India recalibrates Sri Lanka policy

India rightly recalibrates Sri Lanka policy

New Delhi emphasises on historical linkages that have shaped South Asia’s geopolitical traditions, apart from enhancing the existing economic engagement with Colombo

By Seema Sengupta, Special to Gulf News
Published: 16:33 May 25, 2017
Gulf News
 

The recent back-to-back visit of Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to New Delhi and Indian Premier Narendra Modi to Colombo reinforces the two neighbouring countries’ commitment to strengthen a long-standing partnership that seeks to enhance all-round prosperity and development.

By embarking on his second visit to the island nation since assuming office in 2014, Modi seems to have given a clear message that New Delhi is determined to reverse the prolonged neglect of a special relationship, which is not only more than 2,500 years old, but often marked by a lack of understanding on the part of India of Sri Lankan nationalism. As Nihal Rodrigo, former Sri Lankan foreign secretary, who had also served as the secretary-general of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, put it candidly: “India and Sri Lanka have had deep relations, not always cooperative and yet mutual engagement with each other has more often led to be a major asset to both countries.” Indeed, Modi’s effort to transform India-Sri Lanka bilateral relations, through a calibrated mix of cultural diplomacy and robust economic cooperation attains great significance at a time when China is aggressively harnessing its strategic One-Belt-One-Road initiative to make deeper forays into India’s extended neighbourhood in South Asia.

Recognising its shortcomings in conventional economic diplomacy, because of the inability to invest lavishly in transcontinental infrastructure initiatives unlike China, New Delhi has taken the right approach of giving special emphasis on historical linkages that have shaped South Asia’s geopolitical traditions, apart from enhancing the existing economic engagement with Colombo.

Very rightly, Indian foreign office mandarins are carefully extricating the India-Sri Lanka ties from the morass of mutual distrust, caused by the interventionist policies of the 1980s, in order to try and create a conducive and harmonious atmosphere for greater economic integration. But then, that is easier said than done. In the words of Professor S.D. Muni, former Indian diplomat and an eminent South Asia expert, apart from being the first Indian to be conferred ‘Sri Lanka Ratna’ — Sri Lanka’s highest national honour: “Sri Lanka has a strong and alert middle-class that does not always sees all its interests tied to India economically, as it would like to play competitive forces based on its strategic location.” Muni believes there will be reservations in Sri Lanka on issues like speedy conclusion of second-generation trade agreements and that “economic relations between India and Sri Lanka will grow depending on the areas of mutual interests and may not be defined by any one side, least India.”

Former deputy governor of Sri Lanka’s Central Bank, Weerakoon Wijewardena, agrees that negative sentiments may lead to truncated agreements, but emphasises simultaneously on his country’s need for deeper economic engagement with India to successfully align with the Asian supply chain. India, being Sri Lanka’s second-largest trading partner after the United States and a source of about 20 per cent of its imports and 5 per cent of exports, is of great importance to Colombo so far as trade and commerce is concerned, feels Wijewardena, while recollecting how India came to Sri Lanka’s rescue when the latter was facing a severe external sector crisis. “On many occasions, New Delhi had extended a generous SWAP facility to the Sri Lankan Central Bank for enabling Colombo to wade through foreign currency shortages to meet its external sector obligations,” says Wijewardena.
Indian policymakers hit a real masterstroke by invoking Buddhism to mend the derailed India-Sri Lanka tie. After all, it was a Sri Lankan Buddhist monk, Anagarika Dharmapala, who played the most distinct role in preserving Buddhist heritage in the Indian subcontinent through his Kolkata-based organisation, Maha Bodhi Society. Moreover, spiritual diplomacy not only helps India to put the contentious baggage of interventionist Tamil political agenda of the past to the backburner — without compromising her support for inclusive reconciliation agenda to usher lasting peace in Sri Lanka though — but also underlines New Delhi’s disinclination in challenging Sri Lankan sovereignty any longer in the garb of protecting minority rights. Undoubtedly, Lord Buddha is a great leveller, presenting a self-awakened India longing to bring real progress to the people in her neighbourhood through mutually beneficial partnership based on sovereign equality.

