No breakthrough, no breakdown at Shangri-La

US-Chinese defense chiefs meet for first time in 18 months while Filipino leader keeps
rhetorical heat on China at Singapore talk shop

MANILA – Rising tensions between China and US allies in Asia set the tone for this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, a defense talk shop that brought together defense officials and policy experts from across the Indo-Pacific and beyond.

In his highly anticipated keynote speech, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr pulled no punches by slamming Beijing’s aggressive actions in the South China Sea.

In a barely veiled criticism of the Asian superpower, the Filipino leader highlighted its “illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive actions [which] continue to violate our sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction” in the hotly disputed waters.

More broadly, Marcos Jr warned of the “permanent fact” of China’s aim to achieve “determining influence over the security situation and the economic evolution of this region.”

Faced with criticism at home and overseas for his hard pivot back to Western allies after six years of his predecessor Rodrigo Duterte’s pro-China foreign policy, Marcos Jr underscored the “stabilizing presence of the United States [as] crucial to regional peace.”

Nevertheless, the Filipino leader made it clear that, similar to other Southeast Asian states, he is not fully aligning with one superpower against another since “[i]t’s never a choice” and “[b]oth countries are important” for regional peace and prosperity.

Recognizing the dire consequences of an untrammeled New Cold War, the two superpowers also initiated vital conversations on the sidelines of the mega-event.

During his meeting with China’s newly-installed defense minister, Dong Jun, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin held what the US characterized as “firm but professional” conversations on a wide range of issues including disagreements over Beijing’s nuclear, space, and cyber development policies, actions in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits, and alleged “lethal aid” to Russia in the Ukraine conflict.

This marked the first meeting of its kind between US and Chinese defense chiefs in 18 months, raising hopes of restoring guardrails in their bilateral military relations. The two chiefs agreed to reopen hotlines in a move that will help keep tensions from spiraling into confrontation in Asia.

This year’s Shangri-La Dialogue couldn’t have been more timely. It came hot on the heels of China’s massive drills around Taiwan shortly after the self-ruling island nation inaugurated its new president, Lai Ching-te.

Although the new Taiwanese leader has emphasized his commitment to maintaining a stable status quo, Beijing has stepped up its intimidation tactics by expanding its missile deployment close to and expanding aerial patrols across from the Taiwan Strait in demonstrating its growing ability to conduct a complex, multidirectional invasion of the self-governing island China sees as a renegade province.

“If China stops its provocation and intimidation, then peace and stability can be maintained,” Taiwan’s Defense Minister Wellington Koo told reporters following China’s latest drills, painting the Asian superpower as the main cause of trouble in the region.

Meanwhile, China has also upped the ante in the South China Sea against the Philippines, a US mutual defense treaty ally. Chinese maritime forces have clashed with Filipino patrol and resupply vessels close to the Second Thomas Shoal and Scarborough Shoal on at least five occasions in recent months, leading to the injury of several Filipino servicemen and major damage to multiple Philippine vessels.

ENB Poster-820-South China Sea

During his question and answer with media at the Shangri-La Dialogue, Marcos Jr made it clear that the death of a Filipino coast guard or naval servicemen would cross a “red line.” “If a Filipino citizen was killed by a willful act, that is very close to what we define as an act of war. We would have crossed the Rubicon. Is that a red line? Almost certainly.”

On multiple occasions, the Biden administration has signaled its “ironclad support” for the Philippines and, accordingly, said that the 1951 US-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty would apply in the event of an armed attack on Philippine public vessels and troops in the South China Sea, raising the prospect of great power conflict over the disputed land features. 

A deep source of concern is the dearth of institutionalized dialogue between the two superpowers just as risks of armed confrontation have increased in recent months. Following then-US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in 2022, China suspended various communications channels with the US as a form of diplomatic retaliation.

Chinese paramount leader Xi Jinping and US President Joe Biden met on two occasions in November 2022 and also on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit (APEC) in San Francisco last year, where they agreed to re-establish guardrails in bilateral relations.

In particular, the Pentagon has pushed for setting up a communications channel between the US Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) chief in Hawaii and his Chinese counterpart overseeing operations in the Western Pacific including over Taiwan, Japan and the South China Sea.

Last month, the US and Chinese defense chiefs held talks over the phone to set the tone for their in-person meeting in Singapore for the Shangri-La Dialogue.

“The [US Secretary] expressed concern about recent provocative [People’s Liberation Army] activity around the Taiwan Strait and he reiterated that [China] should not use Taiwan’s political transition – part of a normal, routine democratic process – as a pretext for coercive measures,” US Air Force Major General Patrick Ryder Ryder said in a statement following the 75-minute meeting between Austin and Dong.

After meeting Austin in Singapore, Dong said the “stabilization” of military-to-military relations “does not come by easily and shall be cherished dearly,” Chinese Defense Ministry spokesperson Wu Qian, told reporters after the meeting, adding that Dong stressed that neither side should “contain or smear” the other side, but rather build mutual trust.

Dong also said that when it comes to areas surrounding China, especially the South China Sea, commercial ships and aircraft “can always operate safely,” but that “there is a huge difference between freedom and willfulness, between navigation and trespassing.”

“It is important to respect others’ security concerns, and security should be mutually respected. No one can pursue one’s security at the expense of another country’s security,” Dong said, according to the ministry spokesperson.

