Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Fears of no Brexit drive hardliners to Theresa May’s side

-26 Mar 2019Political Editor
They’ve said no – emphatically and twice – to Theresa May’s Brexit deal, but tomorrow afternoon MPs will have the chance to say what sort of Brexit deal they do want.
A group of backbench MPs has taken control of Parliament’s agenda and will make the Commons vote on a series of indicative votes.
They could include cancelling Brexit altogether or a much softer Brexit.
There are signs tonight that faced with that prospect some Tory Brexiteers have decided to back Theresa May’s deal after all.
They might yet get a third vote on it this week.

Netanyahu slams Ilhan Omar for suggesting Israel’s U.S. allies are motivated by money

Via video from Israel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the AIPAC conference in Washington on Tuesday. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rebuked Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) on Tuesday for her recent comments about the motivation of American allies of Israel, arguing that her remarks do more than just attack Israel — they target the Jewish people.

Netanyahu, speaking by video from Israel on the final day of the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference, did not use Omar’s name, but he singled her out by referring to a comment she made on Twitter last month.

“From this Benjamin: It’s not about the Benjamins,” Netanyahu said, responding to a February tweet by Omar purporting that U.S. politicians’ support for Israel was linked to campaign contributions.
Omar had tweeted, “It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” a reference to $100 bills.

“Those who seek to defame this great organization, AIPAC, those who seek to undermine American support for Israel, they must be confronted,” Netanyahu said. “Despite what they claim, they do not merely criticize the policies of the Israeli government. They do something else: They spew venom that has long been directed at the Jewish people. Again, the Jews are cast as a force for evil. Again, the Jews are charged with disloyalty. Again, the Jews are said to have too much influence, too much power, too much money.”

Omar, a Somali refu­gee and one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress, responded quickly to Netanyahu’s comments, tweeting: “This from a man facing indictments for bribery and other crimes in three separate public corruption affairs. Next!”

Later in the day, she chastised Netanyahu in a series of tweets for focusing on her rather than on the global rise of white supremacy.

Omar’s remarks loomed over the Washington gathering of pro-Israel advocates, as most speakers mentioned her in some way. Last month, she had suggested that AIPAC buys its political influence. A week later, she said some American supporters of Israel have “an allegiance to a foreign country.”

Her comments drew swift reproach from Republicans and Democrats, many of whom said the remarks perpetuated anti-Semitism tropes. To quell the backlash, House Democrats voted on a resolution to condemn all hate speech.

Netanyahu had cut short his visit to Washington on Monday after rocket attacks near Tel Aviv hit a home, injuring seven Israelis.

Before Netanyahu spoke, U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman also invoked Omar, telling the crowd that it would always do what is needed to defend Israel. “And let’s be clear,” he added, “we will not do this for the Benjamins.”

Republicans, including President Trump, have sought to capi­tal­ize politically on the rift in the Democratic Party over Omar’s comments. Trump told reporters last week that Democrats were both “anti-Israel” and “anti-Jewish.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who also spoke to the AIPAC conference Tuesday morning, assured the audience that support for Israel is “relentlessly bipartisan.”

“We will never allow anyone to make Israel a wedge issue,” Pelosi said.

Less than an hour later, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) used his speech to condemn not only Omar but also the larger Democratic Party.

He claimed that anti-Semitic tropes had “received new prominence by a sitting member of Congress.”
“I’m troubled that leading Democrats won’t call out problems in their own ranks,” McConnell said. “I’m troubled that a number of Democratic presidential candidates seem to be avoiding this very gathering.”

McConnell also chastised Pelosi for not bringing up Senate-passed legislation that would allow states to refuse business from companies that boycott Israel, known as the “boycott, divestment and sanctions” movement, suggesting that the “anti-Israel crowd has apparently paralyzed the House and scared them away from even considering our legislation.”

In her speech, Pelosi explicitly called out the BDS movement as “bigoted and dangerous.” Two Democrats last week introduced a resolution rebuking the global boycott movement against Israel.

Pelosi also said, to loud applause, “We should honor legitimate debate without questioning loyalty or patriotism.”

Oil prices dip after U.S. inventory gain

FILE PHOTO: An oil well pump jack is seen at an oil field supply yard near Denver, Colorado, U.S., February 2, 2015. REUTERS/Rick Wilking/File Photo

MARCH 26, 2019 

TOKYO (Reuters) - Oil prices edged lower on Wednesday after an industry report showed an unexpected rise in U.S. crude inventories, but losses were capped by ongoing supply curbs and issues affecting output from countries including Venezuela.

Brent was down by 12 cents, or 0.2 percent, at $67.85 by 0010 GMT. On Tuesday, the global benchmark rose 76 cents to $67.97 a barrel, not far below its year-to-date high of $68.69, reached on March 21.

