, but that boiling point cannot be a basis for a declaration of a national emergency. A valid emergency declaration streamlines the government to address the emergency, but it cannot authorize anything that the Constitution prohibits, nor can it authorize the president to avoid anything that the Constitution requires.

 

The president has sworn not only fidelity to the Constitution but also to take care that federal laws be enforced. If he could disregard that oath, if he could ignore those laws, if he could spend money not authorized by Congress, if he could occupy private property not subject to eminent domain against the will of the owners — in short, if he could make the laws, as well as enforce them, then he would not be a president. He'd be a monarch.

Oil tanker explosion kills Nigerians collecting leaking fuel

At least 12 dead and many seriously injured after crashed tanker explodes in Odukpani

 Hundreds have died while trying to recover fuel from leaking tankers and pipelines in Nigeria in recent years. Photograph: Onome Oghene/EPA

Associated Press in Lagos-Sat 12 Jan 2019 10.11 GMT

At least 12 people have died in Nigeria after an overturned oil tanker exploded while they and others were gathering its leaking fuel, police and witnesses said.

“We have recovered 12 corpses and taken 22 persons with serious burns to hospital,” the police spokeswoman Irene Ugbo said. She said the blast occurred on Friday evening in Odukpani, Cross River state, in the south-east of the country. However, some residents put the death toll closer to 60.
“The police only recovered a few corpses, many of the other dead were burnt to ashes,” Richard Johnson, a witness, said.

He said about 60 people were inside a pit scooping up fuel when the explosion happened. “It is not likely that anyone inside the pit survived as there was a lot of fuel in the pit.”

He suggested the blast was caused by an electrical generator that had been brought to the scene to help pump out the fuel for people’s containers.

It was not immediately clear what caused the truck to overturn.

Hundreds of people have died in similar ways in recent years in the continent’s largest oil-producing nation.

About a year ago, more than 30 people in the same area were burned to death while scooping fuel from a crashed oil tanker.

Nigeria’s worst such incident occurred in 1998, when more than 1,000 people died as the leaking oil pipeline from which they were gathering fuel exploded in the town of Jesse.

Revealed: Shocking footage of Sudan hospital attack

11 Jan 2019
Hundreds of protestors have taken to the streets across Sudan again today, calling for the resignation of President Omar al-Bashir.

Activists said police fired tear gas and automatic weapons to break up the crowds.

And the unrest shows no sign of dying down, despite the brutal crackdown, including an attack inside a hospital this week as security officers chased protesters inside, opening fire.

Amnesty International has condemned it as an “outrageous violation of international law”.

From Sudan, Yousra Elbagir has exclusive pictures showing that attack – and be warned, some may find the images upsetting.

Taiwan is not going back to China

 

The Tibetans, by and large, no longer try and argue for independence
 

Taiwan does exceedingly-well on its own. Its democracy flourishes 

2019-01-12 

Those, like some highly placed people in the US Government and Congress, who say it is inevitable that Taiwan with its population of 24 million will one day return as part of mainland China rather as Hong Kong did, have really missed a beat. There is simply no likelihood that an overwhelming majority of Taiwanese will ever agree to that. The leader of the traditionally independence-minded Democratic Progressive Party, President Tsai Ing-wen, now plays down independence and argues for the status quo. President Xi Jinping’s recent speech reiterated China’s long held view that it would use force if necessary to prevent Taiwan’s formal independence. He is shooting down a bird that will never fly. 

This toing and froing over the same words has been going on for many years. What has changed that pushes Xi to start being aggressive again? It is two things: the deteriorating relationship with the US and Ms Tsai’s clear repudiation of the so-called “1992 Consensus” that positioned Taiwan and China as being part of the same country with each side allowed its own interpretation of what China is. Ms Tsai says China these days is defining consensus as “one country, two systems” - its formula for Hong Kong. Even the opposition party, the Kuomitang, traditionally more pro-China, says a Hong  Kong style arrangement would not be supported by most Taiwanese. 

In the Chinese Government’s eyes it has two rebellious provinces on its plate - Tibet and Taiwan. In Tibet, Chinese occupation keeps expectations in check. In Taiwan, there is no occupation but over 1,000 Chinese missiles are pointed at its heart. 

The Tibetans, by and large, no longer try and argue for independence, but even the notion of autonomy is not acceptable to Beijing. 

