Misleading interpretations of laïcité, France’s way to implement secularism, have long been threatening the country’s social cohesion. What explains the longevity of these approaches, how do their various proponents justify them and why should they be labelled “radical”?
By Romain Quivooij*
On December 21, 2017, French President Emmanuel Macron declared during a private meeting with France’s major religious leaders that he intended to be “vigilant” with regard to the risk of “radicalisation of laïcité”, which he defined as “intolerance towards religious beliefs”.
Critics were prompt to denounce the use of the term “radicalisation” and the implicit parallel that Macron seemed to draw between authors of terrorist attacks on the one hand and, as a commentator put it, “peaceful citizens (committed) to laïcité” on the other.
Radicalised Laïcité?
According to former Socialist Prime Minister Manuel Valls, one of the most vocal advocates of a conception of laïcité focusing on convictions as well as religious and/or cultural practices that are considered to threaten France’s system of secularism, “the real danger in French society is radical Islam, not radicalised laïcité”.
A diverse array of French citizens and politicians who range from the extreme left to the far right of France’s political spectrum share Valls’ analysis. In particular, some aim at extending the cardinal rule of religious neutrality of the state and civil servants to society and citizens in the dual name of freedom and equality. These interpretations reduce laïcité to a simplistic, unrealistic and dangerous method used to exclude religions from public spaces.
Secularising Society
France’s approach to secularism shares a certain number of traits with similar regimes adopted elsewhere. These include the freedom to choose/practice/change religion or belief and the religious neutrality of the state and public administrations. In few other countries, however, can such a high level of tension between the principle of state neutrality and the temptation to broaden its scope of application to some or all elements of society, be found.
Several attempts were made at the local and national levels to police French people’s individual and collective behaviours, which seemed to miss the mark at best and looked like textbook cases of bureaucratic atheism at worse.
Efforts were made in the early 1900s to forbid priests from wearing their cassocks in public, followed by bids to outlaw religious processions of Catholics and, more recently, endeavours to ban the swimming costume favoured by some Muslim women and known as “burkini” on public beaches.
Interestingly, the notion of public order was consistently used (and, in most cases, successfully challenged) as a legal basis to these restrictions. By contrast, laïcité was referred to as an overarching “value” to defend, such as in the burkini case. Twin dynamics of abstraction and idealisation, which are still observable after more than a century of debates on the meaning and practice of laïcité, have turned the latter into a silver bullet that has nothing to do with the law anymore but provides a fertile ground for excesses of all kinds.
Freedom and Equality
Supporters of a society where religions would be less visible or simply confined to the private sphere are quick to invoke freedom and equality. Arguments based on the founding principles of the French Republic sound praiseworthy, respectful of history and patriotic, but they remain questionable.
Freedom in relation to laïcité points to the duty and the capacity of the authorities to ensure that communities such as religious groups do not act as substitutes for the state and exert pressures on citizens. Other proponents include in this basic definition the “liberation” of individuals from religions that are deemed to be inherently backward or, in the case of Islam, culturally inadapted.
The claim to guarantee people’s freedom on behalf of laïcité may thus be used as a convenient mask for expressing antireligious convictions or hostility towards cultural specificities perceived as unfit and provocative.
This perverted use of laïcité fuels two ideas that are the exact opposite of France’s non-discriminatory brand of secularism. The first idea is that equality should involve a process of assimilation directed at Muslims only, which is in itself contradictory. The second idea is that some religions have a more important role to play than others.
For example, former far-right MP Marion Maréchal-Le Pen stated in 2015 that “[French Muslims] cannot have the exact same status as Catholics…I fight the left’s approach to laïcité as it is a sanitised version that deletes any reference to our Catholic roots”.
Crossroad of Choices?
President Macron concluded his speech by warning the audience that religions shall not influence France’s political life, and that he was not looking to establish a state religion.
Presenting himself as a balancing figure was appropriate, as France appears to reach a peak of polarisation between opposing forces. This is perceptible in societal issues such as laïcité that draw increasingly heated debate and discussion. It can also be observed in politics and economics where France’s long-standing conflict between aspirations and resistance to change has intensified over recent years.
The symptom of “radicalised laïcité” therefore works as a timely reminder that sectarianism is not specific to one religion or religions only, and reflects how convincing divisive rhetoric expressed in the name of state authority may sound.
Beyond national specificities, the French case illustrates that the work of ensuring peaceful coexistence between faiths and beliefs in multiethnic societies is an ongoing process. The lessons of history, as extensive as they might be for some countries, should obviously not lead to take this work for granted.
* Romain Quivooij is an Associate Research Fellow with the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS), a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa has announced changes to the National Executive and the appointment of David Mabuza as the new Deputy President of the Republic.
Nhlanhla Nene, who held the post once before, has been appointed as Minister of Finance.