U.S. crude futures fell 9 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $59.85. The U.S. benchmark rose $1.12, or 1.9 percent, to $59.94 a barrel in the previous session.
 
The American Petroleum Institute, a trade organization, said late on Tuesday that U.S. crude inventories rose 1.9 million barrels in the latest week, while analysts had forecast a decrease of 1.2 million barrels.

The market was waiting to see whether official figures due later on Wednesday would confirm the API data.

Oil rose on Tuesday as Venezuela’s main oil export port of Jose and its four crude upgraders were unable to resume operations following a massive power blackout on Monday, the second in a month.

Oil prices have risen more than 25 percent this year, supported by supply curbs by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and other major producers, along with U.S. sanctions on exports from Venezuela and Iran.

But worries about demand have limited oil’s rally as manufacturing data from Asia, Europe and the United States pointed to an economic slowdown.

Reporting by Aaron Sheldrick; editing by Richard Pullin

No mention of Palestinians or Israeli settlements, as Democrats take AIPAC stage

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer say Democrats fully back Israel, as pressure builds on party over new progressive voices
'If you care about American security, you must care about Israel's security,' Pelosi says (Reuters)

By Ali Harb-26 March 2019
The top Democrats in Congress have addressed the conference of AIPAC, narrating anecdotes of personal connections to Israel, condemning anti-Semitism and vowing to maintain bipartisan support for the Middle East country.
Missing from their speeches, however, was any reference to Palestinians or criticism of Israeli policies that undermine the two-state solution that they claim to support, including the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Speaking at the annual conference of the pro-Israel lobby, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer both dismissed the notion that Democratic support for Israel is dwindling.
Their presence at the conference came amid several notable absences, as top Democratic presidential candidates skipped the event after calls from progressive groups.
Some Democrats' reluctance to attend the AIPAC conference was used by Republicans, including US Vice President Mike Pence, to accuse their rival party of abandoning Israel.
Not so, said Pelosi, the top Democrat in Congress.
"Assistance to Israel is vital, and it's not going anywhere because if you care about American security, you must care about Israel's security," she said on Tuesday.

'Not going anywhere'

In her speech at the AIPAC conference, Pelosi said America "must ensure" that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge in the region.
She pledged that the US House of Representatives, which is held by Democrats, would soon "overwhelmingly" pass an Israel aid package that would give the country $3.5bn annually over a decade.
Protesters wave Palestinian flags outside AIPAC conference
Read More »
Pelosi also slammed the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to pressure Israel - economically and politically - to end its human rights abuses against Palestinians.
She called BDS a "bigoted and dangerous" ideology "masquerading as policy", endorsing a proposed symbolic House resolution to condemn BDS.
Schumer also condemned BDS and stressed the need for bipartisan support for Israel, in a speech to the AIPAC conference delegates late on Monday.
But he appeared to acknowledge that many are starting to question the US-Israel relationship, saying "too many of our younger generation don't have the same understanding of the threats facing Israel as my generation did".
"That's a fundamental problem we must confront head-on," Schumer said.

Democrats still support Israel

However, Schumer said the "overwhelming majority of Democrats" support Israel, pointing to numerous pro-Israel bills that were almost unanimously backed by Democratic lawmakers.
With the rise of progressive Democrats critical of AIPAC, President Donald Trump has accused the party of being hostile to Israel, calling on Jewish-Americans to vote for Republicans instead.
On Monday, Schumer responded to the president without explicitly mentioning him.
"Not only is it demonstrably false to say that Democrats are anti-Israel, it also hurts the Israel-US relationship," he said.
Several top Republicans have also recently accused the Democratic Party of tolerating anti-Semitism and abandoning Israel, in a bid to sow divisions between the party's centrist old guard and its progressive base.
Mike Pence calls out top 2020 Democrats for skipping AIPAC
Read More »
On Monday, Vice President Pence called out 2020 Democrats who did not show up to the conference. 
"So let me be clear on this point: Anyone who aspires to the highest office in the land should not be afraid to stand with the strongest supporters of Israel in America," Pence said.
Later in the day, Schumer warned Republicans against using Israel to "score political points", saying that transposing political divisions in Washington to Israeli-US relations does a "disservice" to both countries.
The senator followed in the footsteps of many speakers at AIPAC this year by taking a swipe against Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, without naming her directly.
Omar has recently been the subject of outrage for saying that the pro-Israel lobby drives support to Israel through financial contributions to elected officials in Washington and pushes for "allegiance [to] a foreign country".
'When someone looks at a neo-Nazi rally and sees some 'very fine people' among its company, we must call it out'
- US Senator Chuck Schumer
While Omar repeatedly said she didn't mean that Jewish-Americans are not loyal to the US, her detractors have maintained that the remarks constitute a charge of dual loyalty against Jews, an anti-Semitic trope.
"When someone says that being Jewish and supporting Israel means you’re not loyal to America, we must call it out ... When someone suggests that money drives support for Israel, we must call it out," Schumer said on Monday.
He added that lobbying for Israel does not make one less American, but rather a better citizen.