For the Philippines, Marcos Jr’s keynote speech, the first-ever by a Filipino leader, marked a major diplomatic victory. It provided Manila a major platform to rally international support as well as increase pressure on Southeast Asian neighbors to address rising tensions in the South China Sea.

Singapore served as a perfect venue for Marcos Jr to highlight ASEAN’s shortcomings in exercising agency and leadership in shaping regional affairs as well as underscore his country’s defensive approach to ongoing disputes. 

He underscored the inviolability of the Philippines’ sovereign rights and “strategic agency” while highlighting China’s aggressive actions, including its recently passed law against “trespassing” in Beijing-claimed waters across the South China Sea basin.

“We have defined our territory and maritime zones in a manner befitting a responsible and law-abiding member of the international community,” the Filipino leader emphasized, pushing back against China’s narrative that the Philippines is the source of trouble.

“As President, I have sworn to this solemn commitment from the very first day that I took office [to defend our sovereign rights]. I do not intend to yield. Filipinos do not yield,” he added, warning China that its current course of action spells a lose-lose situation for the whole region.⍐

By RICHARD JAVAD HEYDARIAN   JUNE 1, 2024 Asia Times

CEO of Kelani Valley Plantations admitted to hospital following workers’ protest

CEO of Kelani Valley Plantations admitted 

to hospital following workers’ protest

Minister Thondaman denies wrongdoing, blames estate management

by Hemantha Randunu and Norman Palihawadane

Chief Executive Officer of the Kelani Valley Plantations Anura Weerakoon has been admitted to the ICU of the Nuwara Eliya hospital following a protest staged by a group of workers led by Water Supply and Estate Infrastructure Development Minister Jeevan Thondaman on Saturday opposite the Nuwara Eliya Police station.

The protest was led by Thondaman following a complaint lodged by the plantation company that Minister Thondaman had threatened some of its senior managers.Minister Thondaman and his men arrived at the Kelani Valley Plantations company premises to protest against the suspension of two workers by the company on 30 May.

The company management has complained to the police that the Minister and his armed security personnel held them incommunicado for hours, demanding the reinstatement of the workers.The incident occurred while a senior official from the Pedru Estate under the Kelani Valley Plantations company called over to complain to the police over an incident on the estate on Thursday.

Hours later, the Minister and his supporters left the police station, claiming that the complaint against him had been withdrawn. However, the plantation company officials said that they had not done so.

A senior police officer confirmed that the complaint had not been withdrawn.Following the incident, the Ministerial Security Division (MSD) personnel detailed to the Minister surrendered their firearms to the Thalawkelle police.

However, the weapons were returned to the police officers subsequently. Contacted for comment, a senior officer told The Island that the weapons had been given back to the MSD personnel in view of threats to Minister Thondaman.

Minister Thondaman said that he had visited the plantation company office to discuss a trade union issue with other officials of the CWC and the company management had summoned the police unnecessarily. “I went there to secure the release of some workers being forcibly held by the company management.

I stand by my people. It is my duty as the CWC leader to protect their rights. The issue is being misinterpreted by plantation company owners,” he said, adding that the conduct of the police was questionable. He said that police had no right to participate in meetings between plantation owners and trade unions. Workers have constitutionally guaranteed rights to engage in union actions. Police are biased against unions,” he said⍐.

The Island 2024/06/3

Economic Transformation Bill sets frame work to prevent economic crisis

 Economic Transformation Bill sets frame work to prevent economic crisis

ENB Poster:820-ETB

The Economic Transformation Bill sets in place a common minimum macroeconomic framework that is required to ensure the country does not fall back into a state of economic crisis, Finance Ministry Secretary Mahinda Siriwardena said.

The following is the views of Mr Siriwardena regarding the Economic Transformation Bill;

Sri Lanka has had a long history of incomplete economic stabilisation programmes. The country’s macroeconomic framework that has historically been characterised by persistent budget deficits and deficits in the current account of the balance of payments. This twin deficit leads to frequent balance of payments crises, reserve depletion, and bouts of inflation.

As the crisis sets in Sri Lanka has often sought the support of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), following which macroeconomic stabilisation measures are introduced. However, as soon as a degree of stabilisation sets in, Sri Lanka has a tendency to revert to past habits of fiscal excess, accommodated by monetary policy. Such stop-go policy cycles are not uncommon in countries where a 5 year political cycle tends to dominate economic imperatives. There is always a temptation for the political leadership to promise more relief than competing political players. Countries with a weak institutional framework are all the more vulnerable to such cycles.

Sri Lanka has been able to get away with policy fluctuations of this nature over a long period of time. Until 2006 Sri Lanka had access to low cost external concessional financing to finance internal and external deficits. Since then Sri Lanka was able to raise 10 year maturity funds in international bond markets, which only commenced substantial maturities in 2019. This was during a time of extremely liquid global capital markets where funds were flowing into emerging and frontier markets seeking yield.

These favourable conditions have dramatically changed. Sri Lanka no longer has access to international capital markets. The country also lacks access to substantial concessional financing since it is a middle income nation. Global financing conditions have tightened considerably countries like Kenya raising bonds at yields over 10% in early 2024. These external factors along with the loss of access to concessional financing due to weak credit ratings has led to budget deficits having to be almost fully financed by domestic debt – putting pressure on interest rates and crowding out productive private investment. In the lead up to the economic crisis Sri Lanka ran out of all of its fiscal and external reserve buffers as debt to GDP increased to 128% and usable forex reserves declined to near zero levels in 2022.