During the last 20 years, Taiwan’s China debate has matured at a fast rate. Ms Tsai’s predecessor, Chen Shui-bian, may not have won many converts to his independence line (which is supported by about 30% of the voters) but he undoubtedly shifted the terms of the debate. He persuaded the electorate that they must never kow tow to China. At the same time, the electorate has been convinced by the present government that Taiwan should not provoke China and that Taiwan must continue increasing its economic links, its direct air flights and the encouragement of Chinese tourists. 

It is a great moral and political wrong that Taiwan is excluded from the UN, from where it was summarily ejected when President Richard Nixon made his historic peace with Mao Zedong

In broad terms, it might seem that this is the policy of keeping to the status quo -- neither independence nor union. In many aspects this is so. But it is not the same status quo as 18 years ago -- it is both more independent (not independence) minded and more conciliatory. It is a great moral and political wrong that Taiwan is excluded from the UN, from where it was summarily ejected when President Richard Nixon made his historic peace with Mao Zedong. Nevertheless, Taiwan has carved out a great deal of economic and even political space for itself. It has become, despite a population less than half the size of Britain’s, an industrial and technological giant with over $150 billion of foreign exports each year. Its investments of capital, machinery and personnel in China largely made possible China’s own technological revolution. It has a fine national health service, only second in the world to Sweden’s, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit. However, its income distribution has worsened, as it has in nearly all the industrialised countries. 

Politically it becomes more mature by the year. Its democracy appears to have put down deeper roots than many much older ones. The human rights abuses prevalent under the dictatorship of Chiang Kai-shek and his son are history. The press is sophisticated and the NGO sector thrives. Justice is honest, if at times erratic. 

The Beijing dragon does growl. But it wouldn’t dare bite, despite China’s arms’ build up and its missiles pointing at Taiwan. China surely knows it could never swallow mighty, if small, Taiwan. And it knows that the US with its offshore submarines and F-15s based in nearby Okinawa would never let it try. 

If one day China does move towards democracy, it could be that the Taiwanese will be less fearful about a closer relationship though I doubt if they would ever give up their independence. They might if they accept a European Union-type relationship. 

The Chinese, for their part, should think hard about their historical claim to Taiwan. It is a tenuous one and would not pass muster in the International Court of Justice (the World Court). 

Taiwan does exceedingly-well on its own. Its democracy flourishes. It is a self-confident country. It is striding towards freedom. No speech from President Xi can change this.     

Issues in implementing reservation for the poor among India’s Forward Castes

Patidars of Gujarat demand quotas in Government employment

Saturday, 12 January 2019 

Earlier this week, the Narendra Modi Government got the Indian Parliament to pass the 124th Constitutional Amendment bill to give 10% reservation for the “poor” among the “Forward Castes” or communities in the country.

This was to address a long-standing complaint from these communities that, in the existing reservation system for jobs in Government institutions and places in Government educational institutions, the Forward Castes have no quota, while the Scheduled Castes (ST), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) each have a fixed quota.

The Forward Castes and communities are classified as the “General Category” and Government jobs and places in educational institutions are given to them on the basis of competition open to all communities.

The Indian constitutional reservation system with quotas for SCs, STs and OBCs was instituted to address the primordial social and educational inequalities which were based on the institution of caste, a hierarchical Hindu social and economic order based on birth.  In most States (provinces) the communities identified as “forward” were the Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya castes and also certain peasant castes which are numerically, economically ,politically and socially dominant. Among the latter are castes such as the Jats, Marathas, Patidars and Vellalas.

For over 3,000 years, the non-forward castes, now classified as OBCs, SCs and STs, were oppressed and denied opportunities for education and progress, while the Forward Castes forged ahead.

However, as a result of some socio-political movements, independent India drew up a constitution which gave the SCs (previously dubbed untouchable) 15% reservation, and the STs 7.5%. Then, in 1989-1990, the Government set apart 27% for the OBCs. Some States like Tamil Nadu had already done so and 68% of the places were in the reserved category.

To restrain governments from expanding the reserved category to meet political ends through vote bank politics, the Supreme Court ruled that reservation should not exceed 50% of the total places up for grabs.

The reservation system has come under fire periodically. Many castes have clamoured to be included in the reserved category. The most Forward Castes have been totally against reservation as it militates against the operation of merit. Others have said that an economic criterion should be introduced to take out the rich from the list so that the facilities go to the really needy.