Netanyahu lauds Trump

Schumer followed up his implicit criticism of Omar by calling out Trump for failing to condemn white supremacists after a violent rally for neo-Nazis in Charlottesville in 2017.
In the aftermath of the confrontation between neo-Nazis and anti-racist activists, which left one anti-racism activist dead, Trump said there were "very fine people" on both sides.
"When someone looks at a neo-Nazi rally and sees some 'very fine people' among its company, we must call it out," Schumer said.
Israel must keep 'security control' over occupied West Bank, US envoy says
Read More »
Addressing AIPAC on Tuesday morning, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also denounced Omar, saying that support for Israel is not driven by money as the congresswoman suggested.
"Take it from this Benjamin, it's not about the Benjamins," he said in a video message to the conference.
However, unlike Schumer, he did not denounce the US president, but rather, lavished praise on him.
"On behalf of all the people of Israel, thank you, President Trump and thank you for all the historic decisions you have made," Netanyahu said.

Collusion or No, Russia’s Reaction to Mueller Report Echoes Trump’s

Kremlin seeks to argue that it’s as innocent as the U.S. president.

A mural depicting a winking Russian President Vladimir Putin taking off a Donald Trump mask is painted on a storefront outside of the Levee bar in Brooklyn on Feb. 25, 2017. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
A mural depicting a winking Russian President Vladimir Putin taking off a Donald Trump mask is painted on a storefront outside of the Levee bar in Brooklyn on Feb. 25, 2017. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

No photo description available.
BY 
|  It may well be that, as special counsel Robert Mueller apparently concluded, there was no collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. But in the days since a summary of the Mueller report emerged, the Kremlin and the Trump administration have almost been singing from the same page in their reaction.

Back in Washington, Trump has been raging against his political enemies, especially the media, since Attorney General William Barr summarized Mueller’s conclusions on Sunday. “The Mainstream Media is under fire and being scorned all over the World as being corrupt and FAKE. For two years they pushed the Russian Collusion Delusion when they always knew there was No Collusion,” Trump tweeted Tuesday.

In Moscow, meanwhile, Russia’s foreign ministry spokeswoman suggested that Western journalists should apologize for their coverage of the Mueller investigation into links between Moscow and the Trump campaign during the 2016 U.S. presidential race.

“How does American propaganda work and produce such massive fake content?” she wrote in a Facebook post.

Other Russian officials have also exploited the Mueller report’s conclusions to argue that Russia, like Trump, has been a victim of “two years of unceasing lies,” as Konstantin Kosachev, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian parliament’s upper house, put it, not only about collusion but also over the idea that there was ever any Russian interference in the first place.

Russian Sen. Alexey Pushkov, well known for his hawkish stance, wrote on Twitter, “It has been confirmed that all these allegations were fabricated.”

“Given the official Kremlin line has always been denying any sort of interference, period, I think this is being received as essentially confirming that narrative,” said Alina Polyakova, a fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Moscow, also taking its cue from Trump, has begun to claim as well that it was the Russia state media’s bête noire, Ukraine, that tried to interfere in the 2016 election in favor of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Last Wednesday, the U.S. president tweeted: “As Russia Collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges.”

“The Russia investigation in the USA is over. Ukrainegate is beginning,” read one op-ed headline on site of the state-owned RIA Novosti.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, commenting on the initial findings of the report, also suggested that the Americans were still deluding themselves about Russian involvement.

“I would like to quote the words of a Chinese philosopher who said, ‘It is very hard to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if it is not there,’” he told reporters.

The Washington Post noted that this does not appear to be a Chinese proverb.

Russia’s official reaction overlooks the fact that in his letter to Congress summarizing the Mueller report’s findings Barr said flatly that Moscow did seek to influence the course of the U.S. elections and there were “multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
Two-thirds of the people indicted in the investigation were Russian.

Even the Russian markets were feeling optimistic, with both the ruble and the Russian stock exchange up at the end of the day on Monday, as fears of further U.S. sanctions were ameliorated by the report’s initial conclusions.

Numerous schadenfreude-infused news reports drew attention to the cost of the investigation, with pro-Kremlin Ren TV questioning how $25 million “turned into a dry four-page report.”

In a statement, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that Mueller’s conclusion that there was no collusion “was to be expected.” It called his indictment of 25 Russians “grotesque,” describing his actions as politically biased and a “disgrace to the U.S. system of justice.”

In a Facebook post, Leonid Volkov, the chief of staff for Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny, said that now that Trump has been cleared of collusion, Russia’s hawks will try to blur the line and argue Russia’s overall innocence.

