Sunday, May 19, 2019

Labour panics as remain voters switch to Liberal Democrats

Polls makes Vince Cable’s party the favourite for remainers and puts it in first place in London

Jeremy Corbyn addresses a European election campaign rally in Bootle. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP

Michael SavageObserver policy editor-Sat 18 May 2019

Senior Labour figures were engaged in a desperate battle to shore up the party’s support on Saturday night, amid warnings that its stance on Brexitwas helping to “detoxify the Lib Dems”.

With just days left before the European elections at which Nigel Farage’s Brexit party is expected to triumph, shadow cabinet ministers are among those concerned that Labour’s ambiguous position on Brexit has helped revive the Lib Dems. It comes as new polling seen by the Observer suggests Vince Cable’s party is running in first place in London and could even beat Labour overall.

One senior party figure warned: “If the consequence of Labour’s Brexit position and this European election is to essentially detoxify the Lib Dems, then that’s a real problem.” Clive Lewis, a shadow Treasury minister, said “lifelong Labour voters” would not back the party this week due to its Brexit stance. He added: “It feels like we’ve given [the Lib Dems] the political equivalent of resuscitation.”
The fears came as it emerged that:

• London mayor Sadiq Khan has pledged that he will campaign for Remain “day and night” in any second referendum, as he urged voters, in an article for the Observer, to back Labour to stop a Farage victory.

• Theresa May is planning to make one last “bold offer” to MPs in a desperate attempt to secure support for her Brexit deal, including changes demanded by Labour, Democratic Unionist and Tory MPs and a new round of indicative votes.

• Labour MPs revealed they were already drawing up attempts to stop a no-deal Brexit should a hardline Brexiter replace May as prime minister, with some suggesting that revoking Brexit had to be a fall-back option.

An Opinium poll for the Observer found that the Liberal Democratshave narrowly overtaken Labour as the favourite party of remain voters, with 29% of the group now backing Cable’s party and 28% backing Labour.

Meanwhile, a wider poll found that the Lib Dems are set to top the poll in London and could even push Labour into third place overall in the European election.

The YouGov/Datapraxis poll of more than 9,000 voters, commissioned by the pro-remain Best for Britain campaign and Hope Not Hate, found the Brexit party leading in all other regions apart from Scotland, where the SNP leads.

It found that the Lib Dems had overtaken Labour, once the pollster had removed voters who said they did not know how they would vote, or would not vote. It put the Lib Dems on 17%, Labour on 15% and the Greens just four points further back, on 11%. The Brexit party was leading on 34% and the Tories were on 9%.

A Tory cabinet minister also told the Observer they were worried about the Lib Dems, as remain supporters abandoned their party. “I’ve been warning for some time that the Lib Dems are not dead and could come back, but have been ignored,” they said. “If you map the local elections on to a general election, there are seats in which big majorities of over 10,000 votes could be wiped out.”
Serious concerns are being expressed among Labour MPs. One senior frontbencher said: “Labour should take the Lib Dem revival seriously.

“If the consequence of Labour’s Brexit position and this European election is to essentially detoxify the Lib Dems, then that’s a real problem for a party that is coming from younger voters, students, people who rent – a whole cohort of voters who in previous times may have voted Lib Dem. We can’t afford to lose them.”

Brexit party leader Nigel Farage campaigning in South Ockendon. Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA

Lewis said: “The Liberal Democrats were flatlining, rightly tainted with their association with austerity and the Tory government. Ultimately, the position we’ve taken on a confirmatory vote means that lifelong Labour voters are seeing the European elections as a kind of EU referendum, part two – to send a message to the two main parties.

“Many people are telling me that they are not going to vote Labour for the first time in their lives. You’re breaking a seal. The first time is the most difficult, but the second and third time could become easier.”

Neil Coyle, a Labour MP in a former Lib Dem seat, said: “Jeremy Corbyn has breathed life back into the Lib Dem carcass by appearing to be bailing out May. It’s an astonishingly damaging position and members are very angry. By appearing to face both ways on Brexit, voters are slapping both Labour’s faces.”

However, leader Jeremy Corbyn’s team is adamant the party has to try to retain Labour’s leave and remain voters. Labour called off cross-party talks last week, but has not ruled out backing a process of votes to find a way out of the Brexit impasse. At a rally on Saturday, Corbyn called on voters to back Labour to halt the “far right”.

Writing in the Observer, Khan pleads with progressive voters to back Labour to keep out Farage. With the Lib Dems surging in London, he also commits to campaigning “day and night for Britain to stay a member of the European Union” in a future second referendum.

“We must stand united in our opposition to the rise of the far right and reject their dystopian vision of our future. Labour is the only party that can beat them,” he writes. “Voting for smaller parties, meanwhile, just makes Nigel Farage’s job easier – and makes it more likely that we wake up to headlines proclaiming him as the winner.”

The latest polling will alarm Labour insiders. Naomi Smith, from Best for Britain, said: “Our poll is the largest yet, and shows that there’s still everything to play for in these European elections. It’s fundamentally important that as many people as possible get out and vote, especially those who often get forgotten by politicians – young people, renters and minority voices. No matter their frustrations with politics, staying at home on polling day is never the answer.”

Nick Lowles, from Hope Not Hate, said: “These results are incredibly alarming. They envision a populist right party storming to victory in these elections. If that happens as this poll suggests, it will be a big boost for the forces of division in this country.”

U.S. Quietly Waters Down Another Communique on Gender Equality

This time it’s a G7 joint statement ahead of a meeting of national leaders in August.

