SHARE

Friday, November 17, 2017

Zimbabwe crisis

The rivalry between First Lady Grace Mugabe talks to Vice-President Emmerson Mnangagwa led to a military intervention in Zimbabwe [Reuters]
Zimbabwe crisis
Veterans of the war of independence are highly influential in the army and the ruling party.
Mugabe has regularly removed veterans from posts in Zanu-PF in recent years, replacing them with officials who did not fight in the war.

Who are the key players in the Zimbabwe crisis?

15 Nov 2017

Robert Mugabe 

Robert Mugabe was born on February 21, 1924, in what was then known as Rhodesia but is now called Zimbabwe.

The former school teacher, with seven university degrees, first came to prominence after waging a bloody guerrilla war against white colonial rulers, who jailed him for 10 years over a "subversive speech" he made in 1964.

Soon after his release from jail in 1974, he caused a seismic shift in Rhodesian politics, riding a wave of popular outrage against the colonial establishment.

He fought in Rhodesia's war for independence and became prime minister in 1980 of the newly independent country born from that conflict.

The new state was renamed Zimbabwe and Mugabe later assumed the presidency in 1987.

He married his current wife and Zimbabwe's First Lady, Grace Mugabe, in 1996.

Since then, he has won a series of controversial elections marred by accusations of vote rigging, most significantly the 2008 vote, which he allegedly lost to now-Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, sparking political violence that human rights groups say claimed over 200 lives.

While his supporters say he speaks for the poor; his critics say he has become increasingly authoritarian.

Mugabe's rule has so far culminated in a massive economic crisis in Zimbabwe, once one of Africa's richest countries.

Grace Mugabe

Born in 1965 in South Africa, Grace Mugabe has been the first lady of Zimbabwe since she married President Robert Mugabe in 1996.

She is 41 years younger than her husband and was known for her expensive shopping habits and charity work before taking an active role in the country’s ruling party, Zanu-PF, in which she leads the women’s division.

Her extravagant lifestyle has been a source of discomfort in Zimbabwe where many face severe economic hardship.

Grace Mugabe is said to be working to succeed Mugabe and her main rival to the presidency, Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa was sacked by her husband in November 2017, leading to the military intervention.

She recently sued Zimbabwean newspaper, The Standard, after it published Wikileaks cables, which claimed she took huge kickbacks from diamond mines in Zimbabwe.

The University of Zimbabwe awarded her a doctoral degree in Sociology in 2014, two months after she started the course, sparking outrage among academics in the country.

He fought in the country’s war of independence and was arrested in 1965, subsequently spending the next ten years in prison.

After he was freed, he was deported to Zambia, where he studied and practiced law, in addition to serving as Zanu-PF's secretary in Lusaka.

He became the special assistant to Mugabe in 1977, heading both the military and civil divisions of the party.

After independence, Mnangagwa became the first minister for national security and held various positions during his political career, ending up as vice president in 2013.

As a veteran of the war of independence and a powerful figure in Zanu-PF, he was seen as a possible successor to Mugabe.

Mnangagwa was removed from government by Mugabe in November 2017 for allegedly plotting against the incumbent leader and later fled to South Africa.

The vice president commanded the support of the army and veterans of the war of independence.

On November 15, the army took over the headquarters of the state broadcaster ZBC and blocked access to government offices, but denied a coup was underway.

ZNA was formed after independence in 1980, through the integration of the former Rhodesian army, Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army, Zimbabwe African People's Union and the Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army. The latter three fought the war of independence against the government in the seventies.

The army's mission statement is "to defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and national interests of Zimbabwe and to contribute to international peace and security".

The Zimbabwean government claimed in 2007 that it foiled an alleged coup involving hundreds of soldiers and high-ranking officers.

Independence war veterans

Veterans of the war of independence are highly influential in the army and the ruling party.

Mugabe has regularly removed veterans from posts in Zanu-PF in recent years, replacing them with officials who did not fight in the war.

As a result, relations with the president the veterans soured and many vowed to form a front in opposition to Mugabe, backing Mnangagwa In the power struggle between the vice-president and Grace Mugabe within Zanu-PF.

Before November's takeover, some army generals publicly said that they will not allow someone who did not fight in the independence war to rule the country after Mugabe, seemingly a reference to Grace Mugabe.

Right after the military intervention, Chris Mutsvangwa, the head of the war veterans' group Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans Association (ZNLWVA), issued a statement, praising the army for "a bloodless correction of gross abuse of power".

The statement said the army will return Zimbabwe to "genuine democracy".

உணவே பிரதானம்!