Russian liberals—who have few illusions about President Vladimir Putin or his capabilities—also lamented that the U.S. media’s laser focus on all things Russian in recent years has both burnished Putin’s image while simultaneously portraying Russia as a victim of a witch hunt for audiences at home.

“From the official Russian perspective, from the propaganda state media perspective, it’s incredibly helpful, as it confirms the Russia narrative that Putin has made Russia great again,” said Polyakova of the Brookings Institution.

“There’s a joke going around at that: ‘We haven’t got [indoor] toilets in one-fifth of Russian homes, but hey, we can get the American president elected,’” Polyakova said.

Many Russians have become frustrated at times with the tone of the U.S. media’s coverage of Russia.
“Russians are fair game for very ’50s style xenophobia,” said the Russian journalist Alexey Kovalev. “Russia is not Communist, Putin is not all-powerful, Russians are not naturally despotic.”

“Even the most liberal and anti-Putin person in Russia wants to be proud of their country and see it being an ally in the world rather than a scapegoat for many evils in the world,” said Vitali Shkliarov, a political consultant who served as senior advisor on opposition candidate Ksenia Sobchak’s 2018 campaign for the Russian presidency.

As relations sour between Russia and the West, it’s the liberal opposition that is left behind, Shkliarov said.

Russia’s vehement denials of its effort to influence the 2016 U.S. elections will come as little surprise to longtime Russia watchers. From the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal to its covert war in eastern Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea, the Kremlin has an extensive track record of denying its actions abroad, often despite a preponderance of evidence.

“We are laughing,” Alexander Malkevich, the head of the Commission of Mass Media in the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, told Foreign Policy. “We are really laughing, because we see the result of two years of work of Mueller’s commission. Thirty-five million dollars was spent for what, to say that the president is innocent?”

Malkevich was subject to U.S. sanctions in December for his own role in running a website linked to the so-called troll factory that sought to exploit fissures in American society through fake and distorted news. Malkevich said his operation was disrupted as part of U.S. Cyber Command’s effort to take the troll factory offline on the day of the U.S. midterm elections last year.

Ultimately, Polyakova said, the granular attention given to the question of collusion has distracted from the larger Russian goal of undermining democracy.

“It’s not about specific candidates, it’s not about elections. It’s a continuous slow drip that tries to chip away at the legitimacy of Western democracies. And we focus so much on elections—which we should—but we’ve completely missed the bigger picture,” she said.

INCLUSIVE NATIONALISM: THE ONLY WAY FORWARD



25 March 2019

Liberal Democracy entails in the main, the idea of ever-expanding individual rights, the tolerance of other people’s views and the duty of the State to protect and enhance them. Such expansion might one day lead to the disappearance of National boundaries and UN might become a thing of the past. However, as long as the UN exists the concept of a Nation State would continue to be there. As long as the concept of a Nation State exists looking after the National interests of each country would necessarily take precedence over individual interests.

An essential prerequisite for the promotion of National Interest as against the interests of individuals would be the creation of a citizenry with a strong sense of belonging and identification with the culture of one’s country.

Many Nations in recent history have experienced the ill effects of certain countries trying to export “democracy” of a kind in the form of neo-liberalism to those Nations which had reasonably content and happy people with various systems of governance.

  • Sri Lankans have to survive within this country as one Nation and prevent outsiders from making us lose
  • The single most important factor which has been able to resist interference is Nationalism 

This project of exporting ‘’democracy” of this undefined nature has always been met with resistance based  primarily on Nationalism of each of these Nations.

Nationalism is a powerful tool which seems to win every time against any attempt of external intervention or of attempts to impose neo-liberalism  by force.

Various examples from the wars of Vietnam to Afghanistan, to Iraq where the resistance had come from elements who value their sovereignty and who have a strong sense of Nationalism are readily available.

Prof. John Mearsheimer the American Political Scientist and international relations scholar, argues therefore, even America’s attempt to export Liberal Democracy to the rest of the world has been a failure.

If America was genuinely interested in promoting Liberal Democracy to the rest of the world, to that extent they may not have been successful. However, this failed attempt has not prevented the disruption and the eventual destruction of stable countries and societies.

The single most important factor which has been able to resist interference is Nationalism according to Mearscheimer. He in fact cites the example of his own country and says the rise of Donald Trump was due to American Nationalism. It is this sense of belonging and identification with one’s country that gives  people the ability to resist outside interference and assert their sovereignty.
Though asserting sovereignty is not beneficial for the “neo-liberal”  project, as far as the US itself is concerned, they have always insisted that their sovereignty be respected by others.

They have told the UN so,in no uncertain terms   and that is obviously why they are so perturbed by the mere possibility of Russia having attempted to influence the outcome of their elections. Unfortunately, the same yardstick cannot be expected to be used regarding sovereignty of all countries as  inequality of Nations due to diverse factors is the reality though theoretically sovereign equality is the cornerstone of the UN system.