G7 leaders pose for a photo during the G7 summit in Sicily on May 26, 2017. MIGUEL MEDINA/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

BY ROBBIE GRAMER

| MAY 17, 2019, 3:23 PM

The Trump administration pushed the G7 nations to water down a declaration on gender equality last week as part of its broad effort to stamp out references to sexual and reproductive health in international institutions, according to people involved in the process and drafts reviewed by Foreign Policy.

It is only the latest iteration of the administration’s hard-line stance against any language that might suggest approval of abortion in the official documents of international institutions that include the United States. The heavy-handed diplomatic strategy has put Washington at odds with European allies and drawn criticism from women’s advocacy groups for undercutting wider efforts to improve global gender equality.

The Group of 7, representing seven of the most advanced economies in the world, issued a communique on women’s equality this month that was pared down in some sections from initial drafts circulated in advance among diplomats and experts.

U.S. officials raised red lines on what should be axed from the communique, including a seemingly innocuous section praising the G7’s Gender Equality Advisory Council, an independent group of experts and diplomats working on gender equality, and language on reproductive health.

The measures follow a pattern that has played out at the United Nations, where the Trump administration last month went as far as threatening to veto a U.N. measure to prevent sexual violence over language on sexual and reproductive health (though last-minute diplomatic wrangling averted the veto).

U.S. officials under President Donald Trump have argued that the phrase “sexual and reproductive health” refers specifically to abortion. Experts and advocacy groups disagree and point to the phrase being used consistently in international institutions and treaties for decades.

The G7—which includes the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan—has traditionally avoided contentious debates on gender-related health issues as part of the group’s broader discussions on political and economic priorities. Recent G7 summits, normally carefully choreographed and diplomatic affairs, became anything but under Trump. At the 2018 G7 summit in Canada, Trump refused to sign the joint statement and derided Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “Very dishonest & weak” in scathing tweets after the summit over disagreements on trade.

The dispute over the latest communique on gender equality played out in diplomatic back channels and at lower levels during a meeting of G7 gender equality ministers in France on May 9 and 10.

In a draft of the G7 communique reviewed by Foreign Policy, a U.S. government official highlighted a section praising the Gender Equality Advisory Council “in supporting the G7 to consider the needs and perspectives of women and girls in its work.” A U.S. official added a note in the margins of the document on this language: “Redline: This Council pushed policies that are counter to U.S. foreign policy, particularly in regards to abortion. This sentence as written would be difficult for us to sign onto.” Despite the pushback, that section made it into the final draft.

The Gender Equality Advisory Council includes diplomats, civil society leaders, and other high-profile figures, including U.N. Women Executive Director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, the Nobel Prize winner Denis Mukwege, and the actress Emma Watson.

Another section of the draft included language on how gender stereotypes affect women and how improved access to health “is critical to women’s empowerment.” The U.S. official highlighted one section that read: “… including their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on all matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health.” On the margins, the U.S. official wrote: “Redline: Abortion is not a human right—delete phrase.”
The U.S. efforts to alter the G7 document could have important practical impacts, according to Beirne Roose-Snyder, the director of public policy at the Center for Health and Gender Equity, a Washington-based advocacy group. She said internationally agreed-upon language on sexual and reproductive health “helps countries and NGOs establish policies and programs that advance gender equality” and decide how to tackle issues such as sexual violence, child marriage, and HIV prevention. By blocking the language, the United States is derailing those efforts, she argued.

The push put the United States at odds with Germany, Canada, and France at the G7 meeting, according to one person involved in the negotiations. The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some delegates were “not surprised, but annoyed” at the U.S. negotiating positions.

The person added: “Other countries that normally stand up for gender equality and health said, ‘Okay, this time we will take this language out.’ That’s really disappointing.”

Both France and Canada have adopted what they call feminist foreign policies, and France has prioritized addressing gender inequality as part of its rotating term as president of the G7.

As the Trump administration has pushed back against sexual and reproductive health, it has rolled out initiatives to increase women’s economic empowerment globally. In February, Trump’s daughter and White House advisor Ivanka Trump rolled out a $50 million fund on economic development for women.

Roose-Snyder said the Trump administration “has attempted to separate economic empowerment from reproductive rights and justice, but there is no way to champion gender equality without bodily autonomy,” including access to contraceptives and abortion services.

The State Department referred Foreign Policy to the National Security Council for comment on the story. The National Security Council did not respond to request for comment.

The G7 gender equality ministers meeting focused on three priorities, according to the French government’s website: combating gender-based violence; promoting women’s economic empowerment, particularly in Africa; and improving girls’ access to education.

The final communique “marks the clear aim of making gender equality a major global cause,” Marlène Schiappa, France’s minister for gender equality, said during the meeting. “No country in the world has achieved gender equality between men and women, and no one can achieve it alone,” she said.

The next G7 summit, which is expected to include the leaders of all seven countries, will be held in Biarritz, France, in August. G7 member diplomats have organized meetings on a raft of issues, including gender equality, the environment, labor, science, and finance, in the months leading up to the summit to inform the leaders’ agenda.

What does the Trump team say to Russia behind closed doors? We’re about to get a glimpse.

President Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn arrives at federal court on Dec. 18, 2008. (Carolyn Kaster/AP)

By Aaron Blake-May 17

President Trump’s interactions with Russia are largely a black box. As The Post has reported, he has gone to great lengths to conceal what he has talked about with Russian President Vladimir Putin, even seizing a translator’s notes and instructing the linguist not to disclose anything to other administration officials.

But we’re about to get a glimpse of just how the two sides talk to one another, when they think nobody is listening.