Most UK supermarkets falling short in fight against antibiotics crisis

Overuse of antibiotics on farms is major cause of growing resistance in humans, as campaigners name Lidl as worst performer

Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent

Tuesday 14 November 2017

Most of the UK’s biggest supermarket chains are falling short on measures to reduce the use of antibiotics in the production of the meat and animal products they sell, campaigners have warned, with potentially harmful impacts on human health.

Lidl performed worst of the nine supermarket chains examined by the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics, a pressure group made up of several NGOs.

Lidl had no publicly available policy on the use of antibiotics in its farm supply chain, leaving consumers in the dark and with no publicly available evidence of any effort to curb the overuse of antibiotics of concern.

The supermarket told the Guardian it had been working on a policy, which would soon be published. The policy it sent to the Guardian is four sentences long and “encourages producers to optimise welfare, health, hygiene, husbandry and biosecurity” of their animals, using antibiotics “as little as possible and as much as necessary”, without containing any specifics on how this can be achieved or measured.

Is it time for an antibiotic-free label on our food?

The overuse of antibiotics on farms is a major cause of the growing resistance in humans that is giving rise to superbugs, bacteria impervious to all but the strongest medicines and which pose a huge and growing threat to human health.

The UK’s chief medical officer has repeatedly warned that growing resistance to antibiotics could render even routine operations highly dangerous in a few years.

The best-performing supermarket was Waitrose, which not only has a clearly articulated policy on antibiotics in its supply chain, but also a strategy for reducing antibiotic use and a commitment to publishing the results, showing the amount of antibiotics used on the farms from which it is supplied.

The supermarket also bans the routine use of antibiotics on its farms, and the use of some of the strongest antibiotics, which the World Health Organisation has urged should be reserved for the use of human patients, not farm animals.

Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s and Tesco were ranked next, while second from bottom were Asda and Aldi, which had publicly available policies on antibiotic use but few stringent measures associated with them, with the Co-op group also falling short on measures such as banning the strong antibiotic colistin and publishing data on antibiotic use.

Suzi Shingler, campaign manager at the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics, said: “These findings show some supermarkets are finally starting to take the issue of antibiotic resistance more seriously. This is very welcome and has undoubtedly contributed to the recent reductions in use.

“Unfortunately, our survey also shows that some supermarkets have much more to do, and others have yet to take any significant action.”

All of the supermarkets in the report were contacted by the Guardian for comment. Some referred the Guardian to the British Retail Consortium, which represents major retailers. Andrew Opie, director of food policy at the trade body, said in a statement: “Retailers are aware of the challenges in relation to continued use of antimicrobials in the supply chain and advocate that medicines are used responsibly.

“This prevents unnecessary use while protecting against any negative effects on animal welfare. It is important that any decisions are supported by robust scientific justification. Significant reductions have already been achieved in UK food and farming and retailers are working collaboratively with industry partners to make sustained improvements.”

In addition, Asda said it would soon update its antibiotics policy.

Waitrose said: “Waitrose recognises the potential risks to human healthcare of the overuse of antibiotics in livestock supply chains. Within the Waitrose supply chain, all antibiotics are used carefully, under strict protocols and only in controlled circumstances; entirely healthy animals are not routinely given antibiotics, they are only used for treating ill animals or for those with pre-existing conditions.

“We maintain some antibiotics are important medicines to hold in the animal health armoury but must be used sparingly and only as a last resort.”

The Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics advises some basic measures to reduce antibiotic use on farms. These include leaving piglets with their mothers for a few weeks longer after birth, which drastically reduces the need for antibiotics to halt the diarrhoea associated with early weaning.

Fast-growing chickens, usually sent to slaughter only a month or five weeks from birth, can be replaced with slower-growing kinds less likely to fall prey to illness. Lower-stocking densities among indoor chickens also reduce antibiotic use substantially.

Among dairy cows, those raised indoors tend to suffer more from conditions such as mastitis, which requires antibiotic use. The Guardian recently found a large increase in the number of megafarms in the UK, where hundreds or thousands of animals are kept in large sheds, which has concerned antibiotics and animal welfare campaigners.

Cóilín Nunan, scientific adviser to the Alliance, said: “Much greater cuts in use are urgently needed if we are to preserve our remaining antibiotics. Intensive livestock farmers have much to learn from the practices of more extensive farming systems, which often have minimal antibiotic use.

“Moving to later weaning of piglets, using slower-growing chickens, lowering stocking densities of animals kept indoors and keeping cattle on pasture are all essential and achievable measures which can lower antibiotic use.”

Thursday, November 16, 2017

How to fix European farming


How to fix European farming

Milk wars, free trade, red tape and ‘green’ rules — experts and insiders offer solutions to Europe’s farming headaches.