In such a scenario, is it possible for Sri Lanka to assert and sustain its sovereignty  given our present standing in the World? This question seems to depend primarily on three major  factors. The first is the level of desire of our rulers to assert sovereignty,  the second is our ability to assert economic independence at a level that permits the exercise of sovereignty while the last and certainly the most important factor, is our ability to build inclusive nationalism and prevent our own Nationals from wanting to act against our national interests as a result of feeling marginalized. Economic independence does not necessarily mean the absence of being indebted, in reality it means the ability to avoid the diktats of other countries with regard to our destiny.

For instance, the US is indebted to the tune of around three trillion US$ to China. Yet China is not in a position to dictate terms to America. Whereas, Sri Lanka, whose total Chinese debt amounts to less than 11% of the  overall debt, has demonstrated its severe inability to assert sovereignty to the level that is desired even to protect our strategic assets. We have also not been able to resist attempts by many foreign countries to dictate terms with regard to many of our  internal affairs.

In all cases where the US tried to impose its will, it was not necessarily as a means to bring neo-liberalism in the guise of democracy. Countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria were attacked or interfered with, under various pretexts though Mearscheimer argues the underlying aim  was the export of liberal democracy.

Even if one assumes that the US did have  such an aim but failed in their endeavour, yet the resistance  has failed to rescue those countries from destruction and the resultant loss of whatever little freedom the people of those countries may have had prior to intervention. The obvious reason for this has to be due to nationalism of those countries having an inherent weakness which prevented national cohesion.
Nationalism is a powerful tool which seems to win every time against any attempt of external intervention or of attempts to impose neo-liberalism  by force
As a result of this the interventionists found collaborators within those countries quite easily which resulted in the resistance only preventing neo-liberalism taking root but failing to prevent destruction of those countries.

If Sri Lanka were to avoid such a situation, the only possible way is not to cave in and allow neo-liberalism to take root which will destroy our culture and eventually decimate us with no long term benefit to the collaborators as well as those who refuse to collaborate, but to create nationalism which is of an inclusive nature where nobody feels alienated and the need to collaborate with external forces. No citizen can be allowed to feel alienated from the culture of the country when seeking to build inclusive Nationalism. Achieving such is not easy but seems to be the only way forward if we are genuinely interested in protecting our Nation State.

In moving towards such a goal it would be very important to understand and reject the prescription given to us by the West, namely, the creation of multiple cultures which they themselves do not practise. Instead what we must do is to create a single culture towards which everybody can contribute. People must feel, irrespective of their current faith that all of them are the repositories of the ancient culture of this country. For them to feel so, those who currently claim a monopoly of the ancient culture of this country must be willing to accept that there cannot be a monopoly of the core culture of a country to a particular linguistic or religious community.


The political leaders of this country must realize any encouragement given to foreign powers to interfere in our  internal affairs for temporary political gain of someone or a group of people, in the long run would be detrimental to all. Nobody should be permitted to entertain unrealistic dreams of peaceful coexistence in a bifurcated country brought about by coercion applied externally.

All Sri Lankans have to survive within this country as one Nation and prevent outsiders from making us lose whatever precious little we have secured  for ourselves by the collective identity we possess as a Nation.

If we are unable to do so, sooner than later our existence as a sovereign nation, recognized by the UN, would seriously be  in question.We must have the maturity to understand that no outside element would genuinely be interested is looking after the interests of any group within our country and that they will only promote their interests at our cost.

The New Liberal idea that one must not have a sense of belonging to a Nation, that everyone is a global citizen, that all must lose National identities to identify with global trends based on individual rights as opposed to social obligations of individuals, have to be re-looked at as the preservation of the nation is essential for the securing of individual rights within our country.

Therefore ideally, to defeat all external interference, the country ought to strive to move towards a single, all encompassing value based culture, contributed to, by all citizens which would give a sense of belonging to all.

For this to be achieved our thought process (Chinthanaya) must change drastically. Such a changed thought process must be converted into a vision. Such a vision with suitable strategies must be implemented effectively. If, in the process of implementation, difficulties are encountered, appropriate measures can be employed to overcome them.

The thought process, vision, strategies and measures must conform to an all-encompassing ideology based on our ancient values; whereby the correctness or otherwise of each of them can be verified in relation to such ideology. This ideology must  be the promotion of individual and collective rights of all our citizens based on our traditional values of love, kindness, compassion, vicarious joy and equanimity.

Based on such an ideology when we move towards a single National Culture and Identity it would be possible to accept that all citizens are the repositories of all historical achievements of the country.
The day the entire world genuinely believes in one humanity,  the concept of a Nation State, national identities and Nationalism itself can be given up. But until and unless that day arrives, it is not possible for any Nation to survive without Nationalism.