The Central and State Governments have tried to introduce an economic criterion so that the poor among the Forward Castes benefit. But the Judiciary would always disallow these moves because the constitution does not recognise reservation based on economic criteria. Quite rightly, the constitution only recognises primordial (and still existing) “social disability” as the basis of deep-rooted prejudice and of denial opportunities.

Some States included Forward Castes in the Backward Class category. But this was frowned upon by the courts. Some States introduced reservation on the basis of poverty but the constitutionality of these could be questioned.
Arguments against economic criterion

Arguments against reservation based on economic criteria are many: One of them is that wealth is not automatically translated into social status in traditional societies as in India. Markers of high status here are accessibility to certain institutions and spaces like the temple, the dining area, types of work, government jobs of a particular kind, and access to education of a particular kind. Possession of wealth is no guarantee that the possessor has access to such places of status. It is often said that a poor Brahmin youth has greater access to the socially valued places than a wealthy person from a depressed caste.

However, as democracy spreads, education and jobs which confer high status begin to be sought by Backward Castes/SCs/STs as well as the Forward Castes. The wars over reservation are over a share of this cake.

The second argument against economic criteria is that wealth is not static, unlike caste. One can acquire wealth and lose wealth. One can be poor today and wealthy tomorrow. But caste is static. One is born into a caste and is stuck with it lifelong. In a caste society such an affiliation can be quite debilitating.

The third objection to economic criteria is that it is difficult to determine and quantify poverty because notions of poverty vary from time to time depending on changing economic circumstances and value systems. And yardsticks to measure poverty have kept changing.

According to the World Bank, 270,000 000 Indians or one-fifth of Indians are poor. 75% of rural households in India have a monthly income of less than Rs. 5,000 ($ 79). Rs. 5,000 per month per household with an average household size of five would also mean an income of Rs. 33 per person per day in the rural areas.

More than 70 million rural households face some form of exclusion, either from assets or socio-economic benefits, according to data released by the Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC). India Spend recently reported how rural India has more illiterate people than the population of Indonesia.

Because the idea of poverty varies even from State to State, for the purpose of reservation, the Government has left it to the State governments to decide on the markers of poverty.



Challenges in implementation

Be that as it may, the question that still remains is how governments are going to fill the 10% quota for the poor. The majority of Indians of most castes are poor. And being poor they cannot get the right kind of education and training to fill the middle and higher level jobs in the Government.

And governments in India are still small, with a total workforce of only 15 million. Therefore, governments can accommodate only a small fraction of the 13 million youths who join the work force every year. And reservation applies only to Government institutions.

Overall in India, job creation has averaged only 500,000 per year according to Labour Bureau statistics. Trade unions also complain that governments have been increasingly resorting to contractual employment abandoning permanent employment.

And governments have not even been filling posts which ought to go to the reserved categories. According to data secured through the Right to Information Act, only 9,040 out of the 79,483 employees in select ministries and departments of the Central government were from the OBC.

This being the case, how will 10% reservation for the poor of the Forward Classes help? What purpose will it serve other than giving Prime Minister Modi a propaganda devise to help him recover from the shock defeats his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) received in the crucial pre-parliamentary elections in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh?


Constitutionality in question

 Furthermore, the reservation act is yet to pass the test of constitutionality in the Supreme Court. As soon as the Act was passed, Youth for Equality, an NGO, sought the quashing of the bill, saying that economic criterion cannot be the sole basis for reservation. Also, reservation on economic grounds cannot be limited to the General Category (Forward Castes). And the 50% ceiling limit set by the Supreme Court cannot be breached.

'Terrible and unbelievable': Exiled Saudi journalist laments kingdom's abuses

Reem Sulaiman fell foul of Saud al-Qahtani and Riyadh's crackdown on dissent. She talks exclusively to MEE about her experience

Reem Sulaiman says she was targeted by Saud al-Qahtani, close confidant of Mohammed bin Salman (Twitter)

Daniel Hilton

Saturday 12 January 2019

For a moment, late last year, it appeared as if Saudi Arabia might be on the verge of a sea change.

Jamal Khashoggi’s murder had drawn the world’s attention to the human rights abuses and crackdown on dissent in the kingdom, with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s international stock plummeting as a result.

Yet today those same people responsible for Khashoggi’s assassination are still wielding power, according to another outspoken Saudi commentator, Reem Sulaiman.

Sulaiman, like her slain compatriot before her, has been forced into exile after her words caught the eye of top royal aide Saud al-Qahtani.