Considering the above, it is clear that Sri Lanka no longer has to luxury of returning to past habits now that a degree of stabilisation has been re-established. There is no scope for additional external borrowing to fill in deficits and the inflationary risks of monetary financing have been clearly demonstrated in 2022. Given Sri Lanka’s recent experience, it is highly unlikely that the international community will once again be willing to rescue Sri Lanka if it falls into another crisis due to failure to maintain a sustainable macroeconomic path.

Sri Lanka has been to the IMF 16 times in the past. This is because every time a programme ends, the country reverts to bad practices in the absence of an external anchor of discipline. For this 17th programme to be the last programme, it is necessary for the country to continually behave as if there is such an anchor of discipline. The mechanism for such an anchor is effective legislation. Countries that have successfully emerged from crises are those which have adhered to a broad consensus of basic macroeconomic objectives such as fiscal discipline, monetary prudence, and economic competitiveness. India post 1991 and the East Asian Tigers post 1997 are good examples of this. Such a framework allows different governments with different political or economic ideology to go about achieving those fundamental objectives in different ways, but the objectives themselves remain a common goal.

The Economic Transformation Bill endeavours to serve a similar purpose. The macroeconomic objectives and targets set out in the bill establish a common minimum framework including fiscal discipline, export orientation, debt sustainability, and labour market competitiveness. Each of these objectives could see broad agreement across the political spectrum though different groups may seek to achieve those objectives through different means. The legislation provides flexibility to the executive such that a shortfall in target is tolerated as long as the executive explains to the legislature the measures being put in place to return to the required path. The key is the continuous pursuit of the objectives that are commonly agreed across all groups. Sri Lanka has lacked a macroeconomic anchor which has resulted in constant deviations and cycles, which can no longer be afforded by the country.

It is also well understood that legislation alone is not sufficient to drive meaningful change. The weak outcomes of the Fiscal Management Responsibility Act of 2002 is a testament to this. Institutions also matter. That is why the government is strengthening institutions such as the Central Bank, establishing new institutions such as the Debt Management Authority, and the Parliamentary Budget Office, which can support the implementation of durable economic stabilisation. Going forward, the economy also requires the establishment and strengthening the institutions that can drive sustainable economic recovery and growth.

Successive governments have failed to drive growth through building economic competitiveness. As a result, growth has required stimulus through fiscal expansion and monetary loosening, which contribute to these dangerous macroeconomic cycles. Sustainable economic growth is only achieved through continuous improvement in productivity, which is necessarily driven by competition and competitiveness. Sri Lanka became an increasingly inward economy as the country built up tariffs, allowing exports and trade as a share of GDP to decline dramatically over the last 3 decades and competition to decline. Inward investment has been limited, and particularly low in efficiency seeking sectors such as export oriented investments in manufacturing, services, and agriculture. Rising external liabilities were combined with declining non-debt creating inflows, making it a matter of time before the economy collapsed.

The other component of the Economic Transformation Bill is the establishment of institutions that create the enabling environment for a competitive, outward oriented economy where growth is driven by non-debt creating inflows including exports of goods, exports of services, and foreign direct investment. FDI inflows to the economy have been weak, and therefore it is necessary to review and revamp the institutional framework that promotes and manages investment into the economy. The new Economic Commission established through the Economic Transformation Bill sets the institutional and legislative framework for this.

The Office for International Trade established by the Economic Transformation Bill creates the institutional framework to enable Sri Lanka to effectively negotiate complex trade agreements with strategic partners. Trade agreements of this nature are essential for countries like Sri Lanka to effectively participate in global and regional value chains that drive trade in the modern global context. Sri Lanka’s isolation from these value chains is a key reason for the lack of growth in the countries trade and exports. In parallel to developing export markets through trade agreements, it is necessary to build domestic competitiveness and productivity to enhance supply capacity and to withstand greater exposure to global competition. The Productivity Commission is established by the Economic Transformation Bill in order to serve this purpose of supporting the productivity and competitiveness of domestic firms as they compete with the rest of the world.

In sum, the Economic Transformation Bill sets in place a common minimum macroeconomic framework that is required to ensure the country does not fall back into a state of economic crisis. Future governments can choose whichever mechanism it intends to achieve those targets, but the targets should be commonly agreed by all. The Bill also puts in place the institutional framework that enables the economy to shift into a different gear of competitiveness that enables the country to drive productivity and compete on the global stage. Whilst legislation alone is not enough to achieve success, Sri Lanka’s past experience has shown the disastrous outcomes of going forward without a legislative anchor of discipline, and the institutional framework to support it. ⍐

The Sunday Times lk Jun 3, 2024

Public tug of war on wage hike for plantation sector workers

Public tug of war on wage hike for plantation sector workers

Planters’ Association says it’s an arbitrary, reckless decision by the government

They reiterate their commitment to a productivity-linked wage model

Warns against any attempt at expropriation by the government

The plantation industry raised its strongest possible objections to the government’s arbitrary, reckless, unilateral decision to drastically hike minimum wages for tea and rubber sector workers by an unprecedented 70%.All producer stakeholders issued a unified warning against the devastating impact the latest increase would have on the plantation sector, leading crippling operational challenges, ultimately leading to severe economic instability for the nation.