The cornerstone of India-Sri Lanka relations is seeking cooperation through consultations based on mutual compromises and avoiding unnecessary confrontation. Global politics is replete with instances of how calibrated diplomacy, painstaking negotiation and hard compromise have helped accomplish the most unexpected results. According to Rodrigo, “India and Sri Lanka are close in much more than their geographic proximity and do provide even a sample for courage in cooperation and consultations.” Saarc would benefit from the example of Indo-Sri Lanka compromises and cooperation rather than excessive competition, asserts the former Sri Lankan foreign secretary.
Professor Muni, while acknowledging the role and responsibility of both nations in stabilising the Indian Ocean region, however, warns that Colombo may not like to work with India alone on all strategic and regional prosperity issues, partly because New Delhi has never been very enthusiastic in responding to Sri Lankan initiatives on matters pertaining to regional security, that involves countries like Pakistan or China.

Seema Sengupta is a Kolkata-based journalist and columnist.
 

மன்செஸ்ரர்: வெஞ்சினத்தை விதைத்தவர்களே விளைவுகளுக்குப் பொறுப்பாளிகள்!

Jeremy Corbyn links foreign policy to growing terror threat
Friday 26 May 2017 09.31 BST  First published on Thursday 25 May 2017 22.00 BST 

Jeremy Corbyn will return to campaigning for the general election on Friday morning after the pause following the Manchester bombing. He plans to give a speech criticising police cuts and drawing a link between British foreign policy and terror attacks.

With less than a fortnight until polling day, the Labour leader will tell an audience in London that a government led by his party would provide more resources for law enforcement and the NHS to ensure people were “not protected and cared for on the cheap”.
 
The longtime peace campaigner and former chair of the Stop the War coalition will also argue that it is the responsibility of government to ensure that “our foreign policy reduces rather than increases the threat to this country”.

Jeremy Corbyn

Corbyn will say: “Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services, have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home.

“That assessment in no way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children. Those terrorists will forever be reviled and held to account for their actions. But an informed understanding of the causes of terrorism is an essential part of an effective response that will protect the security of our people that fights rather than fuels terrorism.”

He will argue that the government should admit the “war on terror” had failed and rethink its approach.

Ben Wallace, a Conservative security minister, criticised Corbyn’s comments as “crass and appallingly timed” and defended the government’s record on security spending. “He needs to get his history book out,” Wallace told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “These people hate our values, not our foreign policy.”

Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader, also criticised Corbyn’s intervention: “A few days ago, a young man built a bomb, walked into a pop concert and deliberately slaughtered children. Our children. Families are grieving. A community is in shock. Jeremy Corbyn has chosen to use that grotesque act to make a political point.”

Farron added: “I don’t agree with what he says, but I disagree even more that now is the time to say it. That’s not leadership, it’s putting politics before people at a time of tragedy.”

The Labour leader was defended by Barry Gardiner, the shadow trade secretary. He said: “What Jeremy [Corbyn] is saying is that we need to profoundly reassess the way in which there are linkages. What we did there was we made a military intervention and then withdrew. That country has been in chaos. There was no planning for what might happen afterwards. Now that country has women being sold in slave markets in its cities. That country is in chaos.
 
“Military intervention has gone in hard then lost its way. You can look back to Iraq, Afghanistan and see that the stabilisation of a country is so important.”

Corbyn and his close aides have long held the view that British foreign policy, including the involvement of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he vehemently opposed, has exacerbated the risk of terrorist attacks by destabilising the Middle East and fuelling suspicion of the west.

In a speech at the Chatham House thinktank in May, he suggested a Labour government would seek to rely on a “triple commitment” to defence, development and diplomacy, to protect Britain’s interests, rather than a “bomb first, talk later” mentality.