In a media briefing at the Union Buildings in Pretoria on Monday evening, the President said he had made the decision to make certain changes to the composition of the National Executive.
“These changes are intended to ensure that national government is better equipped to implement the mandate of this administration and specifically the tasks identified in the State of the Nation Address,” he said.
The Ministerial appointments are as follows:
Communications: Nomvula Mokonyane
Higher Education and Training: Naledi Pandor
Home Affairs: Malusi Gigaba
Human Settlements: Nomaindia Mfeketo
International Relations and Cooperation: Lindiwe Sisulu
Mineral Resources: Gwede Mantashe
Police: Bheki Cele
Public Enterprises: Pravin Gordhan
Public Service and Administration: Ayanda Dlodlo
Public Works: Thulas Nxesi
Rural Development and Land Reform: Maite Nkoana-Mashabane
Science and Technology: Nkhensani Kubayi-Ngubane
Social Development: Susan Shabangu
Sport and Recreation: Tokozile Xasa
State Security: Dipuo Letsatsi-Duba
The Presidency: Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation: Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma
The Presidency: Women: Bathabile Dlamini
Tourism: Derek Hanekom
Transport: Blade Nzimande
Water and Sanitation: Gugile Nkwinti
The President also announced the following Deputy Ministers:
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Sfiso Buthelezi
Communications: Pinky Kekana
Finance: Mondli Gungubele
Public Service and Administration: Chana Pilane-Majeke
Small Business Development: Cassel Mathale
The positions of Deputy Minister of Public Enterprises and Deputy Minister in the Presidency for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation will remain vacant.
“Pending the completion of their swearing-in as Members of the National Assembly, I intend to further appoint Mr David Mabuza as the Deputy President of the Republic; Dr Zweli Mkhize as Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs; Mr Nhlanhla Nene as Minister of Finance; Ms Reginah Mhaule as Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation.”
President Ramaphosa said in making the changes, he was conscious of the need to balance continuity and stability with the need for renewal, economic recovery and accelerated transformation.
“As indicated in the State of the Nation Address, we have begun a review of the configuration, size and number of national Ministries and Departments. We will retain the existing Ministries and Departments until that review is completed,” he said.
Many of the new Ministers and Deputy Ministers will be sworn in, in Cape Town tomorrow. The others will be sworn in, in the coming days.
“I wish to express my appreciation to all outgoing Ministers and Deputy Ministers for their service to government and to the people of South Africa,” said President Ramaphosa.
A senior member of the Palestinian resistance movement, Hamas, asked the Islamic Republic of Iran to organize an international Islamic conference in condemnation of the US government’s decision to relocate its embassy from Tel Aviv to al-Quds (Jerusalem) in May.
“We appeal to Iran to hold an international Islamic conference and denounce the US and Israeli occupiers’ stance (on Quds)”, Mahmoud al-Zahar, a member of Hamas’ political bureau, told Tasnim on Monday.
Quds, like Mecca, is a holy site to Muslims, he stressed, calling on the Islamic Ummah (community) to stand united in the face of the Israeli regime’s atrocities and support the Palestinian nation.
Al-Zahar described the very existence of Israel on Palestinian lands as “illegal” and “illegitimate”, saying that the US will contribute to Israeli crimes if it moves its embassy from Tel Aviv to either the occupied East or West Quds.
He stressed that Hamas’s stance on this issue will not change and “we will never recognize the US embassy” as the entire land belongs to the Palestinian nation only.
US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert on Friday said the United States is planning to open its embassy in Quds in May.
“We are excited about taking this historic step, and look forward with anticipation to the May opening,” she said.
On Saturday, Hamas strongly condemned Washington’s planned move, terming it as “provocative” for all Muslim and Arab nations.
The measure to relocate the US embassy concurrent with the 70th anniversary of Nakba Day (Day of Catastrophe), when hundreds of Palestinians were forcibly evicted from their homeland by Israeli regime forces back in 1948, is a naked act of aggression against the Palestinian nation, the Hamas spokesman, Abdullatif al-Qanou, said.
The UN war crimes court will deliver its appeal verdict on Serbian Radical Party leader Vojislav Seselj on April 11, but he has vowed not to return to The Hague to hear it.
The Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals said on Monday that the second-instance verdict on Vojislav Seselj – who was initially acquitted of wartime crimes in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina – will be handed down on April 11.
But Seselj, who has been at liberty in Serbia since he was temporarily released for cancer treatment in 2014, has insisted that he will not go back to The Hague to hear the verdict.
“He will not go. He has said that many times – that he won’t go back to The Hague,” Serbian Radical Party MP Vjerica Radeta told BIRN after the UN court scheduled the verdict date.
But the president of the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, Theodor Meron, said that the verdict could be pronounced in Seselj’s absence.
Under the first-instance verdict in March 2016, Seselj was acquitted of persecution on political, racial and religious grounds as well as crimes against humanity in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The verdict determined that the establishment of a ‘Greater Serbia’ was Seselj’s political goal, but it did not imply the commission of crimes.