By POLITICO

A perfect storm: That’s how policymakers, farmers and the companies catering to them describe this moment in European agriculture.

The 2014 Russian food-import ban cut access to a major export market for many European producers. The end of milk quotas in 2015 flung dairy farmers into a ruinous cycle of overproduction, making milk cheaper than bottled water in some places. Livestock farmers think they’re next in line, if free trade deals expose them to competition from agricultural heavyweights in the U.S. and Mercosur.

Add to this cocktail a byzantine agricultural policy — where subsidy-paying bodies and farmers both struggle to file the correct paperwork — and the growing but pricey expectation that farming needs to be greener. Farmers are clamoring for more money, but the EU has refugees to think about too. The sector needs action now, but EU rules take years to rework.

Don’t throw money at the problem

Faustine Bas-Defossez is senior policy officer for agriculture and bioenergy at the European Environmental Bureau (EEB).

To eat, we need to farm, and to farm we need a safe and clean environment. Yet the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) encourages socially and environmentally destructive farming practices that precipitate the degradation of our natural resources and threaten the Continent’s ability to produce the food it needs.

Attempts to make the CAP greener have failed. The latest so-called “green” reform allows for environmental payments to maize mono-cultures, the use of pesticides on land set aside for nature protection, and the allocation of CAP public money to farmers who infringe EU waterway protection laws.

Neither has the policy become any fairer: Around 70 percent of CAP payments go to roughly 30 percent of the biggest and most polluting farmers.

Despite receiving 40 percent of the total EU budget every year, the farming sector is in constant crisis. Milk and pork producers struggle in a liberalized market as a result of ridiculously low prices caused by overproduction. Throwing more money at the problem will only worsen conditions for farmers, consumers and the environment. To fix the issue, we need to transition to a truly sustainable farming model.

We need policies that focus on producing quality food, reducing waste, improving diets and shortening supply chains. We need policies that protect farmers, reduce their reliance on dangerous pesticides through ecological farm practices, rebuild soil fertility and, crucially, secure farmers’ livelihoods by sustaining yields over time.

To that end, we must re-evaluate the CAP. Does the policy really deliver on sustainable management of natural resources? Does public money really provide people with good quality, healthy food and offer farmers a decent and stable income?

To get this process started, 115 organizations have called on the European Commission to carry out a “CAP Fitness Check” to answer questions about the policy’s relevance, added value, efficiency, effectiveness and coherence.

Only close scrutiny of the CAP will pave the way toward a more sustainable policy, and in turn a more sustainable food and farming system in the EU.

* * *

Look beyond immediate crisis to long-term challenges

Phil Hogan is European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development.

European agriculture faces serious short-term challenges. We are going through a crisis in certain agricultural markets, especially in dairy and pig meat. But we need to remember to cast our eyes over the horizon. To meet long-term challenges, we will need to innovate, and to monitor, evaluate and modernize our CAP.

Agriculture is not just an economic sector — it is also a social and environmental activity. In the long-run, we therefore need to make sure to continue contributing to jobs in rural areas, and to continue developing these more disadvantaged and rural regions in a balanced and sustainable way.

To “fix farming,” it is of vital importance that producers get a fair price for their product. As the CAP has become more market oriented in recent years, we need to look at new tools to help mitigate risk. We need to consider greater use of mutual funds, insurance and financial instruments, among other measures, and further encourage producers to form producer organizations in order to negotiate fair prices.

We also must ensure processors and retailers do not engage in unfair trading practices at the expense of farmers. I have asked the Agricultural Markets Taskforce to look at these issues in detail and to report to me by year end with concrete suggestions.

Crises are the time for innovation. Let’s act now

Michel Dantin is a French member of the European Parliament, and a member of the committee on agriculture and rural development.

For more than a year, a genuine milk war has ravaged Europe. The first victims have been Europe’s farmers. The crisis won’t end until we take radical action.

Given the current gridlock in the Council over how to solve the overproduction crisis, the European Commission, with the support of the European Parliament, should take responsibility for proposing a credible and binding plan to limit diary production in the EU. Encouraging farmers to retire is one of many measures that can have an immediate effect on the market prices.

EU decision makers must, in the longer run, face up to reality: The current CAP’s founding principles — unchallenged since 1992 — are outdated. The European Commission is the only defender of the World Trade Organization; our main international competitors (the U.S., Brazil, India, China) have already decided to exempt themselves from its rules and strongly subsidize their agriculture sectors.

Investment, sustainability, resilience and, above all, economics, should be at the heart of a new and improved CAP.