A federal judge on Thursday ordered the release of a transcript of Michael Flynn’s phone call with Russia’s ambassador after the 2016 election by May 31. This is the call Flynn would later lie to the FBI about, a crime to which he has pleaded guilty. The question has long been why he felt the need to lie about it.

The lie involved his denials that he and the ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, had discussed the Obama administration’s newly imposed sanctions. Those sanctions were in response to Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, and the Trump transition team worried that Russia would poison the well for future relations by responding with a huge sanctions package of its own.

According to the Mueller report and other legal filings, Flynn at the very least hinted that Russia might just want to bide its time until Trump was inaugurated.

From the Mueller report:

... [Incoming deputy national security adviser K.T.] McFarland and Flynn discussed the sanctions, including their potential impact on the incoming Trump Administration’s foreign policy goals. McFarland and Flynn also discussed that Transition Team members in Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the situation. They both understood that Flynn would relay a message to Kislyak in hopes of making sure the situation would not get out of hand.

Immediately after speaking with McFarland, Flynn called and spoke with Kislyak. Flynn discussed multiple topics with Kislyak, including the sanctions, scheduling a video teleconference between President-Elect Trump and Putin, an upcoming terrorism conference, and Russia’s views about the Middle East. With respect to the sanctions, Flynn requested that Russia not escalate the situation, not get into a “tit for tat,” and only respond to the sanctions in a reciprocal manner.

The day after the phone call, which was made when Flynn was in the Dominican Republican and intercepted by U.S. officials, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia would respond with its own sanctions package. But just a couple hours after that, Putin overruled that and said there would be no retaliation. The Mueller report states that Flynn told McFarland he believed his phone call had helped.

The most obvious potential reason for Flynn’s lie was that he worried about what it would look like if people knew the incoming administration was trying and circumvent that actions of the present administration — not least in a manner involving Russia, which had interfered to help Trump in 2016. There is also a seldom-invoked federal law called the Logan Act that prevents private citizens from conducting diplomacy with foreign governments. According to the Mueller report, both the FBI and the Trump team looked into whether Flynn had violated that law.

President Trump, former FBI director James B. Comey and former national security adviser Michael Flynn's stories are entangled, to say the least. (Meg Kelly/The Washington Post)

But apart from the general thrust of the phone call and the “tit for tat” quote, we don’t really know a whole lot about how this conversation transpired. How explicit was that request? Was there some kind of a quid pro quo? Was Trump invoked?

Against the backdrop of Trump’s friendly public posture toward Russia, the actual phone call could be instructive. If Flynn was kowtowing to Russia in any way, it would really fill out the picture of an incoming administration that wasn’t terribly concerned about getting tough on Russia for its 2016 actions.

It’s important to emphasize that whatever Flynn and Kislyak talked about, though, it’s not clear that Trump authorized it. While the Mueller report says transition team officials worried about retaliatory sanctions, were aware of Flynn’s phone call and strategized about what to communicate to Russia, it says “the investigation did not identify evidence that the President-Elect asked Flynn to make any request to Kislyak.”

But Trump had indicated publicly that he didn’t much appreciate the looming sanctions battle. “I think we ought to get on with our lives,” he said. And after Putin made his announcement, Trump tweeted, “Great move on delay (by V. Putin).”

This little peek behind the curtain could prove interesting.

There’s no evidence Nigel Farage was in the National Front

A lot of people are claiming that Nigel Farage was involved in the notorious far-right National Front party as a teenager.

There is no evidence that this is true and the suggestion that Mr Farage was photographed alongside a National Front leader in 1979 is almost certainly untrue.

Thousands of people have shared Twitter posts of this photograph.

By Patrick Worrall-17 May 2019

The shot dates from 1979 and forms part of the archive of the respected picture agency Getty Images. There is no reason to think it has been doctored or captioned wrongly by Getty.

It shows a man called Martin Webster leaving Kingston Crown Court in October 1979.

The caption from Getty states that Mr Webster, in the suit and tie, had just been given a six-month suspended sentence for publishing material likely to incite racial hatred.

At the time, Mr Webster was a leading figure in the National Front, an anti-immigration party widely condemned as white supremacist and fascist.

Some people are now suggesting that the boy wearing the cap on Webster’s right is a young Nigel Farage. The current leader of the Brexit Party would have been 15 at the time the snap was taken.

When contacted by FactCheck, an aide to Mr Farage strenuously denied it was him in the photo – and all the evidence we have seen suggests that it is not him.

The face

To our eyes, the youngster in the photo bears no more than a passing resemblance to Nigel Farage.
If you look at pictures of the Brexit Party leader as a teenager – like the one on the right here showing him as an 18-year-old member of the Combined Cadet Force – we would suggest that the difference in the facial features is clear.

But these things are in the eye of the beholder, and certainly there are many people who believe the boy walking on Martin Webster’s right could be Mr Farage.

What does Martin Webster say?

Mr Webster, now in his 70s, told FactCheck: “To the best of my knowledge, Nigel Farage was never a member of the National Front. I do not believe that the lad shown in the photograph standing beside me is Nigel Farage.”

While Mr Webster could not positively identify the young man, he states that he was 5ft 11.5 inches tall at the time the photo was taken, and that the youngster was significantly shorter than him.

Would Mr Farage – now 5ft 8 inches tall – have been this short at the age of 15-and-a-half?

The clothes look wrong, too. In October 1979, Mr Farage was a pupil at the south London private school Dulwich College.

Mr Webster tells an interesting anecdote about some Dulwich schoolboys visiting the National Front’s headquarters and bookshop at Pawson’s Road, Croydon, at around this time.