After the terror attack on Manchester, the Conservatives are likely to seize on the intervention as evidence that Labour would be soft on terrorism.

But Corbyn will highlight Labour’s pledge to put 20,000 more police officers on the streets, saying: “Labour will reverse the cuts to our emergency services and police. Once again in Manchester, they have proved to be the best of us. Austerity has to stop at the A&E ward and at the police station door. We cannot be protected and cared for on the cheap.”

Many election candidates across the country resumed low-key campaigning, delivering leaflets and knocking on doors on Thursday, after a minute’s silence was observed in the morning to honour the victims of Monday’s deadly attack.

Corbyn’s speech will mark the full resumption of national campaigning. He will say: “No government can prevent every terrorist attack. If an individual is determined enough and callous enough, sometimes they will get through.

“But the responsibility of government is to minimise that chance – to ensure the police have the resources they need, that our foreign policy reduces rather than increases the threat to this country and that at home we never surrender the freedoms we have won and that terrorists are so determined to take away.”

He will also talk about the “British values” seen in the aftermath of the Manchester Arena attack, saying: “I want the solidarity, humanity and compassion that we have seen on the streets of Manchester this week to be the values that guide our government. There can be no love of country if there is neglect or disregard for its people.”

Corbyn and a small group of aides have planned a “phased return” to electioneering after the pause, which was agreed to by the major parties.

Andrew Murray, another former Stop the War chair and former communist, who was recently drafted in to Labour HQ to help with the campaign, shares many of Corbyn’s views, regarding Britain’s involvement in Middle East conflicts, including in Syria, as “western imperialism”.

Labour had appeared to be eating into Theresa May’s poll lead last weekend as the Conservatives struggled to explain the social care policy that was the centrepiece of their manifesto.

The prime minister executed an abrupt U-turn on Monday, announcing that she would consult on introducing a cap on total costs, so older people did not face unlimited liability. At an awkward press conference in Wrexham, she repeatedly insisted “nothing has changed” and played down accusations that the Tories would impose a so-called dementia tax.

But May halted the campaign to take direct control of the aftermath of Monday night’s attack, chairing meetings of the Cobra emergency committee and delivering a defiant speech in Downing Street insisting British values would prevail over terrorism. She will go to Taormina in Italy on Friday to attend a summit of the G7 industrialised states, but other ministers will return to campaigning.

மன்செஸ்ரலில் மாண்டவர்களுக்கு!

Manchester attack:

                    Who was Salman Abedi?        

Salman Abedi has been named by police as the Manchester bomber

Police have named 22-year-old Salman Ramadan Abedi as the person who carried out the suicide bomb attack at Manchester Arena on Monday evening.

 

The BBC understands that Abedi was a "mule" carrying out the attack for a larger network of collaborators, which is being investigated by Greater Manchester Police.

But what do we know about him?
 

Abedi was born in Manchester on New Year's Eve 1994 to Libyan parents who had fled that country after becoming opponents of Colonel Gaddafi's regime.

 

Having spent a few years in London, the family moved to Manchester where Abedi's father did the call to prayer at a mosque in Didsbury.

 

Friends remember him as a good footballer, a keen supporter of Manchester United and a user of cannabis. He had a sister and two brothers.

 

Abedi attended Burnage Academy for Boys in Manchester between 2009 and 2011, before going to the Manchester College until 2013 and then Salford University in 2014, before dropping out to work in a bakery.



Ramadan Abedi, the father of the Manchester suicide bomber

A former classmate of Abedi told the BBC that "he was a very jokey lad" but was at the same time was "very short tempered", saying Abedi would lose his temper over "the littlest thing".

The man, who does not want to be identified, said: "What I realised was he had a short temper but apart from that was a very sound lad."

 

He said Abedi was "away at random times throughout the year - but I don't know if that was because he was out the country, or just didn't show up to school, because he did hang around with the wrong crowd and was very, very gullible".