However, the very same Nationalism if not used in a manner to include everybody, might result in a situation where  the enemies of the Nation would be able to make use of Nationalism as a divisive tool to separate all of us.Thus, the imperative and the urgent need is to build INCLUSIVE NATIONALISM as it is the only plausible way forward.

As Venezuela’s misery grows, U.S. focus shifts to Cuba’s role

Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro attended a gala for Fidel Castro’s 90th birthday along with Cuba's President Raul Castro in Havana in August 2016. (Ismael Francisco/AP)


Before he fled Venezuela last year, Lt. Col. Carlos Jose Montiel Lopez sometimes felt like he was serving in another country’s army. 

His superiors in a military engineering unit were trained in Cuba, and a Cuban officer led his class on tunnel construction, Montiel said in an interview. The underground passages his brigade built in northern Venezuela — part of a plan to counter a possible U.S. invasion — were inspected by Cubans. 

“They were dressed in civilian clothing, but we would call them by their military rank: mi comandante, mi general,” said Montiel, a stocky 43-year-old who now lives in Miami and is seeking U.S. asylum. The training manuals the Venezuelans used, he said, came from Cuba and Cubans were “our supervisors and decision-makers.”

Cuba, according to the Trump administration, is the main reason President Nicolás Maduro remains in power, two months after the United States recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president and began imposing some of the world’s harshest sanctions on Maduro’s government.

“No nation has done more to sustain the death and daily misery of ordinary Venezuelans, including Venezuela’s military and their families, than the communists in Havana,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said earlier this month.

Holding Cuba responsible for Venezuela’s misery and Maduro’s endurance has proved serendipitous for President Trump’s foreign policy and domestic political aims.

Florida, seen as a must-win state for his 2020 reelection prospects, has the largest concentration of Cuban Americans and Venezuelan expatriates in the United States, many with deep pockets and leaning Republican. Some of them sense a moment to do in Venezuela what the United States never could in Cuba: Bring down the government. At the same time, success in Venezuela could deeply weaken Cuba’s communists.

“I think it’s very difficult to understand U.S.-Venezuela policy without understanding Cuba and the half-century drive to change the regime in Havana,” said Michael Shifter, president of the Washington-based Inter-American Dialogue. “Their calculation is that change in Venezuela will effect change in Cuba.”

Trump and his national security adviser, John Bolton, were cheered when they denounced Maduro and his Cuban backers in speeches delivered in Miami in recent months. Bolton and Cuban American Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), both longtime advocates of ridding Cuba of its communist government, have found a new avenue via Venezuela.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), also a Cuban American with a significant Cuban constituency and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, usually has little good to say about Trump’s foreign policy. Venezuela, he said, “shouldn’t be about domestic politics.”

“But I think it would be naive not to recognize that bad actors are keeping Maduro on a lifeline. It’s Russia,” which has long provided cash in exchange for part ownership of Venezuela’s oil resources, “and it’s the Cuban regime,” Menendez said. “There’s no question that their security apparatus is fully engaged in Venezuela, at Maduro’s request.”

Following reports last weekend that two Russian military aircraft, carrying about 100 troops, a senior officer and tons of military material, landed in Caracas, Pompeo called his Russian counterpart Monday to demand Moscow not interfere there. Pompeo told Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that the United States “will not stand idly by as Russia exacerbates tensions.”

But most of the administration’s attention has been focused on Cuba, which it charges has 20,000-25,000 military and intelligence personnel embedded in the Venezuelan military and intelligence services, as well as Maduro’s personal guard.

The Cuban government has said that more than 20,000 Cubans are working in Venezuela, but that nearly all of them are doctors and teachers. In a news conference last month, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez strongly denied U.S. claims that Cuba maintained a “private army” in Venezuela, and accused Washington of using the “pretext” of a humanitarian crisis that its sanctions helped cause to prepare for “a military aggression” against Venezuela.

Even without blaming Cuba, Trump’s pressure on Maduro — whose corrupt and oppressive governance has left millions of people starving and without access to health care, clean water or even electricity — enjoys wide bipartisan support among lawmakers.

Elliott Abrams, the administration’s special envoy for Venezuela, points out that the humanitarian disaster began long before serious U.S. sanctions were imposed this year. Additional measures are on the drawing board.

“We think there will come a point at which the whole society will show its rejection of this regime even more strongly, that is, larger demonstrations, more people in the army saying this can’t continue,” Abrams said in an interview. 

So far, military defections have amounted to a steady trickle rather than a flood, particularly among senior officers, which has led the administration to increase its emphasis on Cuban responsibility.

“Why don’t more generals, let’s say, break with the regime?” Abrams said. “Why have there been no substantial breaks, departures from the country?”

Part of the reason, he said, may be because neither the opposition nor its foreign backers have fully convinced the military that they have a role in a post-Maduro Venezuela. “Maybe we have not said enough about amnesty.” 