He notes: “Though they wore casual dress, their clothing… was smart ‘designer’ stuff; their hair was well-cut and short — all as you would expect of lads from wealthy families attending a posh public school.

“I would have noticed if they wore scruffy boots of the type worn by the lad in the picture.”
He adds: “I think that if Nigel Farage had associated himself as a young man with the NF in the 1970s, he would have got to know a few people in the party.

“Put another way: a few people in the party would have got to know him. In view of his high profile in politics since he helped found Ukip, it is likely that his former NF associates would have gossiped about his previous involvement with the NF…
“No such gossip about Farage has ever surfaced.”

It must be acknowledged that Mr Webster is a man with a long involvement in far-right politics and has never recanted his extreme political views.

But people on the opposite end of the political spectrum also say no evidence has emerged linking Mr Farage to far-right groups as a youngster.

FactCheck spoke to Searchlight, the anti-fascist magazine that kept careful tabs on the activities of the National Front at the height of the party’s popularity in the 1970s.

A senior representative of the magazine told us that rumours of Mr Farage’s involvement in far-right circles have never stood up to scrutiny.

In 2013, Channel 4 News ran a story based on a letter written by one of Mr Farage’s teachers at Dulwich College warning of his “racist” and “neo-fascist” views as a schoolboy.

Other teachers at the school defended Mr Farage’s behaviour, saying he enjoyed goading left-wing teachers and was guilty of nothing worse than “naughtiness”.

None of the accusations in this, or similar media stories focusing on Mr Farage’s alleged behaviour as a schoolboy, have made the accusation that he was an active member of a far-right group or party like the National Front.

Mr Farage responded to the 2013 Channel 4 News story by saying that he had been a “troublemaker” who “wound people up” by expressing controversial views.

But he added: “Any accusation I was ever involved in far-right politics is utterly untrue.”

So who is the boy in the photo?

We have not been able to identify the young man in the photograph.

Our fellow fact-checkers at Snopes.com have nominated Richard Verrall, former deputy chairman of the National Front, as a likely candidate, based on facial similarity.

But Mr Verrall – pictured here alongside Martin Webster in 1980 – was around 31 when the first photo was taken, not a slightly-built youngster.

Mr Webster told FactCheck that the boy was definitely not Mr Verrall, a close colleague of his at the time.

Identity politics in South Asia and the importance of secularism

May 15, 2019, 8:41 pm

Security personnel stand guard at a damaged shop after a mob attack in Minuwangoda, Sri Lanka. LAKRUWAN WANNIARACHCHI / AFP

The current religion-based violence in Sri Lanka is throwing-up in some important local and international quarters the thorny question of identity politics and their consequences and it is hoped that informed and enlightened discussion would ensue from this development. Such discussion should be seen as integral to restoring normalcy in this country.

There has been a tendency among influential opinion in Sri Lanka to shy away from deliberations of this nature since the gaining of ‘political independence’ and this is not accruing to the benefit of the country. Ideally, the relevant issues should be faced squarely, discussed and appropriate policy decisions taken.

It is a positive development that the relevance or otherwise of a ‘Catholic Party’ for Sri Lanka has come up for discussion among some opinion-moulding sections. Right away, we need thank Heaven that such a party is being seen as totally unnecessary for this country by no less a person than the head of the local Roman Catholic Church. It goes without saying that such a religion-based party would compound this country’s problems.

This country is reeking with identity politics and this brand of politics has proved divisive and disruptive from 1948. We could certainly do without another religion-based party and such parties are also part of identity politics. Some other dimensions of identity politics are ethnicity and language.

Needless to say, South Asia has been a veritable nursery and home for politics of this kind. Politics of this variety were a factor in the violent break-up of the Indian subcontinent in 1947/48.

However, a discussion on the disruptive impact of identity politics should be taken to its logical conclusion. If identity politics are thriving in our country, seen by some as a ‘five star democracy’, it is because this country has failed to establish a democracy in the true sense of the word. Put very simply, there could be no space or provision in a robust democracy for a mixing of politics and religion.

In the most vibrant democracies of the West, for example, there is a clear separation between politics and religion and the latter does not figure in the relevant Constitutions for whatever reason, leave alone being discussed and debated in political campaigns and public opinion mobilization efforts. This is secularism pure and simple and, pray, it should not be understood by the clergy of any religion that secularism is synonymous with the banning of religion by the state. This is not the case. Religion flourishes in some of the most democratic of states today.

However, in Sri Lankan political ‘discourse’ religion usually plays a predominant role and this by no means is a pointer to this country’s democratic maturity. On the contrary, it is indicative of the highly undeveloped nature of Sri Lankan democracy.

Religion is a private matter and should be always seen as such. A person’s or group’s religious and cultural markers are seen as totally irrelevant in thriving democracies and this is how it ought to be. On the other hand, democratic politics should always have to do with public issues and it ought to be clear that religion could play no part in processes of this kind.

However, Sri Lanka has failed to conform to these parameters and murderous religious violence is a consequence of this glaring drawback. On the other hand, in democracies worthy of the title, humans are valued irrespective of the religions they practise and the cultural markers to which they lay claim. Inequalities of any kind cannot flourish in democracies and Sri Lanka needs to question whether it has adhered to these benchmarks over the decades. The time is Now for such a discussion.

The separation of religion from politics should be enshrined in all Constitutions claiming democratic status and seen from this perspective Sri Lanka ‘is neither fish, flesh nor fowl’, given the fact that its Constitution contains strong theocratic tendencies. This feature is grist to the mill of religious demagogues and dividers of all kinds who pit one religious group against the other particularly at election time, hate speech being one of their preferred tools. Small wonder that religious violence is becoming a habit with Sri Lanka.