Seselj did not attend the pronouncement of the first instance verdict.
In their appeal, the Hague prosecutors asked the court to quash the first-instance verdict and convict Seselj.
Prosecutor Mathias Marcussen asked for Seselj to be found guilty and sentenced to 28 years in prison or undergo a new trial.
The trial of Seselj has lasted around ten years. It was interrupted several times in order to also try the Serbian Radical Party leader for contempt of court, of which he was found guilty.
After being allowed to go back to Serbia in 2014, Seselj returned to politics and is currently an MP.
Here’s your legal koan for the day: When is an indictment not an indictment?
Answer– When there is no intention of initiating a criminal case against the accused. In the case of the 13 Russian trolls who have just been indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, there is neither the intention nor the ability to prosecute a case against them. (They are all foreign nationals who will not face extradition.)
But, if that’s the case, than why would Mueller waste time and money compiling a 37-page document alleging all-manner of nefarious conduct when he knew for certain that the alleged perpetrators would never be prosecuted? Why?
Isn’t is because the indictments are not really a vehicle for criminal prosecution, but a vehicle for political grandstanding? Isn’t that the real purpose of the indictments, to add another layer of dirt to the mountain of unreliable, uncorroborated, unproven allegations of Russian meddling. Mueller is not acting in his capacity as Special Counsel, he is acting in his role of deep state hatchet-man whose job is to gather scalps by any means necessary.
Keep in mind, the subjects of the indictment will never be apprehended, never hire an attorney, never be in a position to defend themselves or refute the charges, and never have their case presented before and judge or a jury. They will be denied due process of law and the presumption of innocence. Mueller’s ominous-sounding claims, which were the centerpiece of his obscene media extravaganza, made sure of that. In most people’s minds, the trolls are guilty of foreign espionage and that’s all there is to it. Case closed.
But the indictments themselves suggest that Mueller’s narrative is wrong. The objective was not to influence the election, but make money by getting viewers to “click on” advertisements. Check it out:
“Defendants and their co-conspirators also used the accounts to receive money from real U.S. persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements on the ORGANIZATION-controlled social media pages. Defendants and their co-conspirators typically charged certain U.S. merchants and U.S. social media sites between 25 and 50 U.S. dollars per post for promotional content on their popular false U.S. persona accounts, including Being Patriotic, Defend the 2nd, and Blacktivist.”
That sounds like a money-making scheme to me not an attempt to subvert US democracy. So why is Mueller in such a lather? Isn’t this all just an attempt to divert attention from the fact that the Nunes’ investigation has produced proof that senior-level officials at the FBI and DOJ were “improperly obtaining” FISA warrants to spy on members of the Trump Campaign? Isn’t that what’s really going on?
If we can agree that the indictments were not intended to bring the “accused” to justice, then don’t we also have to agree that there must have been an ulterior motive for issuing them? And what might that ulterior motive be? What are the real objectives of the investigation, to cast a shadow on an election that did not produce the results that powerful members of the entrenched bureaucracy wanted, to make it look like Donald Trump did not beat Hillary Clinton fair and square, and to further demonize a geopolitical rival that has blocked Washington’s imperial ambitions in Syria and Ukraine? Which of these is the real driving force behind Russiagate or is it ‘all of the above?’
Nothing will come of the indictments because the indictments were not designed reveal the truth or bring the accused to justice. They were written to shape public perceptions and to persuade the American people that Trump cheated in the elections and that Russia poses a serious threat to US national security. The indictments have no legal merit, they are a form of domestic propaganda and disinformation. The real target is the American people.
It’s worth noting, that if Mueller really wanted to get to the bottom of the Russia-gate allegations, he would interview the people who have first-hand knowledge what actually happened. He would question Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) and Craig Murray, both of whom have stated publicly that they know who stole the Podesta emails. Mueller hasn’t done that, nor has he contacted the VIPs (Ray McGovern, William Binney, Skip Folden, etc) who did extensive forensic investigation of the “hacking” allegations and proved that the emails were not hacked but leaked. Mueller has not pursued that line of inquiry either. Nor has he interviewed California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who met with Assange personally and who has suggested that Assange may reveal the name (of the DNC “leaker”) under the right conditions. Instead of questioning witnesses, Mueller has spent a great deal of time probing the online activities Russian trolls who were engaged in a money-making scheme that was in no way connected to the Russian government, in no way connected to the Trump campaign, and in no way supportive of the claims of hacking or collusion. None of this reflects well on Mueller who, by any stretch, appears to be either woefully incompetent or irredeemably biased.