This reformed policy should provide tools to foster investments in the farming sector and help EU regions increase their competitiveness. It should set targets for farmers, not lecture them on how they should be achieved.

Finally, the new CAP should protect farmers from the negative effects of price volatility. It should include credible crisis management tools and effective risk management schemes. The risk level on the market is currently so high that farmers and farming organizations can’t deal with it alone.

* * *

Get rid of red tape in farming policy

Pekka Pesonen is secretary-general of COPA & COGECA, which represents 2.3 million farmers and their cooperatives across the EU.

European agriculture is facing one of the worst crises in decades. Producer prices have dropped and input costs are soaring. In recent months, thousands of farmers have protested in Europe.

The market — especially for beef, pork, dairy, fruit and vegetables — is rapidly deteriorating. Pork prices are the lowest they have been in 11 years, and milk prices have dropped 40 percent over a two-year period. Farmers and agriculture cooperatives face serious cash flow problems.

The EU has taken positive steps toward solving short-term problems but we need to take more definitive action.

We need to find new market outlets for our produce, step up promotion campaigns and use export credit insurance to give traders more certainty when they export agricultural produce.

“Europe needs a strong, truly ‘common’ agricultural policy that can better respond to farmers’ concerns and ensure their competitiveness.”
The CAP also urgently needs to be simplified. Red tape stifles innovation. And here we welcome proposals by European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development Phil Hogan to cut red tape, improve the administration of controls and give greater flexibility to member countries.

Greening practices under the CAP also need to become more flexible, in order to respond to varying ecological and climatic conditions across Europe.

We need to improve farmers’ margins in the food chain and combat unfair trading practices with EU legislation. We must pay closer attention to future markets and insurance, particularly in the dairy sector, to help protect farmers against increasing market volatility. We need to step up our efforts on research and innovation, and develop strategies to grow the economy in a green way.

The post-2020 CAP has to ensure the agriculture sector is equipped to respond to future crises. Europe needs a strong, truly “common” agricultural policy that can better respond to farmers’ concerns and ensure their competitiveness.

* * *

Europe needs to embrace, not squash innovation

Jan Huitema is a Dutch member of the European Parliament, and sits on the committee on agriculture and rural development.

People often think that not much changes in European agriculture. This is far from true. Farming is one of the most innovative economic sectors in Europe — think about drones monitoring our crops, waterbeds for cows or innovations in plant breeding. Farmers have the capacity and the knowledge to break new ground, but often find themselves limited by obsolete rules.

European agricultural policy must stop subsidizing an outdated status quo. It should foster creative solutions to lowering costs, improving competitiveness and boosting product differentiation — measures that are good for consumers and farmer alike.

“The first … is to restore farmers’ trust in the EU and include them in the debate.”
Europe’s farming industry needs to produce more and better quality products, ensure food supplies, lower its impact on the environment and improve animal welfare. The first step toward reaching these goals is to restore trust in farmers and make use of their knowledge. Nobody knows their production systems better than they do.

Farmers are made to jump through hoops to get European subsidies, but are not taken seriously in return. They know how to use cutting-edge farming practices — how to fight pests with insects, or make green-fertilizers from waste, for example — but European legislation still stands in their way.

The world is changing fast and so are our agricultural practices. We should be working together and focus on the opportunities these many new innovations can bring.

* * *

Respond with more innovation and better organization

Paolo de Castro is a member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament.

The answer to the farming sector’s problems can’t avoid the CAP, the policy that has driven many of the sector’s changes over the last 50 years. And the CAP is at a crossroads. After a reform that should have re-launched agriculture as a pillar of the European project, we face creeping re-nationalization.

We are in the middle of a continental and global oversupply crisis requiring a coordinated European response.

Efforts over the last decade to give the CAP more “market orientation” were good in principle, but exposed farmers to global price volatility. We urgently need to find new policy tools to address a situation that risks jeopardizing the existence of a diverse EU farming sector.

“We need more effective, measurable and environmentally ambitious measures.”
Global food production has become more complex. Agricultural systems across the world have become increasingly interconnected, and farmers are told to operate with greater attention to both environmental and social issues.

Policy makers have tried to respond to these challenges by focusing on rural development and “greening” measures. But implementation increased the burden on farmers and national authorities, and hardly delivered any environmental results. We need more effective, measurable and environmentally ambitious measures.

Innovation and organization are key concepts here. Agriculture is currently one of the industries with the lowest investment rates in research and development, as well as new technology, in Europe. Innovation will depend on changing this mind-set.

Better organization should also be a key long-term objective: It is the only way to overcome the industry’s fragmentation and keep the diversity of the European agriculture alive.

* * *

Invest in strategic thinking

Luc Vernet is co-founder at Farm Europe.