India, by far, is the most democratic of states in South Asia, although it too is burdened by religious violence every now and then. But India has the distinctive advantage of being a secular democracy. In India the state maintains an equi-distance from all religions; carefully refraining from preferring one or some religions over the others. This enables the citizenry to obtain redress from the state in case of being victims of religious and other forms of identity-linked violence since the probability is great of the state and its organs being impartial dispensers of justice. It is the above equi-distance that primarily defines Indian secularism.

At the time of this writing China has convened an international forum termed the ‘Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations’ and from South Asia’s viewpoint the timing of this ‘Dialogue’ could not have been more apt. Hopefully, the issue of the equal dignity of humans would figure prominently in these deliberations since civilizational advancement is inconceivable without the provision of such equality in any culture. South Asian societies need to leave behind all forms of feudalism and the latter could only be eliminated through the provision of equality and re-distributive justice.

The issue of equality which is at the heart of democracy needs to be focused on sharply because countries and cultures need to provide strongly for this condition in their Constitutions if they are to advance in the direction of humanity. It is only the latter condition that could prevent ordinary citizens from being savaged in the name of religion and other identity markers that compartmentalize humans and keep them divided.

On Buddha Purnima Day

When Tibet lost it’s freedom, certainly the cause of Buddhism and peace suffered in the world and it is a matter of utmost importance that this loss should be recovered

by N.S.Venkataraman-2019-05-18

In 20th century , three grave tragedies took place in the world. Two of the tragedies were the World War I and World War II, when Germany, with unconcealed greed and ambition to dominate the world and emerge as the world leader caused world wars. Millions of soldiers and innocent persons in several countries lost their lives or suffered from grievous injuries. Many families were disintegrated and world suffered enormously. Finally, Germany was decisively defeated in both the wars and the world felt relieved. After the end of the World War II , people of Germany themselves realized the futility of war and pledged themselves not to indulge in military conflicts in future.

The third tragedy in 20th century was the aggression on Tibet and occupation of Tibet by China. The act of China in occupying Tibet was not dissimilar with that of the Germany in the first and second World Wars. Like Germany, China offered various excuses for it’s aggression and exhibited enormous ruthlessness in suppressing the protestors in Tibet. Now , China has been ruling Tibet for several decades with vice like grip and is using strong arm tactics to suppress any possible peace movement in Tibet. Like Germany spreading lies (Goebbels tactics) , China has been attempting to brainwash the Tibetans living in Tibet under Chinese government for the last several decades , trying to create an impression amongst them that they are part of China. However, China has not so far succeeded in getting the approval of the Tibetans living in Tibet for it’s misdeeds.

Unlike Germany, China is yet to be defeated in it’s unethical attempt to hold on to the Tibetan territory.

Tibet is a country where the Buddhist philosophy and thoughts of Lord Buddha have been followed in letter and spirit with high level of dedication. Tibet, as the leading Buddhist country before it’s occupation by China, was a role model for millions of Buddhists living in other parts of the world and Buddhists lost this advantage when Tibet was occupied by China unjustifiably.

The loss of freedom in Tibet due to it’s going under the control of China is a huge setback for the peace movements in the world , as Budhism and Lord Buddha and Tibet espoused the cause of peace and harmony and goodwill with great conviction. Though Lord Buddha was born in India , his message spread around the world, with Tibet assuming leadership role for Buddhist philosophy.

On the auspicious occasion of Buddha purnima which is commemorated to mark birth, nirvana and parinirvana of Lord Buddha, the celebration of Buddha Purnima day would be incomplete without having a thought on the present plight of Tibet , which has been the glorious centre of Buddhist philosophy and thoughts for several centuries.

When Tibet lost it’s freedom, certainly the cause of Buddhism and peace suffered in the world and it is a matter of utmost importance that this loss should be recovered.

To achieve everlasting peace in the world in letter and spirit , the thoughts and guidance of Lord Buddha are vitally important for the world community.

Let everyone in the world dedicate their thoughts to the cause of Tibet on Buddha Purnima day and certainly the strength of such thought process will pave way for restoring Tibet to it’s original glory and Tibet will spring back to its historical place as torch bearer of Buddhist philosophy in the world.

Huawei Ban Means the End of Global Tech

As the United States and China square off, firms will be forced to decouple.

David Wang, executive director of Huawei's board, at the Huawei Beijing Executive Briefing Centre in Beijing on May 15, 2019. ( FRED DUFOUR/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

BY CHARLES ROLLET

| MAY 17, 2019, 3:13 PM
The news this week that the U.S. government blacklisted China’s telecommunications giant Huawei from its suppliers was received rather viscerally. It’s “the most insane decision,” the CEO of Huawei’s chipmaking subsidiary HiSilicon said in a memo that went viral on Chinese social media. In its own response, Huawei couldn’t help but scornfully add the words “so-called,” a familiar tic of Chinese state media, before mentioning the dreaded Entity List, the U.S. government blacklist where it now finds itself lumped in with international arms traffickers and Russian oligarchs.

With the stroke of a pen, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross made it nearly impossible for U.S. companies to sell critical tech to Huawei by requiring them to obtain government licenses that operate under an explicit “presumption of denial” policy, meaning licenses will be automatically denied without a compelling reason otherwise. Hours earlier, President Donald Trump signed an expansive executive order giving the United States the right to prohibit a wide swath of technology deals with a “foreign adversary” for national security reasons. Taken together, the moves have been widely interpreted as an unprecedented attack on Huawei’s global ambitions, particularly as it races to be a primary builder of the high-speed 5G networks that will power global communications for years to come.