 

"You could tell him anything and he would pretty much fall for it," he added.

 

Another, who also did not want to be named, told the BBC Abedi did not "come across as an intelligent person".

 

Asked whether he thought Abedi might have been manipulated by more intelligent people, he replied: "A hundred percent.

 

"I can't imagine the idea that he would be able to go through with such a complicated procedure. He must have had help."

 

"I wasn't shocked," the classmate added. "He fits the profile for a suicide bomber."

 

By the time he left Burnage Academy for Boys - formerly Burnage High School - in 2011, Abedi had become "more and more religious", later cutting ties with former classmates.

 

It was while at Manchester College that two people who knew Abedi made separate calls to an anti-terrorism hotline to warn the police about his extremist views.

 

A community support worker, who did not wish to be named, said they contacted the authorities after he publicly said "he was supporting terrorism" and "being a suicide bomber is OK".

Abedi's family lived at more than one address in the city, including a property at Elsmore Road, in the Fallowfield area, that was raided by police on Tuesday.

Image caption Abedi's 23-year-old brother Ismail was arrested in connection with the attack on Tuesday morning

His mother and father are now back living in Libya, where his father and younger brother Hashem, 20, are being held by special forces linked to the interior ministry in the Libyan capital Tripoli.
For a while Abedi left the UK too, but he returned in the days before the bombing. During his trip back from Libya he briefly stopped off at Düsseldorf Airport, having reportedly been in Prague, but remained in the airport's transit zone.

The BBC also understands Abedi was in Manchester earlier this year, when he told people of the value of dying for a cause and made hardline statements about suicide operations and the conflict in Libya.

Greater Manchester Police would not comment on the claims.

His sister, Jomana, has said she believed her brother may have been reacting to US-led strikes in the Middle East.

"He saw the explosives America drops on children in Syria, and he wanted revenge.

"Whether he got that is between him and God," she reportedly told the Wall Street Journal.

It is also being reported that a Libyan government spokesman said 15 minutes before he blew himself up, Abedi called his mother and brother.
               
Manchester is home to one of the largest Libyan communities in the UK. Neighbours have talked about the family having a Libyan flag flying in its house at certain times of the year.
BBC home editor Mark Easton said the area was known to have been home to a number of Islamist extremists in recent years; some with links to Syria and Libya; some alive and some dead.
Abedi's older brother Ismail, 23, is one of eight men in custody in the UK following the attack.
               
Hamid El-Sayed, who worked for the UN on tackling radicalisation and who now works at the University of Manchester, said Abedi had a "really bad relationship" with his family.
"Eventually he was doing very bad at his university, at his education, and he didn't complete, and they tried to take him back to Libya several times. He had difficulties adjusting to European lifestyle," he said.

மார்க்சிய அறிவகம்: V.I.Lenin The “Plan” For an All-Russia Political N...

மார்க்சிய அறிவகம்: V.I.Lenin The “Plan” For an All-Russia Political N...: Vladimir Ilyich Lenin What Is To Be Done? BURNING QUESTIONS of our MOVEMENT V The “Plan” For an All-Russia Political Newsp...

மார்க்சிய அறிவகம்: V.I.Lenin Revolutionary Adventurism

மார்க்சிய அறிவகம்: V.I.Lenin Revolutionary Adventurism: V. I.   Lenin Revolutionary Adventurism Published: Iskra , No. 23, August 1, and No. 24, September 1, 1902. Pub...

K P talks about how India's former PM Indira Gandhi supported the LTTE

Reformers & Rebels: Exclusive conversation with LTTE's former global financer

K Pathmanthan

K Pathmanthan talks about how India's former PM Indira Gandhi supported the LTTE

 

 

 

 

 

Trump’s Speech in Riyadh Signals US Escalation Against Iran

Trump’s Speech in Riyadh Signals US Escalation Against Iran

By Bill Van Auken

Global Research, May 22, 2017

 

Riddled with hypocrisy, clichés and absurdities, President Donald Trump’s speech Sunday before an assembly of monarchs and despots in Saudi Arabia spelled out an agenda of escalating US militarism throughout the Middle East and a buildup in particular toward war with Iran.