A close confidant of the crown prince, Qahtani has been implicated in Khashoggi’s murder by the Saudi prosecutor. He has been sanctioned by several Saudi allies, including the United States.

The main initiator of the wave of abuses exercised against activists and opponents inside the kingdom is still in power

- Reem Sulaiman

Speaking exclusively to Middle East Eye from the Netherlands, where she is seeking asylum, Sulaiman says Qahtani’s influence is undiminished, however.

"The main initiator of the wave of abuses exercised against activists and opponents inside the kingdom is still in power,” Sulaiman tells MEE.

“I am referring to Saud al-Qahtani, the former adviser to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, because he controls Twitter and is responsible for directing editors all over the country."

Qahtani, who with Mohammed bin Salman’s blessing waged an information war against any Saudi voice that diverged from the royal court’s preferred line, has vanished from the public eye since the Khashoggi scandal broke in October.

Unlike women’s rights activists and other Saudis whose views have been deemed dangerous by Riyadh’s rulers, however, Qahtani apparently walks free.

According to the Washington Post, the crown prince regularly seeks advice from him still.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is reportedly still in contact with Saud al-Qahtani (Reuters)

Life in the Saudi royal court, it appears, is almost unchanged.

Any hope that the added international scrutiny the kingdom now faces would relax its approach or limit the power of its 33-year-old crown prince has ebbed away – particularly following a cabinet reshuffle that, if anything, cemented his power.

“The country is run by a totalitarian regime and no one can make a decision without the consent of those with higher authority,” Sulaiman says, lamenting the “extremely terrible and unbelievable” situation her country finds itself in.

But like many Saudis, Sulaiman is unsure that the problem lies with the heir to the Saudi throne himself. She questions whether the brutal suffocation of independent voices is the crown prince’s initiative, or those around him.

“I ask the same question to myself every day: ‘Could Prince Mohammad bin Salman be satisfied with what is happening, or are these the practices of Saud al-Qahtani and his criminal tools?’”

Gagging order

Raised in the Saudi capital Riyadh, Sulaiman carved a career for herself as a columnist in several government-controlled newspapers, such as Mecca, al-Wiam and Anha.

Unlike Khashoggi, she was not widely known. Though she wrote for papers close to the ruling family, she was far from a royal court insider.

Her columns were not controversial, or so she thought.

What bothered them was that my writings spring from my own conscience, not what the adviser Saud al-Qahtani wants

- Reem Sulaiman

But last summer, one of Qahtani’s assistants approached Sulaiman, handing her a gag order that came straight from the crown prince’s aide.

What she wrote to attract such attention remains a mystery to her, though she suspects they were wary of her independent mind.

“What bothered them was that my writings spring from my own conscience, not what the adviser Saud al-Qahtani wants,” Sulaiman says.

Saudi limits on free expression are nothing new.

The strangulation of independent intellectual thought has, though, intensified considerably since Mohammed bin Salman rose to power in 2017.

The Saudi censorship campaign is noticeable for its brutality and viciousness. Khashoggi’s murder and dismemberment is the most obvious and chilling example of Riyadh’s zero-tolerance policy.

Also significant is the way it ruthlessly targets opinions that diverge just the slightest from the official line.

“Every intellectual and writer who has not participated in the treasonous campaigns and misleading of public opinion that the country is still witnessing has been targeted,” Sulaiman says.

Women walk past a poster of Saudi Arabia's King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud during Janadriyah Cultural Festival on the outskirts of Riyadh (Reuters)

Shocked and shaken by Qahtani’s order, Sulaiman ceased writing. But soon after, her home was stormed by men "armed to the teeth", and she was detained.

For two days Sulaiman was interrogated, insulted and subjected to what she calls “psychological abuse”. Her captors questioned her about her articles and tweets.

READ MORE►

Essam al-Zamil: The Saudi economist punished for speaking truth to power

To this day she cannot understand why she was put through this ordeal, after following her instructions to the letter.

“It is the question no one can answer. Arrests and hindrance of expression are not limited by specific laws or regulations,” she says.

Why else, Sulaiman notes, would economist Essam al-Zamil be arrested just after returning from the US with an official delegation.

“It is the same case for Sheikh Muhammad al-Arifi, whose advocacy and academic activities were stopped and he was placed under house arrest,” she recalls.