The indictment states that the organization that employed the trolls “had the strategic purpose of sowing political discord in the United States.” This seems to be a recurrent theme that has popped up frequently in the media as well. The implication is that the Russians are the source of the widening divisions in the US that are actually the result of growing public angst over the lopsided distribution of wealth that naturally emerges in late-stage capitalism. Moscow has become the convenient scapegoat for the accelerated parasitism that has seen 95% of the nation’s wealth go to a sliver of people at the top of the foodchain, the 1 percent. (But that’s another story altogether.) Here’s a brief clip from the portentous-sounding indictment:
“The general conspiracy statute… creates an offense “[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose….
The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made.”
The above statement helps to prove my point that the indictments are not a vehicle for criminal prosecution, but part of a politically-motivated information campaign to damage Trump and vilify Russia. No one seriously believes that Mueller would ever try to prosecute this case based on the spurious and looney claims of a criminal conspiracy. The whole idea is laughable.
There are a couple interesting twists and turns regarding the indictments that could be significant, but, then again, maybe not. We found it interesting that Rob Goldman, who is the Vice President of Facebook Ads, tweeted this revealing disclaimer on Monday which Trump posted on Twitter:
“I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.”
Then there are the puzzling comments by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who said on Friday:
“There’s no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge. And the nature of the scheme was the defendants took extraordinary steps to make it appear that they were ordinary American political activists, even going so far as to base their activities on a virtual private network here in the United States so, if anybody traced it back to that first jump, they appeared to be Americans….”
Do you notice anything unusual about Rosenstein’s remarks?
There’s no mention of Trump at all, which is a striking omission since all of previous public announcements have been used to strengthen the case against Trump. Now that’s changed. Why?
Naturally, Trump picked up on Rosenstein’s omission and blasted this triumphant message on Twitter:
“Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein stated at the News Conference: “There is no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.” Donald Trump
So, what’s going on here? Mueller and Rosenstein are smart guys. They must have known that Trump would use the dates and the absence of anything remotely suggesting collusion as vindication. Was that the purpose, to let Trump off the hook while the broader propaganda campaign on Russia continues?
This is the great mystery surrounding the indictments, far from helping to establish Trump’s culpability, they appear to imply his innocence. Why would Mueller and his allies want to do that? Are the Intel agencies and the FBI looking for a way to end this political cage-match before a second Special Counsel is appointed and he starts digging up embarrassing information about the involvement of other agencies (and perhaps, the White House) in the Russiagate fiasco?
Just think about it for a minute: There is nothing in the indictments that suggests that Trump or anyone in his campaign was involved with the Russian trolls. There is nothing in the indictments that suggests Trump was acting as a Russian agent. And there’s nothing in the indictments that suggests the Russian government helped Trump win the election. Also, the timeline of events seems to favor Trump as does Rosenstein’s claim that the online activity did not have “any effect on the outcome of the election.”
Bottom line: The indictments were very good news for Donald Trump, but very bad news for Robert Mueller who appears to have run into a brick wall. But has he? Has Mueller abandoned the attacks on Trump or is there something else going on just below the surface?
I can only guess at the answer, but it looks to me like Trump may have made a deal to support the attacks on Russia provided he is acquitted on charges of collusion. That’s what he’s wanted from the beginning, so, maybe he won this round? Here’s one of his recent tweets that helps to support my theory:
“I never said Russia did not meddle in the election, I said “it may be Russia, or China or another country or group, or it may be a 400 pound genius sitting in bed and playing with his computer.” The Russian “hoax” was that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia – it never did!” Donald Trump
Hmmm? So Trump now Trump is okay with blaming Russia as long as he’s not included too? Is that what he’s saying? Here’s more in the same vein:
“If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They are laughing their asses off in Moscow. Get smart America!” Donald Trump
Okay, so now Trump is turning the tables and saying, ‘Yeah, maybe Russia has been ‘sowing discord’, but the Democrats are the ones you should be blaming not me.’
So Trump is not opposed to demonizing Russia, he’s just opposed to demonizing Donald John Trump. That’s where he draws the line.
What’s wrong with that? If Trump’s enemies want to provide him with a Get-Outta-Jail-Free card, then why shouldn’t he snatch it up and put this whole goofy probe behind him? That’s what most people would do.
The problem is that Trump’s biggest supporters want him to continue struggle against “The Swamp”. They want him to fight for their interests and expose the crooked goings-on behind the Russiagate scandal. They want him to lift up the rock that conceals the activities of the National Security State so everyone can see the maggots squirming below. That’s what they want, a modern-day Samson who shakes the temple’s pillars and brings the whole crooked system crashing down around him.
These same people are hopeful that the Nunes memo and the Grassley-Graham “criminal referral” are just the tip of the iceberg that will inevitably lead to the bigger fish involved in this deep-state conspiracy, namely former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Former FBI Director James Comey, and very likely, Barack Hussein Obama himself. What role did these men play in spying on the Trump campaign? Were they actively trying to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge? Should a second Special Counsel be appointed to investigate whether crimes were committed in their targeting of the Trump team?