 “This decision was made without proper consultation or consideration of the needs of all industry stakeholders. In particular, it fails to provide any consideration and threatens to cripple every segment of the Sri Lankan tea and rubber industry. This current effort to force such a clearly unsustainable mandatory minimum wage on tea and rubber smallholders and the Regional Plantation Companies (RPCS) is impossible for the industry to absorb, even with radical cuts to basic operational necessities. The continuity of the entire plantation sector is now at risk, and most critically the livelihoods of the very workers and communities who are connected to the industry across Sri Lanka,” The Planters’ Association of Ceylon stated.

As a result of the decision, the cost of production for tea and rubber is set to rise dramatically, with estimates indicating a minimum 45% increase in the cost per kilogram of tea. This surge in operational costs will render Sri Lanka’s tea and rubber industries uncompetitive in the global market, further exacerbating the financial strain on these sectors.

Additionally, the wage hike will place an enormous burden on Regional Plantation Companies (RPCs), which will face an annual increase in excess of Rs. 35 billion inclusive of EPF/ETF and gratuity payments. This financial strain is unsustainable and threatens the livelihoods of thousands of workers in the plantation sector.

The PA also noted that the current approach of the Government in attempting to coercively set wages for the private sector, and interfere in management of the sector from key Government figures represent a stark violation of the terms of the IMF agreement, which is crucial for Sri Lanka’s economic recovery. This decision is very clearly driven by short-term populist politics aimed at securing electoral victories rather than fostering long-term economic health of the industry, and securing the interests of workers.

The IMF’s $3 billion Extended Fund Facility (EFF) for Sri Lanka is contingent on several stringent conditions aimed at ensuring fiscal consolidation including reduced intervention in state-owned enterprises (SOE). Historically, state control over enterprises has led to inefficiencies and financial burdens, as evidenced by the failures of numerous state-run businesses in Sri Lanka.

Historically, the state has consistently failed to manage State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) effectively, leading to steep losses and in many instances, near total collapse. By the time of privatization in 1992, state owned plantations made continuous losses that had to be heavily subsidized by the Government up to Rs. 5 billion per year which was borne by the Treasury.

A further Rs. 8 billion was owed by the JEDB and SLSPC to the Bank of Ceylon and Peoples’ Bank as a result of a US$ 300 million lending facility which was extended to the state plantations by the World Bank. While these funds were intended for the improvement of the plantations industry, there were no significant improvements and the plantations did not have the ability to repay the debts, and the Government was eventually compelled to absorb this debt.

Following privatization, worker wages appreciated sharply, and with a significantly larger workforce of 327,123 within the RPC sector the industry was able to operate more effectively, investing substantially towards the development of the industry, including all of the key certifications and standards that have allowed Pure Ceylon Tea, and rubber to maintain a reputation for unmatched quality relative to global competitors.

These efforts have led to improvements in efficiency and productivity, which are now at risk due to the proposed wage hike. It is also important to note that all these companies are publicly traded companies listed on the Colombo Stock Exchange. Any attempt at a second and immediate expropriation by the Government will therefore contravene Securities and Exchange Commission and SEC rules, the Companies Act and other related statutory provisions.

 Such an arbitrary and impractical decision also risks severe damage to local and foreign investor confidence alike. The PA warned that this would have negative consequences beyond the plantation industry, especially at a time when Sri Lanka desperately requires foreign direct investment to help boost strategically important sectors in manufacturing and services, as well as the agriculture sector.

The PA has long advocated for a shift to a productivity-linked wage model or a revenue share model, which aligns worker compensation with productivity and revenue earned at auction. This approach not only incentivizes productivity but also ensures a fair and sustainable wage system for workers. Already workers under revenue share under the previous wage structure recorded earnings in excess of the minimum wage that was recently gazette.

The current daily attendance-based minimum wage model is outdated and does not reflect the realities of the modern plantation industry. Any disruption to production or quality standards could send shockwaves through export markets, diminishing export revenues and competitiveness.

“We urge policymakers to prioritize long-term economic stability over short-sighted decisions and to consider the industry’s proposals for a productivity-linked wage model,” the PA said.⍐

The Island  2024/06/3

ENB poster 820-Ahilan Kadirgamar

 

A meeting between President
Ranil Wickremesinghe and the IMF team
at the Finance Ministry in March 2024

When IMF targets, become Sri Lankan law

Even as Sri Lanka prepares for elections, laws are being rushed through a parliament without legitimacy. Among those many draft laws– the President in his Budget Speech in November 2023 said he wants to create or amend sixty new laws–one of the most notorious so far is the Economic Transformation Bill. If the citizenry is being devastated by the severe austerity measures imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), this new bill seeks to legislate the very conditionality's and targets set by the IMF. 

Third World Sovereignty since decolonisation (High Light-ENB) has always been circumscribed by international treaties and laws, including in relation to economic affairs. This has been the story of neo-colonialism where countries like ours suffered from the unequal trade agreements, including for example with the formation of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Although these treaties are claimed to be part of the rules-based international order, the rules are stacked in favour of the powerful nations in the West like the US, which also break those rules as they wish. 

In this context, Sri Lanka’s comprador political elite and neoliberal think tanks have consistently promoted this so-called rules-based order emphasising the importance of the “rule of law”, and in the process reifying the interests of the West. The Economic Transformation Bill, however, descends to new lows, where the arbitrary targets set by the IMF itself are going to be made into law. The IMF is now going to be ruling Sri Lanka, not just by dictating national policies, but also through domestic law.