Hailed by a fawning American media as “presidential”–supposedly eclipsing for the moment the crises and factional struggles engulfing the administration–the speech was reportedly drafted by Stephen Miller, the extreme right-wing ideologue credited with being the chief architect of Trump’s abortive executive order banning people from seven predominantly Muslim nations from entering the US.

Much in Trump’s half-hour address echoed the speech delivered by Barack Obama in Cairo eight years earlier. Both presidents declared their desire to reset US relations with the Middle East, while absurdly posturing as leaders of a pacifist nation seeking only good for the region and offering to head up a united struggle against “violent extremism.”

In what was meant as a rhetorical invocation to action against terrorism, Trump told his audience,

Stephen Miller (Source: ChicagoNow)

“Drive them out. Drive them out of your places of worship. Drive them out of your communities. Drive them out of your holy land. And drive them out of this earth.”

Like Obama before him, Trump had no interest in dealing with who brought Al Qaeda and similar forces in, as the historical trail leads directly to the CIA in Afghanistan and US imperialism’s longstanding support for right-wing Islamist organizations and terrorist groups as a counterweight to left nationalist and socialist influence in the Arab and Islamic world. Jointly, the US and Saudi Arabia continue to fund and arm such forces in their drive for regime-change in Syria.

Both speeches were laced with flowery tributes to Islamic culture. Trump noted in particular how

 

 

impressed he was with the “splendor” of Saudi Arabia and the “grandeur” of the palace in which the so-called Arab Islamic American Summit had been convened.

What separated the two addresses were the different shifts in strategy by Washington. While Obama sought to repair the damage done by the Bush administration’s criminal war in Iraq by offering a new face for US imperialism, Trump traveled to Saudi Arabia to make clear his administration’s break with his predecessor’s policy of seeking a rapprochement with Iran based on the 2015 nuclear deal. He adopted an openly confrontational stance toward Tehran.

“Above all, America seeks peace–not war,” Trump proclaimed, in what stood out as the most blatant of the many lies in his brief address.

US Navy

 

The reality is that US wars in the region have killed millions over the past decade-and-a-half. And the thrust of the US president’s visit to Saudi Arabia, his first stop in a nine-day foreign tour, is the preparation for new and even bloodier conflicts.

 

This was made plain by the principal agreements forged between Trump and the Saudi monarchy, which included a $110 billion arms deal that incorporates the option to purchase $350 billion worth of weapons over the next 10 years.

The arms agreement “supports the long-term security of Saudi Arabia and the entire Gulf region,” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former ExxonMobil CEO, told reporters in Riyadh, “in particular in the face of the malign Iranian influence and Iranian-related threats which exist on Saudi Arabia’s borders on all sides.”

In his speech, Trump painted Iran as the principal state sponsor of terrorism, accusing Tehran of providing terrorists with “safe harbor, financial backing, and the social standing needed for recruitment,” and fueling “the fires of sectarian conflict and terror,” all charges that could be leveled, with justification, against his Saudi hosts.

He portrayed the US cruise missile attack on Syria last month–followed just last week by the US bombing of a pro-government militia in the southeastern part of the country–as part of a wider struggle against Iranian influence. He went on to call upon “all nations of conscience” to “isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve.” That he was speaking in Saudi Arabia, a brutally repressive absolute monarchy, just two days after more than 70 percent of Iranian voters participated in a sharply contested election, did nothing to blunt Trump’s call for regime-change.