Focusing on Huawei alone, however, misses a critical point. The United States’ dramatic escalation massively disrupts the globalized order. Huawei is the world’s top telecom manufacturer and second-largest smartphone maker—by far the largest firm ever placed on the Entity List. And it’s just one of thousands of Chinese firms intricately bound up with U.S. manufacturing. If it stands, the Trump administration’s decision to declare what one analyst has deemed a technological “act of war” will spark an era of tech decoupling that’s unprecedented in recent history.

The list of changes Huawei will have to make is long, likely delaying China’s 5G rollout. The firm’s supplier relationships go deep: Last year, Huawei released a list of 92 core suppliers, with the highest number—33—coming from the United States. Intel, Xilinx, and Texas Instruments all supply cell tower components or antennas used in the high-speed network. For its hugely popular smartphones, Huawei relies on Google’s Android operating system and buys Qualcomm and Broadcom chips.

The sanctions may not be the immediate death knell that the rival Chinese telecom player ZTE experienced when it was (briefly) added to the Entity List in 2017. Huawei has stockpiled U.S. components for almost a year. It’s also is a much larger company than ZTE and has a chipmaking subsidiary, HiSilicon, which is expected to pick up at least some of the slack, particularly for the smartphone division. “Now is the time for all the sons and daughters of HiSilicon to be heroes and heroines of the time!” read HiSilicon’s rallying cry in the wake of this week’s announcements.

Yet countries and firms all over the world that do business with Huawei will have to think hard about whether they want to go into business with a company officially sanctioned by the U.S. government.
That runs true especially in places like Europe, where big markets such as Germany and the United Kingdom have hemmed and hawed at the United States’ anti-Huawei offensive, despite the reputation of the company’s equipment for cheapness and reliability.

The knock-on effects extend far beyond the United States. Most of the non-U.S. suppliers Huawei will need are in US allies like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. They will also need to apply for licenses if their exports to Huawei include U.S. components above a specified threshold. The Commerce Department describes any transactions with Entity List firms as a “red flag,” and the executive order signed by Trump lays the groundwork for even harsher sanctions.

The full scope of that executive order has been largely overlooked. Even if it was widely reported in the media as targeting Huawei and its telecom ambitions, the order paints a much broader brush, giving the United States the right to prohibit all transactions between Americans and any “information and communications technology or services” made by a “foreign adversary.” The order’s definition of this technology is so expansive (“any hardware, software, or other product or service primarily intended to fulfill … the function of information or data processing, storage, retrieval, or communication by electronic means”) that it could encompass almost any technology being produced today.

The executive order effectively gives the United States wide-ranging powers over global technology supply chains, similar to the power over global financial flows it has usedagainst its enemies such as Iran. This upends not only Huawei’s immediate sustainability but also a broader, cozy global consensus wherein manufacturers gave little weight to geopolitical or cybersecurity questions about their China-based supply chains and were even happy to help build up the foundations of China’s surveillance state.

Those companies are now waking up to a harsh reality. China’s pursuit of the commanding heights of tech, its intermingling of the party-state with the private sector, and blocking of U.S. tech firms at home give American politicians on both sides of the aisle little reason to hit the brakes. Just a day after the Huawei decisions were released, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Intelligence Committee announced a “deep dive” into China’s tech and surveillance industries, with prominent Trump critic Rep. Adam Schiff (D) and his political opposite Republican Rep. Devin Nunes hitting similar hawkish notes on China.

As the political scientist Henry Farrell noted on Twitter, “a world of networks built around the pursuit of economic efficiencies is becoming a world where these networks are being exploited (or at risk of being exploited) for strategic advantage.” More bluntly: Tech’s globalized model is falling apart.
Firms on both sides of the Pacific better get used to it.

Lawbreakers to lawmakers? The 'criminal candidates' standing in India's election

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has one unwanted lead in this month’s general election race - according to data from an electoral watchdog it is fielding the most candidates among the major parties who are facing criminal charges. Its main rival, Congress, is just a step behind.

download (35)

FILE PHOTO: A supporter of India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) waves the party flag during an election campaign rally being addressed by India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi, India, May 8, 2019. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi/File Photo

Munsif Vengattil, Zeba Siddiqui-MAY 17, 2019

Election laws allow such candidates to run so long as they have not been convicted, on grounds both of fairness and because India’s criminal justice system moves so slowly that trials can take years, or even decades, to be resolved.

Still, the number of such candidates accused of offences ranging from murder to rioting has been rising with each election.

Analysts say political parties turn to them because they often have the deepest pockets in steadily costlier elections, and that some local strongmen are seen as having the best chance of winning.

Nearly one-in-five candidates running for parliament in the current election has an outstanding criminal case against them, inching up from 17% in the previous election and 15% in 2009, according to the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), a non-profit organisation that analysed candidates’ declarations.

The data shows that 40% candidates from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP face criminal charges, including crimes against women and murder, followed by the Congress party at 39%.

Among the smaller parties, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has an even higher proportion, with 58 percent of its candidates embroiled in criminal cases.

Polls have suggested that the BJP and its allies lead the race to win the mammoth, staggered election that began last month and ends on Sunday. Votes will be counted on Thursday.

“Parties only think about winnability and they know that money power and muscle power of such candidates ensures that win,” said Anil Verma, head of the ADR.

With 240 cases against him, K Surendran of the BJP tops the list of candidates with the most outstanding criminal complaints that include rioting, criminal trespass and attempted murder.