 

The President in his Budget Speech in November 2023 said he wants to create or amend sixty new laws–one of the most notorious so far is the Economic Transformation Bill

Economic Transformation Bill

Over the last two years since Sri Lanka turned to the IMF and started implementing its recommendations and then the conditionalities following the IMF Agreement of March 2023, it has become increasingly clear that Sri Lanka’s economic policies are not created in the Finance Ministry or for that matter at the Presidential Secretariat, but rather in Washington within the offices of the IMF and the World Bank. Indeed, if one wishes to follow Sri Lanka’s economic policies, one only needs to read the IMF Agreement and the World Bank’s Country Partnership Framework for 2024 to 2027. The benchmarks in the IMF agreement and the proposed laws as well as the programmes listed in the World Bank agreement are being followed to the dot.

In this context, the Economic Transformation Bill claims to provide for national policy on economic transformation, and sets up mechanisms such as commissions and institutions for implementation, while repealing the Board of Investments. The Bill is based on an ideological belief in prosperity through “export-oriented growth” with integration into the “global marketplace.” 

The World Bank’s push for agricultural exports and modernization without considering the importance of self-sufficiency in food and our small-scale farmers, is bound to lead to repeated food crises and dispossession; that too will not just be bad policies but now made law

Many of the provisions of this Bill are the arbitrary targets of the IMF and the reform proposals of the World Bank.

“The National Policy on Economic Transformation shall provide for – (a) the restructuring of the debt owed by the Government, that the - (i) Public Debt to Gross Domestic Production ratio shall be below ninety-five per centum by the year 2032 and thereafter … Central Government Annual Debt Service in Foreign Currency to Gross Domestic Production ratio shall be below four decimal half per centum by 2027 … modernise agriculture to boost farmer productivity, farmer incomes, and agriculture exports … Female Labour Force Participation to reach - (i) not less than forty per centum by the year 2030; and (ii) not less than fifty per centum by the year 2040 … Primary Balance in the Government Budget to reach two decimal three per centum of Gross Domestic Production until the year 2032 and at least two per centum of Gross Domestic Production from the year 2032 onwards …”

I quote the bill at length above, so we get a taste of its ridiculousness. There are many debates on the arbitrariness of these IMF targets, which I have argued are mainly there to serve creditor interests with the ongoing debt restructuring process. For example, are the IMF’s Debt Sustainability Analysis targets of 95% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in public debt and 4.5% in GDP in foreign debt servicing really sustainable, or do they merely serve creditor interests of minimal debt relief? Next, the current austerity push with a primary budget surplus (government revenues exceeding expenditure) target of 2.3% is way above the consistent budget deficits of Sri Lanka’s peer countries with higher growth. If such primary budget surplus targets are made into law, it will result in decades of economic stagnation, but serve the interest of creditors who will be assured repayment of their future loans.

Next, the World Bank push for agricultural exports and modernization without considering the importance of self-sufficiency in food and our small-scale farmers, is bound to lead to repeated food crises and dispossession; that too will not just be bad policies but now made law. Furthermore, without considering the myriad challenges of women’s labour, targets are arbitrarily being set to push women into the formal labour force; little social support without adequate social protection and horrible working conditions are what women will have to face.

 

The Economic Transformation Bill descends to new lows, where the arbitrary targets set by the IMF are going to be made into law; the IMF is going to be ruling Sri Lanka, not just by dictating national policies, but also through domestic law

Executive of the IMF

Where is Sri Lanka headed, and to what extent will the Government screw its own people to serve the neo-colonial global order?

Karl Marx had the following to say about the modern state in the Communist Manifesto: “The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” Sri Lanka’s Executive President is taking that forward to new heights, of not just managing the affairs of the IMF–the guardian of global finance capital–inside the country, but making them into the law of the country itself!

The weeks and months ahead will be a time for the working people to put forward their vision for the state and sovereignty. In the meantime, what is the political opposition going to do? Are they going to merely plead in the courts, wait for the elections or come out to the streets?

Daily Mirror 3 June 2024 ⍐

ANDREW NEIL-டிரம்பின் வெடிகக்கும் `குற்றவாளி தீர்ப்பின்` உடனடிப் பகுப்பாய்வு

Doctoring corporate book-keeping entries under New York law is only a misdemeanor or minor crime, usually involving just a slap on the wrist.

ANDREW NEIL's expert instant analysis of Trump's explosive guilty verdict - and why the real battle for the soul of America begins NOW

அமெரிக்க ஜனாதிபதித் தேர்தலில் இப்போது தீப்பிடித்துள்ளது:

டிரம்பின் வெடிகக்கும் `குற்றவாளி தீர்ப்பின்` உடனடிப் பகுப்பாய்வு

அமெரிக்காவின் ஆன்மாவுக்கான உண்மையான போர் ஏன் இப்போது தொடங்குகிறது

அமெரிக்க முன்னாள் அதிபர் டொனால்ட் டிரம்ப், குற்றம் புரிந்ததற்காக தண்டிக்கப்பட்ட முதல் அமெரிக்க அதிபர் ஆவார்.

ஒருமித்த நியூயார்க் நடுவர் மன்றம், அமெரிக்கா தேர்தலுக்குச் செல்வதற்கு சில நாட்களுக்கு முன்பு, 2016 ஜனாதிபதி பிரச்சாரத்தைத் தடம் புரளச் செய்யும் என்று அஞ்சி தனது பாலியல் ஊழலைத் தடுக்க, ஆபாச நட்சத்திரமான ஸ்டோர்மி டேனியல்ஸுக்கு $130,000 செலுத்தியதை சட்டவிரோதமாக மறைக்க முயன்ற 34 குற்றச்சாட்டுகளிலும் அவர் குற்றவாளி என்று தீர்ப்பளித்தது.