But there is also fear of capture and reprisals, Abrams said, and “the Cubans are the enforcers” inside Venezuela’s security and intelligence services.

“They’re the ones who are hunting around for the slightest sign of disaffection. They’re the ones who literally torture you in prison. I really do think the nervous system of the regime, at this point, is substantially Cuban.”

Among those who have defected, some have pointed a finger at Cuba.

In a live video session from an unknown location, presented at the Organization of American States in Washington last week, Aviation Lt. Ronald Dugarte played what he said were secret recordings, made on his cellphone, of torture victims at military intelligence headquarters in eastern Caracas. 
Dugarte, who appeared in full uniform, said he deserted his military counterintelligence unit in late February. One of his jobs had been to detect opposition within the armed forces, he said, adding that his trainers were members of the “Cuban intelligence militia.”

Among the images he showed was a man he identified as Col. Mejias Laya, sitting on the floor of a bare cell, blindfolded with his hands shackled behind him. The prisoner, he said, had been held in that position for 30 days and was “brutally tortured.”

Gen. Antonio Rivero, a senior member of the Venezuelan military who turned against Maduro and fled the country in 2014, said in an interview that Venezuela’s military strategy had been transformed by Cuban advisers into that of a “prolonged asymmetrical war” against a new enemy: imperialism.

A training course he attended in November 2008, Rivero said, was led by a Cuban general who insisted that everything discussed should be considered a “state secret . . . Here was a foreigner telling me what was and what wasn’t a state secret.”

Unlike its shoot-from-the-hip tendency on many foreign policy issues, the Trump administration began a measured diplomatic effort to let other countries in the region take the lead in opposing Maduro’s reelection after a flawed national vote last May. The United States remained nominally outside a coalition of leading Western Hemisphere countries, the Lima Group. Formed in 2017 to mediate the Venezuelan crisis, it condemned Maduro’s continuation in power as illegal. 

When Maduro was inaugurated in January, it was the 14 Lima Group countries — including Canada — that first said they would not recognize his government. They, along with the administration, subsequently recognized Guaidó as interim president, by virtue of a vote in Venezuela’s opposition-controlled Legislative Assembly.

Some Latin American governments have come to share the administration’s contention that Havana is calling the shots in Caracas — particularly as several large countries such as Colombia and Brazil have swung to the right in recent elections. Previous governments in those places, and in the United States, ignored the growing crisis in Venezuela, one senior Latin American official charged.

“They left a mess,” said the official, whose country has been inundated with Venezuelan refugees. “They didn’t do a thing when things went south.”

But Lima Group declarations have never mentioned Cuba.

Canada, which has been in the forefront of the group, is “aware that there’s a Cuban presence” in Venezuela, said a Canadian official, “but our focus is very much on Venezuela, trying to support the restoration of democracy . . . As far as I know, we have not been in the business of going out there and naming and shaming others,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under rules set by his government.

In his address to the United Nations General Assembly last September, Trump blamed the “socialist Maduro regime” for tragedy in Venezuela, and made only glancing reference to Cuba as a puppet master.

In November, however, Bolton designated Venezuela, Cuba and left-wing Nicaragua as a “troika of tyranny” that was spreading the “destructive forces of oppression, socialism, and totalitarianism.”

His Miami speech coincided with the administration’s decision to appoint a special envoy, a job initially envisioned as coordinating policy toward all three members of the “troika.” That plan was dropped by the time of Abrams’s January appointment, but the insistence that Venezuelan-style, Cuban-spread “socialism” is a Democratic goal for the United States has already become a prominent Trump campaign trope.

The decades-old U.S. drive to oust Cuba’s ruling communists was interrupted by the Obama administration, which reestablished diplomatic ties with Havana and lifted some economic restrictions. It has come roaring back under Trump. Although embassies remain open in both capitals, diplomatic representation has been sharply cut and new restrictions on American travel and economic relations have been imposed.

Rubio said it “goes too far” to call the Trump administration’s Venezuela policy a proxy war against Cuba, insisting it is based on fears of a broader crisis in a region already struggling to cope with massive flow of Venezuelans fleeing their collapsing homeland. While millions have crossed into neighboring Colombia and Brazil, at least 74,000 have applied for asylum in the United States.

But, Rubio said, “Cuba is a big part of this, in terms of their support for the regime” in Venezuela.
A staunch Cold War ally of the United States, Venezuela quickly shifted when Chavez, a career military officer who was jailed for a coup attempt and later pardoned, won the 1999 presidential election on a platform of social reforms for the poor.

Chavez found a mentor in Cuba’s Fidel Castro, whose state-run economy was suffering from U.S. sanctions and the demise of the Soviet Union, its longtime patron. After surviving a coup attempt in 2002, Chavez welcomed Cuban intelligence and military assistance — as well as doctors and teachers — in exchange for free and subsidized oil. Under Maduro, who took over after Chavez died in 2013, the shipments eventually reached about 100,000 barrels per day.