He said most of the cases stem from his involvement in the BJP campaign to oppose the entry of women and girls of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple in his home state of Kerala.
“I understand that an outsider might feel that I am a grave offender but, in reality, I am completely innocent of these charges,” he said. “It was all politically motivated.”

Dean Kuriakose from the Congress party has 204 criminal cases against him, the second highest, the data showed. Most of the cases were related to a political agitation against the ruling Communist Party in Kerala, which turned violent.

download (42)

FILE PHOTO: A man walks past the headquarters of India's Congress party in New Delhi May 16, 2014. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi/File Photo

He was not available for comment. But a party spokesman said Kuriakose was innocent. “He was falsely charged by the police under influence from Kerala government,” the spokesman said.
Political analysts say that often people vote for candidates who face criminal charges because they are seen as best placed to deliver results. In some parts of India local strongmen mediate in disputes and dispense justice.

“Powerful people, even if criminals, offer a kind of parallel system of redressal,” said K.C. Suri, a professor of political science at the University of Hyderabad.

A separate ADR survey of more than 250,000 voters last year found 98% felt candidates with criminal backgrounds should not be in parliament, though 35% said they were willing to vote for such a candidate on caste grounds or if the candidate had done “good work” in the past.

Ex-vice justice minister arrested for bribery in S. Korea

000_1GJ7HI-940x580 — May 16, 2019 former South Korean vice justice minister Kim Hak-ui is surrounded by the media outisde the central district court in Seoul. Source: Yonhap/AFP

@AsCorrespondent-May 17 at 2:26 AM

A FORMER South Korean vice justice minister has been arrested on allegations of bribery, including being provided with prostitutes by a construction contractor.

Kim Hak-ui is a former prosecutor who briefly served as the number two at the justice ministry in 2013, during the administration of ousted former president Park Geun-hye.

He is accused of accepting bribes worth 130 million won (US$110,000) and sexual entertainment on more than 100 occasions from businessman Yoon Jung-cheon.

Kim was taken into custody late Thursday after the Seoul Central District Court granted an arrest warrant, citing the possibility of “fleeing and tampering with evidence”, according to South’s Yonhap news agency.

SEE ALSO: South Korea: Ex-President Park abused power to gain bribes, prosecutor tells court

The scandal surrounding Kim has become notorious in the South, particular due to the sexual element. He is also accused of receiving bribes worth 40 million won from another businessman.

Kim was appointed by Park in March 2013, but resigned a week later in a storm of controversy.

He was investigated on allegations including rape and bribery but was cleared due to lack of evidence.

Prosecutors launched a new inquiry earlier this year and Kim was stopped at Incheon airport in March as he sought to fly to Bangkok with his face covered with a cap and mask, raising suspicions he was trying to flee.

Kim has denied the allegations.

Facebook bans major fake news operation run from Israel

Is Israel’s Archimedes Group involved in US-backed regime change effort in Venezuela?

Ali Abunimah -17 May 2019

Facebook has uncovered a major Israeli campaign to influence politics and elections in countries around the world.

The social media giant announced on Thursday that it had removed 265 Facebook and Instagram accounts with a combined following of 2.8 million users for engaging in “coordinated inauthentic behavior.”

“This activity originated in Israel and focused on Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, Angola, Niger and Tunisia along with some activity in Latin America and Southeast Asia,” Facebook stated.

Those operating the network falsely “represented themselves as locals, including local news organizations, and published allegedly leaked information about politicians” as well as about “elections in various countries, candidate views and criticism of political opponents.”

Facebook said that the “individuals behind this network attempted to conceal their identities,” but the company’s investigation linked some back to “an Israeli commercial entity” called the Archimedes Group.

Venezuela connection?

The Archimedes Group is a Tel Aviv-based consultancy that boasts on its website of “winning campaigns worldwide” but reveals little other information about itself.

Interestingly, one of the visuals on its website appears to show a demonstration in Venezuela, suggesting a covert Israeli role in the US-led effort to overthrow the government of President Nicolas Maduro.

The Times of Israel identifies the CEO of the Archimedes Group as Elinadav Heymann, citing Swiss consultancy Negotiations.CH which listed him as a consultant.

“A biography posted to the company’s website describes him as the former director of the Brussels-based European Friends of Israel lobbying group, a former political adviser in Israel’s parliament and an ex-intelligence agent for the Israeli air force.”

However since that reporting, Negotiations.CH appears to have removed Heymann’s biography from its website.

Heymann appears to be making efforts to cover his tracks:

An archived copy of the biography is still visible online.

Heymann was one of the key pro-Israel lobbyists in Brussels earlier this decade. The organization he headed, European Friends of Israel, was a cross-party alliance for politicians hostile to Palestinian rights.

Apparently inactive at the moment, European Friends of Israel was modeled on similar groups operating in Washington. Heymann has also worked as a foreign policy adviser to Britain’s Conservative Party representatives in the European Parliament.

Bigger than Russiagate

According to Facebook, the Israeli influence campaign spent more than $800,000 on fake ads since 2012 – eight times more than what a Russian troll farm is said to have spent on social media ads, mostly after the 2016 US election, an insignificant intervention that US politicians and pundits who supported Hillary Clinton hyped as equivalent to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Yet it is certain that the latest evidence of subterfuge originating from Israel will attract a fraction of the attention of the fruitless search for supposed Russian interference and collusion that has obsessed US media and political elites for the last three years.

But this operation is far from the only covert Israeli effort to influence and sabotage politics and activism around the world.

Facebook’s announcement that it shut down the Archimedes operation comes just days after Facebook-owned WhatsApp revealed that it had patched a critical vulnerability that Israeli espionage firm NSO Group was using to install spyware on people’s smartphones.