The agricultural sector needs strategic vision, and a well-structured framework for medium- and long-term action. European policy must be coherent and show real ambition to work toward growth and sustainability. It must go far beyond single-minded cost-cutting thinking.

Agriculture is at a crossroads between huge opportunity and massive pressure. Every decision must take a wide range of factors into account: citizens’ expectations, breakthrough technologies and consumption patterns, to name just a few.

At a time when populists target disillusioned farmers by citing agriculture as main concern, the European Union must urgently make agricultural policy its top priority.

“All the big global market players are developing strong policy frameworks to develop their agriculture. Europe must do the same.”
The CAP is of the only policy areas where the European Commission can act as a genuine executive power. It should demonstrate that Europe can be ambitious and still provide real safeguards.

Europe needs to develop tools that match the challenges of our time. From the U.S. to China, New Zealand and Brazil, all the big global market players are developing strong policy frameworks to develop their agriculture.

Europe must do the same, by vigorously investing in agriculture, not only through financial support but with strong strategic thinking.

* * *

Europe needs a circular, less wasteful farming policy

Peter Stevenson is chief policy adviser at Compassion in World Farming.

The myth that we need to produce more food to feed the growing world population is driving the over-industrialization of farming. In truth, we globally already produce enough food to feed 14 billion people. Over half of what we produce is wasted — produce is thrown away, or used as biofuel and animal feed. We do not need to produce more; we simply need to reduce food waste.

Circular economy thinking should be extended to farming. Current farming is highly linear, but circular farming generates its own inputs recycles waste into productive agricultural use.

“The CAP must be replaced by a policy that not only ensures the livelihoods of farmers, but also encourages healthy choices for consumers.”

One way to do this is to move away from wasteful and inhumane industrial livestock production. Over half of EU cereals are fed to animals, and this large demand for cereals has fueled intensive crop production. This in turn encourages the rise of monocultures and agro-chemicals, and leads to water pollution, soil degradation and loss of biodiversity.

We need to change the way we treat livestock. They should be fed on pasture and by-products, or reared in integrated crop-livestock systems where animals are fed on crop residues. Reducing the use of cereals as feed would take the pressure off crop production, restore polluted waters, increase biodiversity, and replenish depleted soil through crop rotations.

The CAP must be replaced by a policy that not only ensures the livelihoods of farmers, but also encourages healthy choices for consumers — thereby lowering  current rates of obesity, heart disease and certain types of cancer — and helps to reduce farming’s carbon footprint.

EU farm crisis


EU farm crisis: Structural reforms needed to stabilise the market, MEPs say
Press Releases PLENARY SESSION 12-04-2016 - 16:41

     
The EU must come up with more decisive actions to deliver relief fast to farmers in the worst-hit sectors, such as dairy and livestock, MEPs told EU Agriculture Commissioner, Phil Hogan, in Tuesday's debate on the ongoing crisis. They also called for structural reforms to better balance the supply chain, ensure fairer income for farmers and assist them to become more resilient to market shocks.

Many MEPs criticised the Commission for doing too little, too late to solve ''the worst agriculture crisis in recent decades''. Some insisted that more market interventions were needed, including at least a temporary regulation of supply, while others, claiming an attempt to liberalise the EU's agriculture had failed, advocated further market regulation and incentives for farmers to voluntarily cut production.

Several MEPs also warned national attempts to solve the crisis had proven ineffective and warned against “renationalising” EU farm policy. Some also voiced concerns about the international trade agreements that the EU is now negotiating and insisted that EU farm policy must not be used as a bargaining chip at expense of EU farmers.

Lebanese president hopes Hariri visit to France will end crisis


Lebanese president hopes Hariri visit to France will end crisis
Sarah Dadouch, John Irish

BEIRUT/PARIS (Reuters) - Lebanon’s president said on Thursday he hoped the crisis over Saad al-Hariri’s resignation as prime minister would end soon, with Hariri due to leave Saudi Arabia for France this weekend.

The shock resignation thrust Lebanon into both a domestic political crisis and the Middle East’s overarching rivalry that pits Saudi Arabia and its allies against a bloc led by Iran.

A Elysee Palace source said Hariri would fly to Paris on Saturday and meet President Emmanuel Macron the same day.

French officials said they did not know how long Hariri would stay before returning to Beirut but hoped his trip would help soothe the crisis by demonstrating he was not being held in Saudi Arabia, as Lebanon’s President Michel Aoun has said.

“His arrival will ease tensions by showing he’s free to move around,” said a French diplomatic source.

There would be consultations before he returns to Beirut to build international support for him to negotiate a new political deal in Lebanon, French officials said.