All of these questions need to be answered in order to clear the air, hold the guilty parties accountable and restore confidence in the government. Trump’s backers hope that he is principled and pugnacious enough to go nose-to-nose with these Intel agency serpents and give them the bloody whooping they so richly deserve.
Unfortunately, I don’t see any evidence that that’s what he has in mind. We’ll see.
On Thursday, the FCC’s net neutrality rule was published in the Federal Register. This was the official start of the next phase of the campaign to protect the open Internet as a common carrier with equal access for all and without prejudice based on content (net neutrality).
There are multiple fronts of struggle to make net neutrality a reality: Congress, the courts, states and communities. This is part of a campaign to create an Internet for the 21st Century that is fast, reliable and available in all communities.
Polls show widespread support for net neutrality. Last year, polling found 77% of people in the United States “support keeping the net neutrality rules, which are already in place” and 87% agree that “people should be able to access any websites they want on the internet, without any blocking, slowing down, or throttling by their internet service providers.” The FCC’s net neutrality rule does the opposite of the national consensus, and if members of Congress want support from Internet users, they need to reverse the FCC’s rule.
Repeal the FCC Anti-Net Neutrality Order In Congress
Under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), Congress can reject a federal agency’s decision. The net neutrality movement has 60 legislative days to push Congress to reverse the FCC’s order and return net neutrality rules that reclassified the Internet under Title II of the Federal Communications Act. Title II classification ensured the Internet was a common carrier with equal access for all. The movement is working in both bodies of Congress to put elected officials on record for their positions so they can be held accountable.
Net neutrality proponents have been organizing for a Resolution of Disapproval under the CRA since the FCC announced its decision last December. There are already enough co-sponsors to ensure a vote in the Senate, but we are one vote away from victory. Right now all Senate Democrats, both independents, Senators Bernie Sanders (VT) and Angus King (ME), and one Republican, Susan Collins (ME), have agreed to vote for the resolution. This has the Senate in a tie, which would be broken by Vice President Mike Pence. There are several possible Republicans, e.g. Sen. John Kennedy (LA), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK), Sen. Dean Heller (NV), Sen. Dan Sullivan (AK), Sen. Cory Gardner (CO), and Sen. John McCain (AZ), who might join Collins in opposing the FCC rule.
The Internet Service Providers’ position is being advocated for by the right-wing group, Freedom Works, who defends the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality. They will be holding a day of action on Monday. They are taking the CRA challenge seriously and can no longer ignore us.
There has also been organizing in the US House of Representatives. On January 16, Representative Mike Doyle (PA-14) unveiled the names of 82 original cosponsors of his CRA resolution. Including Doyle, the list totals 83 and includes House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. A majority of House members are needed to move forward.
This movement intends to make net neutrality an issue in the 2018 election. Republicans, in particular, are worried about a Trump-caused election against them, resulting in large numbers of retirements. Voters across the political spectrum support net neutrality. Republicans need to join the national consensus or pay a political price.
After we succeed in both Chambers, President Trump will need to decide if he is with the people or the telecoms. If we are successful in both Houses of Congress, we will have built a lot of political power that will be dangerous for Trump to ignore.
Net Neutrality in the Courts
The publication of the FCC rule repealing net neutrality also restarts litigation to challenge the FCC rule, which seeks an injunction to stop the rule from being implemented. State attorneys general, public interest groups and internet companies are all taking legal action in the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The goal is for the FCC rule to be remanded for reconsideration and for it to be enjoined pending the outcome of the litigation. Courts tend to favor federal agencies, but we have a strong case.
The central arguments will be that the FCC’s action was arbitrary and capricious and abuse of their discretion by reversing net neutrality rules. Further, the FCC misinterpreted and disregarded critical evidence on industry practices, and their decision will harm consumers and businesses. In addition, the procedures followed by the FCC violated the Administrative Procedures Act.
In California, Hawaii, New York, Montana and Vermont legislation is in the works that would preserve internet neutrality. The FCC’s new rule says states are not allowed to pass their own net neutrality laws, but many are trying to do so with various legal workarounds. It is likely these state and local actions will require litigation to be put into place.
Governors are also working to protect net neutrality. The first governor to act was Montana’s Steve Bullock. Now governors in Vermont, Hawaii, New Jersey and New York have signed executive orders requiring their states to only do business with internet providers that abide by net neutrality rules.
And there is activity at the community level. A new map from Community Networks shows that more communities than ever are building their own broadband networks to end big telecom’s monopoly. They range from large networks in Chattanooga, Tennessee to small town networks connecting a few local businesses. The map includes more than 750 communities as of January 2018, including 55 publicly-owned municipal networks serving 108 communities, 76 communities with publicly-owned cable networks reaching most or all of the community, and 258 communities served by rural electric cooperatives, among others. Nineteen states have barriers in place that discourage or prevent local communities from creating publicly-owned local networks.