Online attacks

Today Sulaiman is some 5,500km from Riyadh, Qahtani and his henchmen. Safe in the Netherlands, she has used her exile as an opportunity to reflect on her experience and highlight the campaign of fear being wrought in her country.

Last month, she took to Twitter, detailing her detainment, interrogation, gagging and eventual escape via Bahrain.

“I did that because of what I have been through, as well as the information that my interrogators told me themselves about the horrific and appalling violations many female detainees have been subjected to,” she explains.

“I put my humanity to the test... Should I reveal this and shed light on their sufferings, or opt for silence and betray my principles and those subjected to the torturers’ whip?”

Her choice has not been without consequences.

Immediately after she began her now-infamous thread, a legion of accounts began attacking her online – a familiar tactic used by Saudi authorities to discredit their opponents.

This Twitter army of bots and trolls, apparently created at Qahtani’s behest, is known as “the flies”.

“No one who has criticised, objected to or revealed the injustice they were subject to has been immune to them,” Sulaiman acknowledges.

“I just thank God that it did not develop into killing and dismemberment, like the case of the martyr Jamal Khashoggi.”

Top royal aide Saud al-Qahtani (Screenshot)

Online, Sulaiman has been accused of being an agent of Qatar, the gas-rich state on Saudi Arabia’s eastern border with which the kingdom is locked in a dramatic feud.

“If I had wished to be an agent, I would have chosen to stay in my country and be an agent of the Saudi government,” she argues.

“Then I would benefit from the privileges, extravagant salaries and close ties with the royal court’s top advisers.”

“As for being a Qatari agent,” she adds, “it is a ready-made accusation for every critic or opponent, as was the case before the Gulf crisis, when people were accused of being an agent of the Houthis, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

If I had wished to be an agent, I would have chosen to stay in my country and be an agent of the Saudi government

- Reem Sulaiman

Another line of attack she has faced is the accusation that she is not Saudi at all, a tactic employed with Khashoggi before her.

The claim is “ridiculous”, she says, “and deserves no response”.

“I still receive threats, but not at the same pace as the first few days after I announced I had left the country and disclosed what happened to me.

“However, I think I will receive new threats if I become active in the media again, or make television appearances in particular.”

Living in fear

Khashoggi’s fate looms large in Sulaiman’s imagination, and she fears the “Gaddafi-like recklessness” of the Saudi rulers he described before falling victim to it himself.

Despite this, she continues to feel the pull of responsibility: to speak out, and defend the activists, writers, dissidents and unfortunates who are still behind bars back in Saudi Arabia.

Her regret, she says, is that she must do this far from home.

“I must sadly admit that the Saudi government has left no choice for activists and others except leaving the country. As an intellectual interested in public affairs, you can either join the flow of praise, leave the country, or be detained in prison. Even opting for silence is no longer an adequate decision,” she says.

READ MORE►

How Khashoggi case brings back bad memories for Libyan exiles

“In fact, the kingdom's prisons are full of activists from different movements, orientations and sects. Everyone is terrified.

“Many people wish to leave the country, but some are banned from travel and others fear being arrested at the airport on charges of trying to escape and join the opposition abroad.”

The alternative of incarceration is clearly worse.

Women’s rights activists, most of whom were arrested in tandem with the kingdom’s much-publicised decision to allow women to drive, have reportedly been subjected to sexual abuse in detainment.

Qahtani, who visited Sulaiman’s mother in an attempt to pressure her into a false confession, personally oversaw the torture of one female activist, according to reports.

“The human rights situation is at its most difficult and worst. There is no supervisory body defending the rights of detainees in prisons. Prisoners are not allowed to have a lawyer, and occasional visits from families are banned as well,” the columnist says.

“What has been published about the abuses cannot be the end of the story, and I think there are still more terrible and horrible incidents yet to be confirmed, even killings.”

A demonstrator dressed as Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman holds 'the royal bone saw' outside the White House (AFP)

For now, Sulaiman sees no immediate way to end the mounting abuses.

“We are not living with real state institutions and democracy is not being implemented,” she notes. “The people have no say or opinion.”

Nevertheless, she says international pressure can help, and welcomed the recent demand issued by British MPs to visit detained activists. On Thursday, the cross-party group said Riyadh failed to respond to its request.

The application process for official asylum in the Netherlands is ongoing, but Sulaiman is confident she will be successful.

She does intend to return home one day though, when the time is right.