ஹஷ் பணத்தை செலுத்துவது சட்டவிரோதமானது அல்ல, ஆனால் அது தேர்தல் முடிவுகளை பாதிக்கும் வகையில் வடிவமைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது என்று அரசுத் தரப்பு வெற்றிகரமாக வாதிட்டது - இது தேர்தல் சட்டங்களை மீறுவதாகவும், வழக்குரைஞர்கள் வாதிட்டனர். தேர்தல் சட்டங்களை மீறுவது அடிப்படைக் குற்றமாகும்.

இது மிகவும் சர்ச்சைக்குரிய பிரதேசமாகும் - குறிப்பாக பிரச்சார சட்ட மீறல்கள் பற்றி விசாரணையில் எதுவும் கேட்கப்படவில்லை - அதனால்தான் குற்றவாளி தீர்ப்பு உடனடியாக மேல்முறையீடு செய்யப்படவும், டிரம்பின் வழக்கறிஞர்கள் மேல்முறையீடு செய்ய 30 நாட்கள் அவகாசமும் கிடைத்துள்ளது.

`34 குற்றச்சாட்டுகளிலும்  குற்றவாளி` என்பது ஏதோ பாரதூரமான ஒன்று போல் தோன்றுகின்றது. ஆனால்  ட்ரம்ப் தனது அப்போதைய வழக்கறிஞரும், மோசமான ஃபிக்ஸருமான மைக்கேல் கோஹனுக்கு டேனியல்ஸுக்குச் செலுத்திய பணத்தைத் திருப்பிச் செலுத்துவதற்கு ஏற்பாடு செய்த தவணைகளின் எண்ணிக்கையை மட்டுமே இது குறிக்கிறது.

ட்ரம்பும் அவரது கூட்டமும் தங்கள் உண்மையான நோக்கத்தை மறைக்க இந்தத் திருப்பிச் செலுத்துதலை மூடிமறைத்துள்ளனர் என்று அரசுத் தரப்பு உறுதியாக வாதிட்டது. ஆனால் நியூயார்க் சட்டத்தின் கீழ் கார்ப்பரேட் புத்தக பராமரிப்பு உள்ளீடுகளை `மருத்துவம் செய்வது` (மாற்றியமைப்பது) ஒரு தவறான செயல் அல்லது மாறாக மிகச் சிறிய ஒரு குற்றமாகும், இது பொதுவாக மணிக்கட்டில் அடிக்கின்ற தண்டனைக்கு ஒப்பானது.

இது பணம் செலுத்துவதை பிரச்சார நிதிச் சட்டத்தின் மீறலுடன் இணைக்கிறது, இது விஷயத்தை சரியான குற்றத்திற்கு உயர்த்தியது. பல பார்வையாளர்களுக்கு இணைப்பு மிகவும் பலவீனமாக உள்ளது. விசாரணையின் போது இது அரிதாகவே விவாதிக்கப்பட்டது மற்றும் அத்தகைய இணைப்பு இருப்பதாக யாரும் சாட்சியமளிக்கவில்லை.

ட்ரம்ப் இப்போது சிறையில் இருப்பார் என்ற எதிர்பார்ப்பில் எச்சில் ஊறுபவர்கள் பொறுமையாக இருக்க வேண்டும்.

ட்ரம்ப் தண்டனை நிலுவை காலத்தில் தடுப்புக் காவலில் வைக்கப்பட மாட்டார். அவர் நாட்டுக்கு வெளியே பயணிப்பது கூட சாத்தியமானதுதான். இது முன்னென்றும் தண்டனைக்குள்ளாகாத  ஒருவரை உள்ளடக்கிய `வெள்ளை காலர்`-மென்மையான- குற்றமாகும். சிறைத்தண்டனை ஒரு அசாதாரண விளைவாகவே இருக்கும்.

ஆனால் இந்த முழு விசாரணையும் அசாதாரணமானது.

ஜூலை 11 ஆம் தேதி வரை தண்டனை வழங்கப்படாது, அப்போது டிரம்ப் தகுதிகாண் முதல் நான்கு ஆண்டுகள் சிறைக்குப் பின் எதையும் எதிர்கொள்ளலாம்.

ஆனால் நீதிபதி  சிறைத்தண்டனை என்று முடிவெடுத்தாலும், `குற்றவாளித் தீர்ப்பு` மேல்முறையீடு செய்யப்படும் மற்றும் மேல்முறையீட்டு செயல்முறை முடியும் வரை டிரம்ப் சுதந்திரமாக இருப்பார்.

டெய்லி மெயில் ஆன்லைனில் வெளியான ஆங்கிலக் கட்டுரையின் முழுமை கீழே. 

தமிழாக்கம் சுபாகிள்

Biden Denounces ‘Reckless’ G.O.P. Efforts to Discredit Trump Conviction

President Biden said the verdict in Donald J. Trump’s trial reaffirmed 

“the American principle that no one is above the law,”

and he criticized the former president and his allies for their complaints about the outcome.