People Will Ensure the Internet Serves Us All Equally
The paths we are on in the courts, Congress and the states are challenging, but every step this campaign takes builds the political power of the Internet equality movement. The Internet movement is never going to give up on its demand for net neutrality, as well as related issues of equal access to high-quality broadband for all, no matter your level of wealth or income.
We need to build an Internet for the 21st Century. The reign of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai will be seen as an era of regression. In the end, we will strive for the country to recognize access to high-quality Internet is a human right and a public good. Pai’s backward steps will be used to launch us into an even stronger future where we create a public broadband system that serves people, not corporate profits. Join our Internet campaign Protect Our Internet and take action today at Battle for the Net.
As we discussed in our radio show with two top experts on Internet issues, the failure to treat the Internet as a common carrier violates legal principles going back before the founding of the United States. The ideas that the mail was a common carrier or that public transit treated everyone equally are the root concepts of net neutrality. We need to continue to build power to ensure Internet access is seen as a human right and a tool of free speech with equal access for all.
A burning noonday sun brought out a startling demonstration with the gigantic magnifying glass: they put a pile of hay in the middle of the street and set it on fire by concentrating the sun’s rays. Jose Arcadia Buendia, who had still not been consoled for the failure of his magnets, conceived the idea of using this invention as a weapon of war.” (pg.3) – One Hundred Years of Solitude
“The first of the line is tied to a tree and the last is being eaten by ants.”(pg. 446) – One Hundred Years of Solitude
I must first depart from the proponents and coiners of the word “Magical Realism” in talking about this 1967 work of the Colombian Nobel Laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and bring back the familiar term and one grounded in Philosophy (the mother of all sciences) namely “Metaphysics” (of the ontology-epistemology dualism) to denote that One Hundred Years of Solitude is not so much about “the real becoming magical” but of the permeability of the force of living, or “cybernetics” (from Latin kybernets) into objects, and into people and the existence of a fine line between the dream world of the resolution of spiritual conflicts, of premonitions, of visitations by the dead warning of the Eros-Thanatos predictability of Life, of tragedy and farce in history — of all these and more about metaphysics but less about “magical realism” nowadays used as a branding and marketing strategy in the publishing industry to promote Harry-Potter type of fiction.
One Hundred Years of Solitude is about the nature of reality as it is and as interpreted and presented by the author and his anthropological circumstances. It is about metaphysics of magic, the mundane, and how these two interplayed in the story. This novel, set in a series of chronological time (from pre-Columbian to modern-day of American imperialism) is about the saga of the Buendia family in the town of Macondo, faced with the challenges of life shaped by political-economic and technological intergenerational forces of change. In it contains the study of that dimension of metaphysics. Realism (“physics”) is too harsh but there is always an escape, through Fate nonetheless, through the meta (or “beyond”) of physics called “death, in whatever form –violent as in the end of it through a firing squad or peaceful as the death of Ursula as she “willed herself” to death, or as she had said to promise to go after the deluge.
It is more a metaphysical story of historical-anthropological proportion than of “magical realism.” as often the work of Marquez is ascribed to.
As a major thematic subtext or meta-message, One Hundred Years of Solitude is a story addressing a metaphysical issue: of the consequence of the fascination with technology in all its “irrefexivitiness”, and the consequences of power in all its manifestation of excessiveness, and of problematique of life itself as a location of one’s search for meaning and the meaning of freedom in order to be and to become, as existentatialist-literatis such as Camus or Sartre or Kafka would say, to be “free in the most radical sense that freedom itself is an act of rebellion against life to that one should not have to choose between having a cup of coffee or committing suicide and that ultimately, in the language of existentialism, ‘it’s all just too human to be free’ “.
Here is my question: Is Marquez’s work about the realness of the real? Or about the ascension of Man from the harshness and mundaneness (or even madness) of everyday life destroyed by the forces that turned the fictional Colombian town of Macondo into a banana republic of a military state, aided by as always, in the case of American prop-a-Latin-American-styled-dictator-to-stop-nationalization-of industries style of imperialism?
In the following paragraphs I discuss the element of metaphysics and how the author crafted passages with the intention of bringing the reader to understand how the mundane evolved into the fantastic.
Transitioning from the real to the magical
In the first example of how Gabriel Marcia Marquez introduced the element of the extraordinary or the supernatural, he produced a scene in which a child’s seemingly magical power of predicting an event was to take place, yet the father brushed it off as a natural phenomenon. I read it as way a culture sees things as natural rather than an element of magical realism. Although things do not move by themselves, in the fictitious world of One Hundred Years of Solitude, world-building takes not the form of phantasmagoric happening, or pots and pans turning into UFOs, but rather a hint that something extraordinary happened.