“When prisoners of conscience come out of prisons and activists can express their views,” she says.

“When Saudi Arabia becomes a safe place for its citizens, and guarantees their freedom, dignity and lives.”

 Huawei sacks employee arrested in Poland on spying charges

FILE PHOTO: Logo of Huawei is seen in front of the local offices of Huawei in Warsaw, Poland January 11, 2019. REUTERS/Kacper Pempel

James Pomfret, Anna Koper-JANUARY 12, 2019

HONG KONG/WARSAW (Reuters) - Chinese telecommunications equipment maker Huawei said on Saturday it had sacked an employee arrested in Poland on spying charges in a case that could intensify Western security concerns about the company.

Poland’s internal affairs minister, Joachim Brudzinski, called for the European Union and NATO to work on a joint position over whether to exclude Huawei from their markets following the arrest of the Chinese employee and a former Polish security official on Friday.

Huawei, the world’s biggest producer of telecommunications equipment, faces intense scrutiny in the West over its relationship with China’s government and U.S.-led allegations that its devices could be used by Beijing for spying.

No evidence has been produced publicly and the firm has repeatedly denied the accusations, but several Western countries have restricted Huawei’s access to their markets.

In August, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a bill that barred the U.S. government from using Huawei equipment and is mulling an executive order that would also ban U.S. companies from doing so.

Brudzinski said Poland wanted to continue cooperating with China but that a discussion was needed on whether to exclude Huawei from some markets.

“There are concerns about Huawei within NATO as well. It would make most sense to have a joint stance, among EU member states and NATO members,” he told private broadcaster RMF FM.

“We want relations with China that are good, intensive and attractive for both sides,” he added.

HUAWEI DISTANCES ITSELF FROM ARRESTS

Seeking to distance itself from the incident, Huawei said in a statement it had sacked Wang Weijing, whose “alleged actions have no relation to the company.”

“In accordance with the terms and conditions of Huawei’s labor contract, we have made this decision because the incident has brought Huawei into disrepute,” the statement said.

“Huawei complies with all applicable laws and regulations in the countries where it operates, and we require every employee to abide by the laws and regulations in the countries where they are based,” the company’s statement added.

A Huawei spokesman, Joe Kelly, declined to give any further details.

The two men have heard the charges and could be held for three months.

A spokesman for the Polish security services had told Reuters the allegations related to individual actions, and were not linked directly to Huawei Technologies Cos Ltd.

A deputy digital affairs minister in Poland said, however, that Warsaw was analysing any involvement by Huawei in building the country’s 5G telecommunications infrastructure, Money.pl portal reported.

Any decision by Western governments over whether to exclude Huawei from their markets would have to consider the possible impact on the speed and cost of 5G development, analysts say.

“My best-case outcome is that Europe uses this window of opportunity and figures out how to have a minimal risk for the best network possible,” said Jan-Peter Kleinhans, an IT security expert at Stiftung Neue Verantwortung, a Berlin-based think-tank.

A LinkedIn profile for Wang showed he has worked for Huawei’s Polish division since 2011 and previously served as attache to the Chinese General Consul in Gdansk from 2006-2011. Wang did not immediately respond to a request for comment via the social media site.

China’s Foreign Ministry has expressed concern over the case and is urging Poland to handle the case “justly.”

Kerala: They knew where to go

by Vijay Prashad-Jan 11, 2019

Jan 11, 2019

On Jan. 1, 5.5 million women in the Indian state of Kerala (population 35 million) built a 386-mile wall with their bodies. They stood from one end to the other of this long state in southwestern India. The women gathered at 4 p.m. and took a vow to defend the renaissance traditions of their state and to work towards women’s empowerment. It is not an exaggeration to say that this was one of the largest mobilizations of women in the world for women’s rights. It is certainly larger than the historical Women’s March in Washington, D.C. in 2017.

Kerala’s government is run by the Communists. It is not easy for a left-wing government to operate in a state within the Indian union. The Central Government in New Delhi has little desire to assist Kerala, which suffered a cataclysmic flood last year. No assistance with the budgetary burdens of relief and reconstruction, and no help with financing for infrastructure and welfare services. The Communist government has a wide-ranging agenda that runs from its Green Kerala Mission — a project for stewardship of the state’s beautiful environment — to its fight for women’s emancipation. The Left Democratic Front government believes that dignity is a crucial a goal as economic rights, and that it is centrally important to fight against everyday humiliation to build a truly just society.