“We’re not trying to find a compromise or open dialogue between sides, but trying to create the conditions for a de-escalation in the region. We want to avoid a proliferation of crises that could get out of control.”

Hariri accepted an invitation to France on Thursday after meeting French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, who was visiting Saudi Arabia.

Aoun, who has refused to accept Hariri’s resignation unless he returns to Lebanon, has accused Riyadh of holding Hariri hostage. He said on Thursday on Twitter he hoped “the crisis is over” and the France visit would open the door to a solution.

Lebanon maintains a delicate sectarian balance, after Sunnis, Shi‘ites, Christians and Druze fought a 1975-1990 civil war, with factions often backed by regional rivals.

Hariri, a Sunni Muslim, is a long-term ally of Saudi Arabia. Aoun, a Christian, is a political ally of Hezbollah, the heavily armed Shi‘ite Muslim movement that is backed by Iran. Hariri’s government, a power-sharing coalition formed last year, includes Hezbollah.

Since Hariri announced his resignation, Saudi Arabia has accused Lebanon of declaring war on it, citing Hezbollah’s role fighting in other Arab countries.

On Thursday, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said Saudi Arabia was consulting with its allies about what leverage to use against Hezbollah. “We will make the decision when the time comes,” he told Reuters in an interview.

DIPLOMATIC PRESSURE

Top Lebanese officials and senior politicians close to Hariri say he was forced to quit and was being held by the Saudis. Politicians from all sides in Lebanon have called for his return to Beirut.

Saudi Arabia has denied forcing Hariri to resign or detaining him. In an interview on Sunday, his first public comments since resigning, Hariri said he is free to leave and would return home soon to formally submit his resignation.

He also warned of possible Saudi action against Lebanon, including sanctions and threats to the livelihood of Lebanese workers in the Gulf, unless Hezbollah is reined in.

Aoun said in a statement that once Hariri returned to Lebanon he would have to stay until a new government was formed.

Lebanese Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil has toured European capitals seeking diplomatic help to end the crisis. On Friday he is to go to Russia, after visiting Germany and Turkey on Thursday.

“The issue is one of freedom ... of international conventions related to immunity,” Bassil said in Ankara after meeting with Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan.

France’s foreign minister, Le Drian, said Paris was working to normalize the situation in Lebanon. After meeting Le Drian, Jubeir described Hezbollah as an arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and said it must disarm for Lebanon to be stable.

“Whenever we see a problem, we see Hezbollah act as an arm or agent of Iran and this has to come to an end,” he said.

Lebanon’s Saad al-Hariri is expected to leave Saudi Arabia for France within 48 hours,

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Lebanon’s Saad al-Hariri is expected to leave Saudi Arabia for France within 48 hours, before flying home to Beirut to officially submit his resignation as Lebanese prime minister, a source close to Hariri told Reuters on Thursday.

Hariri announced his resignation in a televised broadcast from Saudi Arabia on Nov. 4, and has not yet returned to Lebanon. He said on Wednesday he would return soon.

Lebanese President Michel Aoun tweeted on Thursday that he hoped the country’s political crisis was over following Hariri’s acceptance of the French invitation.

“I await the return of PM Hariri to Beirut so we can decide on the situation of the government - if he wants to resign or rescind his resignation,” Aoun said, according to presidential sources.

Aoun has previously said he will not accept Hariri’s resignation until he returns to Beirut to tender it and explain his reasons.

The resignation of Hariri pushed Lebanon to the center of an intensifying regional rivalry between Shi‘ite Muslim Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia.

French President Emmanuel Macron said in a statement on Wednesday that he had invited Hariri to France after speaking to him and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The invitation is to visit for a few days and is not an offer of political exile, Macron said, speaking in Germany.

Hariri is expected to go to France with his family, the source close to Hariri said.

Hariri traveled to Riyadh on Nov. 3 before abruptly resigning a day later, and he has remained in the Saudi capital since then. Top Lebanese officials and senior politicians close to Hariri have told Reuters he was forced to quit.

MIDDLE EAST SYRIA SUMMIT


There has been some abrasive behavior by Washington on the Middle East chessboard over the past week or two, such as  Defence Secretary James Mattis's disclosure on November 13 that the US military presence in Syria will continue even after ISIS is defeated. Photo: iStock
MIDDLE EAST SYRIA SUMMIT
Russia, Turkey, Iran meeting to discuss Syria strategy

Frustrated by what they see as Washington's belligerent posture in the region, the leaders of the three powers will hold a historic summit in Sochi on Nov. 22

By M.K. BHADRAKUMAR NOVEMBER 17, 2017 

In a historic development, Russian President Vladimir Putin will be hosting his Turkish and Iranian counterparts – Recep Erdogan and Hassan Rouhani – at a trilateral summit on November 22 in Sochi.