Marquez prepared the reader to accept the idea that metaphysics rather than magic is at play here. It is as natural as the Christian believing that a virgin can give birth to a child, a man can part the Nile River, a dead man can rise from the dead and ascend to heaven, or a man can walk on water, or any other stories termed as “miracles” rather than “magic the elevated itself from the real”. Metaphysics of a belief system rather than magic is at play in the “extraordinary/supernatural” scenes Marquez crafted. These are as natural as how a Caribbean or Latin American paganist-Catholic community not attuned and trained in scientific rationalism, would believe. It is about a weltanschauung, or a worldview wherein anomalies of natural phenomenon happen, their believability contingent upon the scale of devotion and fear or intense love to the Catholic god.
[#1] “Ursula did not remember the intensity of that look again until one day when little Aureliano, at the age of three, went into the kitchen at the moment she was taking a pot of boiling soup from the stove and putting it on the table. The child, perplexed, said from the doorway, ‘It’s going to spill.’ The pot was firmly placed in the center of the table, but as soon as the child made his announcement, it began an unmistakable movement towards the edge, as if impelled by some inner dynamism and it fell and broke on the floor. Ursula, alarmed, told her husband about the episode, but he interpreted it as natural phenomena.” (pg.16)
I read the passage (#2) below as the author’s way of preparing the reader that in a place such as a carnival, or a “fun fair” wherein freaks and the magic are sold to the public, there is a fine line between magic and the real. I do not read it as another element of “magical realism” that would add to the mountains of passages that would brand the genre as “Magical Realism” as if literature needed periodization and clear stylistic demarcations. Instead, I see it as common scene of an exhibition wherein one pays to get amused or even fooled. In this sense, Marquez prepared the reader by creating a situation in which there is no need to explain that something radically out of the ordinary has happened, such as a boy flying across the sky on a magic carpet, or a cat turning into a cat woman and climbing the trees, or any other manifestations of magic, central as invention in today’s writing in the so-called genre of Magical Realism.
As in other passages I read closely and analyzed for this brief essay, Marquez presented a metaphysical problematique and a moment, inviting the reader to ask less the question of what is this magic about, rather by using what technology, is this magician able to maintain the control of power and knowledge and to profit from fooling the powerless. This is essentially a metaphysical question. Not so much of the nature of magical realism.
[#2] “When the gypsies came back, Ursula had turned the whole population of the village against them. But curiosity was greater than fear, for the time the gypsies were about the town making a deafening noise with all manner of musical instruments while a hawker announced the exhibition of the most fabulous discovery of the Naciencenes. So that everyone went to the tent and by paying one cent they saw a youthful Melquiades, recovered, unwrinkled, with new and flashing set of teeth. Those who remembered his gums that has been destroyed by scurvy, his flaccid cheeks, and his withered lips trembled with fear at the final proof of the gypsy’s supernatural power. The fear turned into panic when Melquiades took out his teeth. intact, encased in their gums, and showed to the audience for an instant — a fleeting instant in which he went back into being the same decrepit man of years past — and put them back again and smiled once more with full control of his restored youth.” (pg.8)
A foundational line it is, in fact an ideological thesis of this novel, it reads like a statement signifying magic and how objects can turn into animated beings but I propose that it is a profound metaphysical statement on technological determinism, on technology as a life-force in itself, on the idea that artefacts have life-force governing them. This statement uttered by the mysterious gypsy Melquiades not only frame the novel as a story laced with some instances of “magic’ but sets its tone and theme as how human beings are indeed “surrealistic beings” in which in order to function and to survive as a species governed by “natural selection” in which only the fittest will survive, as Charles Darwin proposed in The Origin of Species. Man had to create “extensions of himself” by first learning about the principles of science and next about techniques and ultimately, through science, technology, and a symbiosis of both, create artifacts or “machines with spirits and souls” in order to not only survive but also to control and dominate each other as Nature.
[#3] “Things have a life of their own,” the gypsy proclaimed with a harsh accent. “It’s simply a matter of waking up their souls.” (pg.2)
In the passage below (#4), Marquez crafted the idea of the supernatural as real, when Ursula a matter-a-factly warned her great-great grandson not to be too comfortable with the wealth created out of “magic.” I see it as a metaphysical situation well-prepared, in which the realm of the real after it has moved into the supernatural, or the “magically real” is further expanded to the real of metaphysics and ethics: of what is good and right to do next?
[#4] “In a few years, without effort, simply by luck, he had accumulated one of the largest fortunes in the swamp thanks to the supernatural proliferation of his animals, His mares would bear triplets, his hands laid twice a day, and his hogs fattened with such speed that no one could explain such disorderly fecundity except through the use of black magic. ‘Save something now,’ Ursula would say something to her wild great grandson. ‘This luck is not going to last all your life.” But Aureliano Segundo paid no attention to her. The more he opened champagne to soak his friends, the more wildly his animals gave birth and the more he was convinced that his lucky star was not a matter of his conduct but an influence of Petra Cotes, his concubine, whose love had the virtue of exasperating nature.