Over the course of the left’s government in Kerala, it has pushed ahead the agenda against everyday humiliation. For instance, in 2017, the government provided free sanitary pads for young women in school. The logic was that during their periods, young women who could not afford sanitary pads avoided school. Prejudices against menstruation had become a barrier to equal education. The government called this project “She Pad,” which benefited students and teachers. Pinarayi Vijayan, the Chief Minister of Kerala, said of the effort, “Menstrual hygiene is every girl’s right. The government is hoping that initiatives like these will help our girls to lead a life of confidence.”

A hundred miles north of Kerala’s capital — Thiruvanthapuram — sits a temple for Ayyappan, a celibate god. Women between the ages of 10 and 50 had not been permitted into the temple due to a belief that the celibate god would not be able to tolerate women who menstruate. The Indian Supreme Court took notice of this and, in September 2018, declared that the temple must allow all women to enter. The Left Democratic Front government agreed with the courts. But the temple authorities, and the far-right groups in the state, disagreed. When women tried to enter the temple, the priests blocked them, assisted by the far right. The situation was at a deadlock.

Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan called upon progressive organizations across the state to start mobilizing the citizens toward the building of a Women’s Wall (Vanitha Mathil) on Jan. 1. The energy in the state was electric. Women gathered at hundreds of mass meetings across the state. They recognized immediately that this was not a fight only to enter a temple, but this was a fight principally for women’s emancipation, for the right of women, as Vijayan had said, “to lead a life of confidence.”

The public meetings in November and December galvanized the opposition to the far right, arguing that women have every right to enter public spaces, including religious buildings. January began in anticipation. Women had been organized by districts and knew where to go. Women of all ages and backgrounds, from schoolteachers to members of the fishing community, began to line up around 3 p.m. After taking an oath, they marched through their towns and cities. They exuded joy and confidence, a freedom that should warm the hearts of sensitive people.

Strikingly, the media outside India paid little attention to this global, historical event. Press coverage in the United States was nearly absent. Internationalism in our time is such a façade, with so little care to amplify the bravery of people around the world. When the Women’s March took place in Washington, D.C., newspapers in Kerala reported it in detail. The favor was not returned. Silence was the answer.

Two days after the Women’s Wall, the right-wing in Kerala went on a rampage. Their members attacked the leaders on the left and threw bombs at government buildings. Over 700 people — mostly men on the far right — were arrested that day.

Walking down a main shopping street in Thiruvanthapuram, I see visible signs of the far-right’s attack. On one side of the street are posters and signs of left organizations torn and broken during the day of rampage by the far right. On the other side of the street, far-right supporters sit on a hunger strike.

Even liberals have taken the side of the far right. One liberal politician said that while he favored women’s rights, he also favored the temple’s rights. But the temple has no rights, nor does tradition. As Gandhi wrote almost a hundred years ago, “If I can’t swim in tradition, I’ll sink in it.” Neither the temple nor tradition trumps the rights of women to live with confidence. If a tradition is discriminatory, it deserves to be set aside.

There are no half measures in this debate in Kerala. The mood is that one must not walk away from one’s principles. 

5.5 million women in Kerala — one in three women in the state — took to the streets to champion the emancipation of women. What brought them to join the Women’s Wall was that the Left Democratic Front government took a clear position, a principled position: that menstruation should not be used as a penalty against women’s full participation in society. Clarity defines the struggle. It is a lesson worth learning around the world.

Vijay Prashad is the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. His most recent book is “Strongmen.” He lives in Northampton.

Labour set to call vote to topple Theresa May’s government

MPs told to get ready for a no-confidence vote as Tories say PM’s Brexit deal has no hope

 Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn making a speech on his party’s Brexit stance in Wakefield last week. Photograph: Sean Smith for the Guardian

Toby Helm and Michael Savage-Sat 12 Jan 2019 21.00 GMT

Labour MPs have been told to prepare for Jeremy Corbyn to table a dramatic and immediate vote of no confidence in Theresa May’s government as early as Tuesday evening in an attempt to force a general election if – as expected – she suffers a heavy defeat this week on her Brexit deal.

Messages have been sent to Labour MPs, even those who are unwell, to ensure their presence both for the “meaningful vote” on the prime minister’s Brexit blueprint on Tuesday and the following day. Labour whips have told MPs the no-confidence vote is likely to be tabled within hours of a government loss, with the actual vote taking place on Wednesday.