He specifically praised Saudi Arabia and its allies for having “taken strong action against Houthi militants in Yemen.” The near-genocidal Saudi war has killed some 12,000 Yemenis, while destroying basic infrastructure in the Arab world’s poorest country, leaving over 7 million people on the brink of starvation and unleashing a cholera epidemic that threatens a massive death toll.
In March, US Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis issued a memo calling for stepped-up US support for this criminal war, in which the Pentagon is already supplying intelligence and logistical backing to the Saudi bombing campaign.

Anthony Cordesman (Source: CSIS)

Part of the weapons deal signed by Trump involves the shipment of precision-guided munitions that had been cut off in a highly limited gesture of disapproval of Saudi tactics in Yemen by the Obama administration, which itself concluded over $100 billion worth of weapons deals with Riyadh. Also included in the new deal are tanks, artillery, helicopters and other weaponry that can be directly funneled into the slaughter in Yemen.

In addition to his speech and the signing of arms and investment deals, Trump participated in a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Saudi-led coalition of Gulf oil sheikdoms. Trump administration officials have raised the objective of using the GCC as the foundation of a Sunni Arab version of NATO directed at military confrontation with Iran.

Beyond the drive to militarily confront Iran, a principal regional rival of US imperialism in the Middle East, and the huge profits that Saudi arms purchases reap for the US military industrial complex, there are broader strategic considerations in the US turn toward a closer alliance with Riyadh.

Some of these issues were outlined on the eve of Trump’s trip in a piece published by the influential Washington think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies and authored by Anthony Cordesman, a longtime Pentagon adviser. First among them is, according to Cordesman, “the continued level of US dependence on Saudi help in securing the stable flow of Gulf oil.”

While US imports from the Gulf have fallen sharply over the past quarter-century, Cordesman cites “indirect dependence” in terms of the impact a disruption in oil exports would have on global energy prices and the world capitalist economy. In particular, he points to the dependence of Asian economies on Gulf petroleum exports.

If the United States failed in “providing power projection forces and arms” to the region, he writes, its principal global rival, China, might fill the void.

“China may not yet be ready to try to assume the role, but the entire South China Sea crisis would pale to near insignificance if China became the de facto guarantor of Gulf stability.”

Cordesman continues:

“The real-world nature of US influence and power in the Pacific would be cut massively, China’s leverage over other major Asian economies like Japan and South Korea would be sharply increased, and the potential rise in tension between China and India–and cut in India’s relative position–would have a massive impact on the balance of power in South Asia and the Indian Ocean.”

In other words, the turn toward closer relations with Saudi Arabia and the related Gulf oil sheikdoms is bound up with US imperialism’s mounting conflict with China, which it has identified as the principal challenge to the drive for American global hegemony. Washington is determined to dominate Asia, including China, by maintaining the military power to choke off the region’s energy imports.

The fact that the sclerotic House of Saud, one of the world’s last absolute monarchies, has become a lynchpin of Washington’s imperialist strategy, not only in the Middle East but globally, is a measure of the crisis of American and world capitalism.

Oil revenues, which account for fully 90 percent of the kingdom’s export earnings, have been cut nearly in half since 2014. Last month, the government was forced to reverse itself on austerity measures that hit the military and public employees over fear that declining living standards and rising unemployment are creating the conditions for social revolt.

In the predominantly Shia Eastern Province, the center of the kingdom’s oil production, security forces laid siege to the town of Awamiyah, a center of resistance to the regime, during the week preceding Trump’s visit. Combined with the failure of the Saudi bid to topple the Assad regime in Syria by supporting Al Qaeda-linked militias and the regime’s inability to retake Yemen from the Houthi rebels, the deepening domestic crisis is creating the conditions for revolutionary upheavals against Washington’s principal ally in the Arab world.