 

 Video 

Breaking his long silence over Mr. Trump’s legal troubles, Mr. Biden directly and unambiguously characterized the putative Republican nominee as a lawbreaker whose conviction amounted to a victory for the rule of law. And he rejected assertions that the prosecution was a political witch hunt, noting that it was not a case brought by his own administration.

“The American principle that no one is above the law was reaffirmed,” Mr. Biden said in a hurriedly arranged televised statement at the White House before outlining his latest efforts to end the war in Gaza. “Donald Trump was given every opportunity to defend himself. It was a state case, not a federal case. And it was heard by a jury of 12 citizens, 12 Americans, 12 people like you, like millions of Americans who’ve served on juries.”

“This jury,” he went on, “was chosen the same way every jury in America is chosen. There’s a process that Donald Trump’s attorney was part of. The jury heard five weeks of evidence — five weeks. And after careful deliberation, the jury reached a unanimous verdict. They found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts.”

While he may have relished noting that his opponent in this fall’s election was found guilty on all counts, Mr. Biden made no mention of the substance of the case, in which Mr. Trump was convicted of falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments to a pornography actress who claimed to have had an affair with him.

Read

Instead, Mr. Biden focused on the orchestrated efforts by the former president and his allies to discredit the prosecution and the judgment of the jury by painting the process as a political persecution that supposedly treated Mr. Trump unfairly.

“It’s reckless, it’s dangerous, it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict,” Mr. Biden said. “Our justice system has endured for nearly 250 years, and it literally is the cornerstone of America. Our justice system, the justice system, should be respected, and we should never allow anyone to tear it down. As simple as that. That’s America. That’s who we are.”

The president’s decision to address the outcome of the trial directly was a major strategic shift. Ever since Mr. Trump was charged in this first of four indictments brought against him by state and federal prosecutors over the past year, Mr. Biden has resolutely refused to discuss the matters. He had hoped to stay above the fray and avoid fueling the former president’s false claims that the White House was directing the prosecutions.

As late as Thursday evening, a Biden adviser, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity while describing internal deliberations, said the president was not expected to make a formal, scripted statement on television about the verdict. The adviser added it was possible that the president might respond to questions from reporters about it.

Even so, Jennifer Palmieri, a former communications director for Hillary Clinton, cautioned that Mr. Biden’s words would not convince his opponent’s backers, since they were already unbothered by four criminal indictments, including charges of mishandling classified documents and illegally trying to overturn the 2020 election that he lost.

“A Trump supporter who’s outraged by the verdict is not going to be moved for calm by any Democratic president or Republican president who does not back Donald Trump,” she said. “Even if Biden were not his political opponent, if you’re so outraged by the verdict that you’re ready to take to the street, a Democratic president is not going to reach you. That’s the sad reality of being president today.”

Indeed, Mr. Trump has been trying to goad Mr. Biden into engaging on the New York case as well as the other indictments by falsely accusing the president of masterminding them. While Mr. Biden appointed the attorney general who has overseen the two federal cases against Mr. Trump, there is no known evidence that the president himself or his White House have played any role in them. And the New York case, like the Georgia election subversion case, was brought by a local prosecutor who does not answer to the president.

That, of course, did not stop Mr. Trump from claiming the opposite moments after his conviction on Thursday evening. “This was done by the Biden administration in order to wound or hurt an opponent, a political opponent,” he said outside the courthouse. His allies quickly amplified the assertion. On Fox News, the hosts and guests talked about the “evil forces” and “wicked people” pursuing Mr. Trump, blaming the prosecution on Mr. Biden, “who is now the villain.”

The notion that the Justice Department is simply a political weapon surely comes as something of a surprise to Mr. Biden given that the same department is putting his own son, Hunter, on trial on Monday on federal gun charges.

Mr. Biden and his team have shown more willingness to poke at Mr. Trump’s criminal troubles in recent weeks even without taking them on frontally. The president has mocked his predecessor for falling asleep during the trial (“Sleepy Don”) and sent the actor Robert De Niro to hold a feisty news conference at the courthouse assailing Mr. Trump (“guilty and we all know it”).

And they quickly sought to capitalize on the verdict on Thursday with a string of fund-raising appeals, just as Mr. Trump did. “Despite a jury finding Donald Trump guilty today, there is still only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office: at the ballot box,” Mr. Biden said in one solicitation email just hours after the jury announced its judgment, adding that “Donald Trump’s supporters are fired up and likely setting fund-raising records for his campaign.”

Still, the Biden campaign did not predict that the verdict will change the contest, which polls show is exceedingly tight, especially in the critical battleground states needed to prevail in the Electoral College. Instead, advisers said Mr. Biden will continue to frame his argument to voters around issues like the economy, abortion rights and democracy.

One adviser said he did not expect the campaign to run advertisements focusing on Mr. Trump’s status as a convicted felon, nor did he imagine that Mr. Biden would try to back out of the June 27 debate on the grounds that he should not appear onstage with a criminal, as some Democrats have urged. It says something about today’s politics that running against a felon is not seen as a winning strategy.

Asked by a reporter at a later event on Friday whether the contrary were true, that the conviction might actually help Mr. Trump win the election, Mr. Biden demurred. “I have no idea,” he said.

But he said he was not worried that the case could set a precedent for a local prosecutor pursuing him someday. “Not at all,” he said. “I didn’t do anything wrong. The system still works.” And he scoffed at the notion that he was somehow pulling the strings behind the scenes. “I didn’t know I was that powerful,” he said.