The undercover Al Jazeera documentary on the Israel lobby, released last year by The Electronic Intifada in spite of efforts to censor it, revealed how several US-based lobby groups are working secretly in coordination with Israel’s ministry of strategic affairs to spy on and monitor US citizens engaged in lawful advocacy.

The documentary exposed how one of those lobby groups, The Israel Project, has been running a major covert influence campaign on Facebook.

But in contrast to its swift action in shutting down the Archimedes operation, Facebook told The Electronic Intifada that it saw no violation in how The Israel Project was covertly using its platform.

Saturday, May 18, 2019

Beyond the dollars: what are the major parties really promising on education?

Kate Noble-May 14, 2019

As voters head to the polls, around one-quarter will decide who to vote for on the day. Analysis shows climate change and the economy are foremost in voters’ minds.

But education remains a key issue, as evidenced by a flurry of education-related announcements in the final stretch of the campaign.

Here’s what you need to know about the major parties’ education commitments, and what the millions and billions here and there really mean.

Read more: How has education policy changed under the Coalition government?

Early childhood education and care

Two years of high-quality, play-based learning at preschool can have a significant impact on children’s development. It can put them close to eight months ahead in literacy by the time they start school. The benefits are greatest for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, which makes preschool a valuable tool for reducing inequality.

Read more: Both major parties are finally talking about the importance of preschool – here's why it matters

Labor has promised to make childcare free for most low-income households and to provide up to an 85% subsidy for households under $175,000. It has committed to funding an extra year of preschool for three-year-olds. This is evidence-based and builds on commitments by several states to support two years of preschool.

Labor has also pledged to increase wages for some early childhood educators, to be rolled out over a decade, and to reinstate funding for the National Quality Agenda, which lapsed in 2018. This reflects the importance of quality in early childhood services, to improve outcomes for children.

Both the Coalition and Labor are taking early childhood education and care seriously this election. from shutterstock.com

The Coalition is taking a more cautious approach to spending on the early childhood sector. It has pledged funding for four-year-old preschool, but only for another year, and it has not renewed funding for the National Quality Agenda.

The Coalition will likely retain the means-tested subsidy introduced as part of its major childcare reforms in 2018. While these reforms benefited an estimated one million lower-income families, the means test also left around 280,000 families worse off, including families with neither parent in work.

Advocates argue preschool should be seen as an integral component of the education system and a fundamental right for all children, and all parties should take a cross-partisan approach and commit to long-term funding. The major parties are certainly not at that point yet, but there are indications they’re heading in the right direction.

Read more: Labor's childcare plan: parents, children, and educators stand to benefit, but questions remain

Schools

Given states and territories are largely responsible for schools, federal investment should be targeted where it can make the most difference. Two key areas are needs-based funding, to ensure additional support is available to students who need it the most, and central investment in research and evidence-based practice.

Both major parties have promised a national evidence institute. Laborhas allocated funds for it, with the Coalition yet to do so. This initiative reflects the urgent need to ensure evidence helps to shape the education system. The Productivity Commission has recommended such an institute, to connect educators and policymakers with the latest research on teaching and learning.

Read more: Three things Australia's next education minister must prioritise to improve schools

On funding, the Coalition wants us to judge it on its reforms to the schools funding package, which is now mostly modelled on the needs-based funding approach outlined in the Gonski Review. But funding has still not reached the recommended levels. The Coalition has supported the National School Resourcing Board to review these funding arrangements and develop a fairer model for all schools.

Labor has promised to increase funding for schools. Labor’s offer would bring schools closer to meeting the levels of funding recommended by Gonski.

Funding isn’t a magic bullet, but it plays an important role in improving outcomes for all students..

Read more: What the next government needs to do to tackle unfairness in school funding

Tertiary education

Vocational Education and Training (VET) has experienced a series of unsuccessful reforms over the past decade. VET plays an important role in the tertiary sector, so it’s good to see both major parties addressing this in their platforms.

The Coalition’s plan comes out of a major recent review of the VET sector and includes more money for apprentices and rural programs; the establishment of a National Skills Commission and a National Careers Institute; and simplifying systems for employers.

Labor has pledged to fund up to 100,000 TAFE places. It has also promised a major inquiry into tertiary education, looking at VET and universities side by side. This could potentially move us towards a fairer system that puts VET and universities on an even footing and better caters to the varied needs of students and employers.

Both Labor and the Coalition have committed to increased support for apprenticeships, through financial incentives for employers.

For universities, Labor says it will bring back demand-driven funding, which existed between 2012 and 2017, where universities are paid for every student studying and there is no limit on the number of students that can be admitted to courses. Evidence suggests this has been effective in boosting studies in areas where there are skills shortages, such as health, and also appears to have improved access to education for disadvantaged groups.

Read more: Labor wants to restore 'demand driven' funding to universities: what does this mean?

Due to costs, the Coalition has moved to a funding model based on population and university performance. It has also promised extra support for regional students and universities. This could help address the large gaps in university participation between young people from major cities, and rural and regional Australia.

Making an informed choice

When casting our votes, we would do well to look past the dollar signs, and think about how each party is shaping an education system that will deliver quality learning for all Australians, from all kinds of backgrounds, from childhood through to adulthood.

The Coalition has delivered needs-based funding for schools and promises a greater focus on regional and rural students in all sectors. But there are some apparent gaps in early learning and tertiary policy and funding.

Labor has pledged more funding in all sectors. It has made a prominent commitment to early childhood education and care. However, Labor’s policies are expensive and would need to be implemented effectively to make sure they achieve the intended outcomes for students and deliver the financial benefit to the economy in the long-term.