புதிய ஈழம்: ஈழவிரோத மார்க்சிய திருத்தல்வாதம் முறியடிப்போம்-2

புதிய ஈழம்: ஈழவிரோத மார்க்சிய திருத்தல்வாதம் முறியடிப்போம்-2

புதிய ஈழம்: ஈழவிரோத மார்க்சிய திருத்தல்வாதம் முறியடிப்போம் -1

புதிய ஈழம்: ஈழவிரோத மார்க்சிய திருத்தல்வாதம் முறியடிப்போம் -1

M.I.A. says society should ‘thank’ Julian Assange

M.I.A. says society should ‘thank’ Julian Assange following rape case being dropped
By Rhian Daly May 19, 2017  

The WikiLeaks founder is still seeking refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, M.I.A. has written an open letter defending WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange.

The founder of the international organisation is currently seeking refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy in London and has been since 2012. He was wanted by the Swedish government in a case where it was alleged her had raped two women in 2010.

The case was officially dropped this morning (May 19), but Assange is still not a free man as a warrant is still out for his arrest for failing to appear in court. If he leaves the embassy, he will be arrested by the Metropolitan police.

In an Instagram post, M.I.A. said society should “thank” Assange, saying the world should “fast fix your system not hide him or the cracks he exposed.”

She also said Assange, who is a longtime friend of the rapper, would speak at Meltdown festival at London’s Southbank Centre. M.I.A. has curated the line-up for this year’s event.

M.I.A. on “Framed” Julian Assange: “You Should Thank Him”
Andy Cush // May 19, 2017

For almost five years, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, hoping to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he was accused of rape over an incident in 2010. Today, Swedish prosecutors dropped those charges–not because they believe he is innocent, necessarily, but because they are unable to proceed with the case without Assange’s presence in court. “I can conclude, based on the evidence, that probable cause for this crime still exists,” Sweden’s chief prosecutor Marianne Ny said, according to the New York Times.
Nor do the dropped charges mean Assange is finally free to roam the Earth: He is still wanted on charges of failing to appear in court in Britain, and London police told the Times they would be “obliged” to arrest him if he left the embassy. Still, M.I.A., a longtime Assange supporter, took the news as an occasion to celebrate. Today, Stereogum notes, she posted a portrait of Assange to Instagram, along with a long caption implying that the rape charges against him were untrue and possibly orchestrated as payback for his history of revealing government secrets.

 The caption reads:

Every time I ve seen Assange I’ve asked him why he doesn’t design an app for apple or sell out humanity and their data and rape them for all their money to be a rich and respected corporate humanity rapists . I mean he’s as smart as any of the sili”con” valley respected celebrated humans. The “call of duty” guy or the guy installing gps systems into drones that’s killed thousands of innocent people. Why not cash in ur intellect as most of us do? That type of collective social rape is ok. The porn images or fucked up weird shit my kid has popping up on YouTube every time he searches lego on the internet or constant peddling out of images and messages that say it’s ok to be rampant fuck boys and girls , in this is modern society. system that perpetuates over sexualisation of women in the name of freedom wants to bomb countries where women cover up and killed how many women and children- Hilary and condoleezza rice joined forces to represent women and said the war in Iraq was to liberate women so they didn’t have to cover up!!!! .

Lets not ask questions about that because that’s normal but dismiss everything this guy did because it hasn’t occurred to you that we are not in the 60s and 70s where they just kill you like Malcom x or JFK , they just “slander” or “frame” you mostly use sex or drugs or money to do it, and sadly thats enough because humanity has become that complacent and is rapidly loosing critical thinking faculties. ‬ by now if you haven’t be slandered and framed when you’ve hit the dollars 💵 or social reach it means your probably working for the system. Grab that pussy is a symptom of your broken system that was allowed to grow without question. He helped You to see hypocrisy you should thank him and fast fix your system not hide him or the cracks he exposed.

Assange’s case is a complicated one. Whatever you think about Wikileaks–most people’s feelings seem to be pretty mixed these days–you have to acknowledge the reality that Assange is a person and not a walking representation of some political ideal. It’s entirely possible that for a person to be both a defender of free speech and government accountability and a person who has committed sexual assault. But for M.I.A., it seems, there are no such gray areas.