The news comes before what promises to be one of the most tumultuous 24 hours in recent parliamentary history in which, barring another delay, May will put her Brexit deal to parliament despite deep and widespread opposition across the Commons, including from many MPs inside her own party.

A senior shadow cabinet member said: “There is now recognition that we cannot wait any longer. If May goes down to defeat and she does not resign and call an election, this is the moment we have to act.”

Senior Tories said on Saturday that they could not see how the prime minister could win the meaningful vote “in any circumstances” and that a defeat by less than 100 would now be regarded as the best she could hope for.

But even if she suffered a loss of closer to 200, which many Tories fear could be the case, Conservative MPs and ministers still expect her to stagger on and seek to bring an improved offer back to the Commons for a further vote within weeks.

Although senior Labour figures accept they are unlikely to win a no-confidence vote, as the 10 Democratic Unionist MPs have said they will back the government, the move will highlight the fragility of May’s hold on power as the Brexit crisis deepens.

Yet should Corbyn fail to force an election, it will place the Labour leader under greater pressure from many of his own MPs, as well as party members and supporters, to throw his weight behind a second referendum as the way to break the Brexit impasse.

Labour’s current policy is to seek to force an election, and if it wins, to renegotiate a new Brexit deal. Senior shadow cabinet figures said any further delay in tabling a no-confidence motion will make that position untenable, as there will be insufficient time before Britain’s exit from the EU on 29 March to hold an election.

The Observer understands that if Corbyn were to delay tabling a vote of no confidence, senior Labour MPs would table one themselves in the hope of forcing the leadership to back a second referendum. Angela Smith, Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge, said: “The time for prevarication is over. If May’s deal fails we have to test the will of the house and if we fail, we must consider all options including campaigning for a second referendum as this is party policy.”

A Labour spokesman, while not confirming a vote on Tuesday, said that while the timing of a no-confidence vote had not been fixed, MPs had been told to be ready. Barry Gardiner, the shadow trade minister, said last week that a vote of no confidence would “obviously” have to follow immediately after a defeat for May’s deal.

A Momentum activist, Michael Chessum, spokesman for the leftwing anti-Brexit campaign Another Europe is Possible, said that if Labour won the confidence vote, it would be time for Corbyn to back a second referendum as part of the Labour manifesto. If it lost, it should campaign for one as the official opposition.

He said: “Proposing a no-confidence motion is the first step for either scenario, and we need to get on with it.” Labour campaigners for a second referendum claim that the party’s policy forum has received more than 13,000 emails and letters urging Corbyn to oppose Brexit.


Roy Hattersley, the Labour grandee, says the British people should have a vote on Theresa May’s deal. Photograph: Murdo Macleod for the Guardian

Writing in the Observer, London’s Labour mayor, Sadiq Khan said that he will step up his campaign for another referendum if an election is not called immediately: “A public vote would not only allow us to move beyond the current stalemate but would actually start the desperately needed process of healing the deep divisions that have opened within our society.”

Roy Hattersley, the veteran Labour politician, also threw his weight behind a second referendum on Saturday, saying the British people had “a right to cast a vote on the merits” of May’s deal.

Meanwhile, pro-remain cabinet ministers are preparing to push for a softer Brexit this week. In the event of a defeat for May, they are poised to back a plan B that would prevent Britain from signing its own trade deals.

It is understood some believe that joining a permanent customs union with the EU could be enough to secure a Commons majority for May’s deal. This could be one option put forward in a series of indicative votes to test the views of MPs on alternatives if her plan is thrown out. Such a move would potentially attract a bloc of Labour MPs.

 

With a critical week ahead, Tory rebels are already plotting a series of measures designed to hand more power to parliament over Brexit. One senior figure said that a “legally copper-bottomed” plan had already been drawn up to “give parliament control of the Brexit negotiation and stop a no-deal Brexit” should May’s deal be voted down.

A vote to show there is a Commons majority in favour of delaying Brexit is also being plotted by a cross-party group of MPs. “If we are not crashing out and we are not going for the PM’s deal, I cannot believe that article 50 does not have to be extended,” said one of those involved.

The business secretary, Greg Clark, also writing in the Observer, has appealed to pro-Brexit Labour MPs to back May’s deal, insisting that the government would protect workers’ rights when the UK is outside the EU. He pledged to back an amendment proposed by Labour MPs on the issue.