The president’s formal statement came at the start of an announcement about the latest cease-fire proposal in the Middle East and shortly before meeting with the visiting prime minister of Belgium and hosting a celebration of the Kansas City Chiefs. Mr. Biden then left for Rehoboth Beach, Del., for the weekend before heading to France next week for ceremonies marking the 80th anniversary of the D-Day invasion.

That is a contrast the Biden campaign is all too happy to foster: On the one hand, a commander in chief welcoming foreign leaders and football champions to the White House, grappling with momentous questions of war and peace and traveling to the iconic beaches of Normandy to pay tribute to American heroes. On the other hand, a challenger railing against the system and preparing for a sentencing hearing where he may get prison time, just as convicted felons typically do.

“Trump will descend even more deeply into rage and self-pity. He cannot help himself,” Mr. Axelrod said. “Biden and the campaign would be well served to lean more deeply into the contrast between a president fighting to address the pressing concerns of people, and Trump, who fights only for himself.”⍐

By Peter Baker Reporting from Washington May 31, 2024 New York Times

 

Trump Guilty on All Counts in Hush-Money Case

Donald J. Trump, the former president and presumptive 2024 Republican nominee, was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in a case stemming from a payment that silenced a porn star.

The former president’s sentencing is scheduled for July. Here’s the latest.

Donald J. Trump was convicted on Thursday of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal that threatened to derail his 2016 presidential campaign, capping an extraordinary trial that tested the resilience of the American justice system and will reverberate into November’s election.

Mr. Trump was convicted on all 34 counts of falsifying business records by a jury of 12 New Yorkers, who deliberated over two days to reach a decision in a case rife with descriptions of secret deals, tabloid scandal and an Oval Office pact with echoes of Watergate. The former president sat largely expressionless, a glum look on his face, after the jury issued its verdict.

His sentencing was scheduled for July 11.

The jury found that Mr. Trump had faked records to conceal the purpose of money given to his onetime fixer, Michael D. Cohen. The false records disguised the payments as ordinary legal expenses when in truth, Mr. Trump was reimbursing Mr. Cohen for a $130,000 hush-money deal the fixer struck with the porn star Stormy Daniels to silence her account of a sexual liaison with Mr. Trump.

The felony conviction calls for a sentence of up to four years behind bars, but Mr. Trump may never see the inside of a prison cell. He could receive probation when he is sentenced, and he is certain to appeal the verdict — meaning it may be years before the case is resolved. Still, the jury’s decision is an indelible moment in America’s history, concluding the only one of four criminal cases against Mr. Trump that was likely to go to trial before Election Day.

At a park outside the courthouse in Lower Manhattan, crowds had gathered for weeks.Credit...
Todd Heisler/The New York Times

Here’s what to know:

• Trump can still be president: Nothing in the Constitution prevents a felon from running for president, or serving in the White House. Mr. Trump — who has long claimed the case against him is politically motivated — is expected to try to leverage the verdict to his advantage on the campaign trail, painting himself as the victim of a Democratic cabal.

• Trump’s reaction: Mr. Trump showed little emotion as the verdict was read, then shook his son Eric’s hand after being dismissed from the courtroom. Outside, he appeared somber as he repeated a litany of complaints about the case, including that the judge in the case, Juan M. Merchan, was biased against him. “The real verdict is going to be Nov. 5, by the people,” he told reporters, without responding to a shouted question about why Americans should vote for a felon.

• Celebration and outrage: Reaction to the historic verdict was immediate. A demonstrator outside the courthouse raised a large “Trump Convicted” sign, while others pumped their fists. Mr. Trump’s campaign emailed out a fund-raising appeal calling him a “political prisoner.” And President Biden’s campaign urged supporters not to sit idle, saying on social media that the only way to keep Mr. Trump out of the White House is at the ballot box.

• A proud prosecutor: The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, thanked the jury for convicting Mr. Trump, who he said had falsified business records to “conceal a scheme to corrupt the 2016 election.” He added, “There are many voices out there but the only voice that matters is the voice of the jury, and the jury has spoken.”

• The jury deliberated for roughly 10 hours: The jurors asked to again hear portions of testimony by Mr. Cohen and David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer, who prosecutors say was part of a conspiracy to suppress unflattering stories on Mr. Trump’s behalf during the 2016 campaign. Read about what the jury wanted to hear again.

  The jury also wanted Justice Merchan to repeat some of the instructions he gave the jury on Wednesday, which serve as a guide to their deliberations. But the jurors don’t have a copy of his instructions, which the law does not allow.

• Dueling views of the case: A prosecutor from the Manhattan district attorney’s office said in closing arguments that Mr. Trump had tried to “hoodwink the American voter” with a conspiracy to influence the 2016 election. “All roads lead to the man who benefited the most: Donald Trump,” the prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, told the jury.

  Todd Blanche, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, argued in his closing that Mr. Trump’s actions were not crimes, but merely business as it is commonly practiced. The case, he told jurors, hinged on the testimony of Mr. Cohen, whom he called “the greatest liar of all time.” Take a look back at the words that defined the closing arguments.

• The core of the charges: Prosecutors say Mr. Trump tried to disguise repayments to Mr. Cohen as ordinary legal fees. Mr. Trump has pleaded not guilty and denies sleeping with Ms. Daniels, despite her testimony, under oath, about a sexual encounter with him in Lake Tahoe, Nev., in 2006. This is a refresher on the case.⍐

• Jonah E. Bromwich and Ben Protess NYTimes