Although it does not have the power to implement its orders, the Legislative Assembly under Guaidó declared a state of emergency after electrical blackouts earlier this month and ordered the suspension of all oil exports to Cuba, saying that Venezuela’s resources were needed to “resolve the crisis.” 
Guaidó asked for “international cooperation” to implement the order, and Bolton said in a tweet that “insurance companies and flag carriers that facilitate these giveaway shipments to Cuba are now on notice.”

Some have questioned the administration’s estimate of 20,000 to 25,000 Cuban military and intelligence agents in Venezuela. Asked about the number, Abrams said that, in addition to U.S. intelligence assessments, “it’s an amalgam of impressionistic evidence and real evidence.”

“Just as an example,” he said, “how do we know that Maduro’s security people are Cuban? When they go to the U.N., they have to ask for visas.” Overall, he said, the numbers “are not scientifically derived. They’re from estimates of, well, how many are there in this organization, how many are in that organization? How many are outside Caracas? How many are with the army? ”

William Brownfield, who served as U.S. ambassador to the Chavez government and, until the fall of 2017, as assistant secretary of state in charge of international law enforcement and counternarcotics, said that “my own guess would be a quarter to half” of the administration’s estimate.

“But even if off by 50 or 75 percent, it is an astonishingly high number,” he said. “The other half of the story is that these guys are literally in the chain of command.”

“It was already beginning in my time,” Brownfield said, but “obviously not nearly as advanced as it is today.”

As he departed Caracas for the last time as ambassador in 2007, he said, a Venezuelan official at the airport handed his passport to a Cuban to check. “I knew . . . because he had a little pin on his lapel” with Cuban and Venezuelan flags. 

Faiola reported from Caracas and Miami.

Yemenis protest by the thousands on 4th anniversary of brutal war

Protesters were out in support of Houthis, directed invective at Saudis, U.S. and Israel

A young boy, his face painted with the colours of Yemen's flag, attends a rally to mark the anniversary of the Saudi-led military intervention in Sanaa. (Khaled Abdullah/Reuters)


The Associated Press · 
Yemenis held a mass rally in Sanaa on Tuesday to show support for the Houthi movement on the fourth anniversary of a war that has killed thousands and pushed the country to the brink of starvation.
The Iran-aligned Houthis have controlled the capital Sanaa and Yemen's largest populated areas since 2014, when they ousted the government of President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi.
The United Nations is pushing ahead with tough talks with the Houthis and the Saudi-backed government to find a political solution to the conflict.
Men, women and children marched while waving the red, white and black national colours and chanted slogans against Saudi Arabia, which leads a military coalition against the Houthis and the United States, which backs it.
They also blamed U.S. ally Israel for destroying the country.
Massive speakers played "America and Israel, death and mutilation to you" and "five or fifty years, we will face the criminal coalition."
Reuters witnesses said a crowd of tens of thousands of people, including supporters of the Houthis's Ansarullah group, had gathered in Sabeen square in central Sanaa since early Tuesday morning.
"This is a message to the world, that at the start of the fifth year [of the war], Yemenis will be stronger... a message that the Yemeni resistance will be even greater," said Mohammed Haidarah, a protester.

Women supporting the Houthi movement at the rally in Sanaa to mark the fourth anniversary of the Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen's war. (Khaled Abdullah/Reuters)
Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif blamed Saudi Arabia and its allies for rejecting peace.
The coalition accuses Iran of supplying the Houthis with arms, including drones and missiles. Iran and the Houthis deny the accusations.
"On the eve of the war's shameful fifth year, a reminder that it's not too late to stop the nightmare that this war has become," Zarif said on Twitter.

Shaky ceasefire

Many people taking part in the rally painted their faces in the colours of the Yemeni flag, and others danced holding assault rifles and traditional daggers as Houthi leaders cheered the crowd from the main podium.
Mohammed Ali al-Houthi, head of the Houthis's Supreme Revolutionary Committee, denounced the U.S. decision to recognize Israel's sovereignty on the Golan Heights.
"It is a recognition from someone who does not own to someone who does not deserve," he told the crowd.
Tens of thousands have died in the war pitting the Houthis against the Saudi-led coalition, which intervened in Yemen in 2015 to restore Hadi's government to power.
The war has displaced over two million people and driven the impoverished Arabian Peninsula country to the verge of famine.
Both sides agreed at UN-sponsored talks in December to a truce and troop withdrawal from the port city of Hodeidah, which has become a focus of the war, and an exchange of prisoners.
The ceasefire has broadly held, although sporadic clashes continued as the United Nations struggled to implement the withdrawal of troops, a confidence-building measure meant to clear the way for a broader peace settlement after four years of war.
However, violence has escalated in other areas since the UN peace process started.