Turkey’s Anadolu news agency reported that the meeting will focus on Syria and the overall situation in the Middle East. Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdağ said the leaders “will handle Astana [peace talks in the capital of Kazakhstan earlier this year] and the political transition process in Syria. They will make important evaluations.” This comes as an unexpected development but is not surprising. Simply put, the three countries share a profound sense of disquiet over Washington’s regional strategies and sense that an inflection point is being reached.

There has been some abrasive behavior by the US on the regional chessboard over the past week or two. For example, US Defence Secretary James Mattis disclosed on November 13 that his country’s military presence in Syria will continue even after ISIS is defeated. Russia promptly challenged the legitimacy of the US presence under international law. Russia, Turkey and Iran are opposed to a continued US presence in Syria. Turkey is particularly worried that a long-term alliance between the US and the Syrian Kurdish militia will complicate its own problem of Kurdish separatism.

Meanwhile, unnamed US State Department officials have claimed that Russia has assured the US that the Iranian militia and Hezbollah will leave Syria. Moscow then had to issue a denial through Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Linked to this is the Israeli demand that a buffer zone be created in the Golan Heights from which the Iranian militia or Hezbollah be excluded.

The US, meanwhile, has once again raked up the issue of the fate of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, insisting that he cannot be part of any transition or elected government. The US has also questioned the raison d’etre of the Astana talks (involving Russia, Turkey and Iran) and insists that the focus should shift back to the Geneva process under UN supervision.

Ironically, it was when the Geneva process began meandering that Russia got Turkey and Iran over to Astana to painstakingly iron out their differences and work out a ceasefire in stages, and thereafter establish de-escalation zones to bring the war to an end.

The US feels excluded from the major achievements made in Astana to end the bloodshed in Syria
The US feels excluded from the major achievements made in Astana to end the bloodshed in Syria. However, Washington was always welcome to join the process but chose to abstain. Washington has ruffled Russia’s feathers and Moscow has threatened to expose the US’s alleged covert dealings with ISIS. Unsurprisingly, Russian politicians have threatened to raise the matter at the UN.

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, the Russian Defence Ministry openly alleged that the US military is impeding Russian air attacks on ISIS targets on the Syrian-Iraqi border and is indirectly enabling the terrorists to regroup. The Pentagon called it a Russian “lie.” At any rate, the very next day, six Russian Tupolov long-range bombers flew from bases in Russia via  Iranian and Iraqi airspace to vanquish those ISIS targets in a massive air strike.

The US military is maneuvering on the Iraq-Syria border to bring the region under its control so that it will be in a position to create new facts on the ground and block a land route from Iran leading to the Levant.

Notably, the strong alliance with the Kurdish militia gives the US the wherewithal to influence events in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. Indeed, oil and oil pipelines form an important vector of the geopolitics, too.

The “dogfight under a carpet” in US politics is complicating matters for Moscow. The Russians don’t have an interlocutor in Washington – something they never lacked even in the darkest periods of the Cold War. Suffice to say, the latest developments in Lebanon have created dark forebodings of a regional war. Unsurprisingly, Russia, Turkey and Iran must be feeling the need to coordinate their efforts to push back at the US.

Both Turkey and Iran estimate that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s seemingly irrational behavior has a pattern. They suspect a script was worked out by Israel and the Trump administration with the objective of creating quagmires for Ankara and Tehran.

Earlier this week, Erdogan openly ridiculed the crown prince from an Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) platform and questioned whether he was qualified to differentiate “moderate Islam” from the extremist form. The simmering discord between the erstwhile Caliph and the Custodian of the Holy Places who succeeded him (on the debris of the Ottoman Empire) surged into view. Equally, Iran can see that the Saudis are encouraging Israel to attack Lebanon. In fact, Rouhani openly spoke about it on Wednesday.

The trilateral summit in Sochi next week is most likely Erdogan’s idea. He traveled to Sochi to meet Putin on Monday en route to Kuwait and Qatar. While in Doha, Erdogan reaffirmed Turkey’s military support to the emir.

Indeed, all this is playing out against the backdrop of the snowballing crises in the US’s bilateral relations with Russia, Turkey and Iran.

Source: Asia Times

சிங்கள அரசாங்க நிறுவனங்களில் இருந்து தொண்டமான் உருவப்படம் நீக்கம்.

India to take up with Lanka removal of Tamil leaders name

PTI November 15, 2017

New Delhi, Nov 15 (PTI) India will take up with Sri Lanka the issue of reported removal of the name of a revered leader of Indian Tamils in the island country from government institutions, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj assured DMK working president MK Stalin today.
The assurance came after the DMK leader flagged the issue with Swaraj.


"Requested the MEA @SushmaSwaraj to raise Indias concerns over the removal of Thiru. Savumiamoorthy Thondamans name from Sri Lankan government institutions with their government. The revered leader of Hill Country Tamils must continue to be recognised for his immense contributions," Stalin tweeted.

Responding to Stalin, Swaraj said, "We will take up this matter with the Government of Sri Lanka."
Savumiamoorthy Thondaman was a Sri Lankan politician who represented the Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka. He was the leader of the political party Ceylon Workers Congress.

PTI PYK ASK ASK

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Who killed Wijeweera?




 


Who killed Wijeweera?
November 15, 2017
Editorial The Island

Leader of the JVP trade union wing, Lal Kantha, has called for an investigation into attacks on protests against the Indo-Lanka Peace Accord and the killing of JVP founder leader Rohana Wijeweera, in the late 1980s. Claiming that he once met the late Maj. Gen. Janaka Perera, in Anuradhapura, and the latter denied any involvement in the killing of Wijeweera, Lal Kantha has demanded to know who killed the JVP leader while in custody.

The JVP should have sought an answer to that question while it was savouring power as part of the Kumaratunga government, for about one year, from April 2004. But, a probe into its leader’s execution did not figure high on its agenda then. An opportunity presented itself, again, for the JVP to have an investigation ordered following the 2015 regime change. It had representation in the National Executive Council, which consisted of those who had thrown in their lot with Maithripala Sirisena in the presidential fray.

An investigation into the barbaric incidents in the late 1980s will shed light on the JVP’s heinous crimes as well. JVP death squads murdered many civilians including university teachers, students, Buddhist monks, trade union leaders, politicians, family members of the armed forces personnel and even people who voted at elections.

Lal Kantha has said nobody has claimed the responsibility for killing Wijeweera and JVP cadres though several persons boasted of having eliminated the LTTE leadership. No one usually claims the credit for extra-judicial killings, but the identities of those who were responsible for crushing the JVP uprising as well as the savage methods they employed to achieve that end are only too well known; they included some prominent members of the Premadasa Cabinet. Suffice it to say that the JVP joined forces with some of them to engineer the 2015 regime change!

Lal Kantha tells us that about 60,000 JVP cadres were killed by the security forces, police and the UNP vigilantes. Yes, many JVP activists and youth suspected to have JVP links were abducted, tortured and murdered, but the death toll at issue, in our book, is grossly exaggerated. The claim of 60,000 deaths can be traced to Mahinda Rajapaksa, who worked as a human rights lawyer in the late 1980s. Asked by a foreign journalist how many people had been killed during the reign of terror, Rajapaksa plucked a figure out of the air; he said 60,000!

Wijeweera, who may be considered the father of post-Independence political violence, plunged the country into a bloodbath in the late 1980s as part of his campaign against the establishment of provincial councils. He had many people killed and made thousands of party activists commit hara-kiri in the name of that cause. He also promised to dislodge the capitalist UNP government and install a socialist regime. His utopian dream became a dystopian nightmare for the hapless public. But, today, his party has representation in provincial councils! Its present-day leaders are playing softball with the very UNP bigwigs whom they once accused of carrying out extra-judicial killings.

Newton’s third law is said to apply to some phenomena outside the realm of physics. In armed conflicts, too, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. But, in most situations, response to violence tends to be disproportionate to the actual threat as evident in the counter terror operations in the late 1980s. The JVP sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind. Wijeweera became a victim of the tornado of political violence he triggered.

Wijeweera took the spree of anarchical violence to such a level that eventually people themselves demanded an end to it. The then government stepped up counter terror operations, which paralysed the country. In times of war laws are said to fall silent—inter arma enim silent leges. The rest is history.

We don’t think the JVP is serious about having the killing of its founder leader probed. For, it doesn’t want a can of worms opened up for its current leaders and their newfound friends in the UNP-led government. So, it is highly unlikely that the identities of the killers of Wijeweera will ever be legally established.

ENB Poster WW1


MIA மாதங்கி அருள்பிரகாசம்

ENB Poster MIA


======================================================================



"சயனைட்" நாவல் - ஒரு பார்வை

  "சயனைட்" நாவல் - ஒரு பார்வை "தங்கமாலை கழுத்துக்களே கொஞ்சம் நில்லுங்கள்! நஞ்சுமாலை சுமந்தவரை நினைவில் கொள்ளுங்கள், எம் இனத்த...