Another example (#5) on how Marquez presented his metaphysical idea on premonitions, specifically on a mother’s intuition which is neither magic nor fantastic, but a mere spiritual/metaphysical construction of reality is in the scene in the bedroom. When two people heard a fetus crying and the father thought that it was a natural phenomenon, and when the towns folks explained the occurrence from a supernatural and religious perspective, and when the mother had a different interpretation, there is no more “magic-in-the-real” or “realism-embraced-by-magic” but a worldview of that needed metaphysical explanation within the realm of cultural logic of that society. Marquez prepared the reader well with this mode of interpretation of cultures, and in this case “Santeria-Voodoo-pagan” type of Catholicism that colors the thinking of the Caribbean and many Latin American societies. Marquez alerted the reader to read it as a religious article of belief: of a prelude to a miracle or perhaps a premonition of larger Evil looming, in this case, a mother’s premonition and her hypothesis of what is to happen to the child conceived “in the womb of Love” is the most valid. The son will grow up facing the firing squad. He is weeping inside the mother, lamenting his fate.
[#5] “One night when she was carrying him in her belly she heard him weeping. It was such as definite lament that Jose’ Arcadio Buendia woke up beside her and was happy with the idea that his son was going to be a ventriloquist. Other people predicted that he would be a prophet. She, on the other hand, shuddered from the certainty that the deep moan was a first indication of the fearful pig tail and she begged God to let the child die in her womb. But the lucidity of her old age allowed her to see, and she said so many times, that the cries of children in their mother’s wombs are not announcements of ventriloquism or a faculty for prophecy but an unmistakable sign of an incapacity for love.” (pg. 267)
Besides the five instances of “strange occurrences” discussed above, other examples abound on how Marquez sensitized the readers to the worldview of metaphysics and its manifestations that could be considered “magical” yet natural, given that the god of the Catholics in the case of what the Macondon society believes in, permit to happen. Some of the salient ones are Remedios the Beauty’s powers of animal magnetism to lure men to madness and to their death (pgs. 251-252), a baby born with a tail of a pig (pg. 443), a fallen and broken military leader who willed himself to death (pg. 287), and the blood of a man trickling and permeating all over town (pg. 144)
Conclusion
Because the novel’s ideological inspiration is that of a struggle between reason and faith, Catholicism and existentialism, and set in a society rooted in the power of the Catholic church in alliance with the junta/military state, Gabriel Garcia Marquez need not prepare the reader extensively to make the strange occurrences in the story seem fantastical or magical, as how the overused term “magical realism” might offer. The worldview and setting of One Hundred Years of Solitude has already taken care of the problematique of believability and plausibility of events such as a child possessing powerful intuition, a gypsy trader turning from old to young, a matriarch of the story knowing when to die, a former army colonel willing himself to death, a beautiful woman with profound powers to attract men to the point of the latter’s fatality and madness, and a baby born with a pig’s tail. These are not elements of magic as I read them, but metaphors requiring the readers to see them through the metaphysical perspective, so that the question of the reality, beingness, and spiritual nature of objects could be addressed not as examples of magical realism but as manifestations of the will of the Divine.
As the quote explained how boundary of the real and the supernatural collapses when the mysterious gypsy Melquiades, revered by Jose Arcadio Buenida, said,
“… (t)hings have a life of their own … (i)ts simply a matter of waking up their souls. (pg.3).
I read this as a classic statement on Marx’s idea of “technological determinism” and that “machines metamorphosize into mad monsters” such as the one created by Dr. Victor Frankenstein in the Romantic Period 1818 novel of the then 20-year old Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley entitled Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus.
Bibliography
Marquez, Gabriel Garcia. (1998). One Hundred Years of Solitude. Translated by Gregory Rabassa. (New York: Perennial Classics.)
The decades long partnership of the US with one of its major NATO allies, i.e. Turkey, has been under serious strain for some time now due to growing divergence in policies and collision of interests of the two countries in the conflict ridden geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.
Given the mounting mutual distrust, suspicion and absence of any serious efforts to iron the recurring differences, as indicated in several cases including the US refusal to extradite the US-based cleric Fethullah Gulen who is accused by Turkey of masterminding the coup in July 15, 2016, a direct military confrontation between the US-led troops and Turkish armed forces in Syria is not so inconceivable.
Lately the strained relations reached a “crisis point” in the aftermath of the revelations that the US-led coalition in Syria intends to create a border security force of 30,000 personnel comprising mainly of Kurdish militia in Syria named People’s Protection Units (YPG) over the next several years. The BSF will be tasked with securing the long sections of Syria’s northern border with Turkey and eastern border with Iraq, as well as parts of the Euphrates river valley. However, this proposal did not sit well with Turkey for the obvious reason that it has since long considered the YPG as a Syrian offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party or PKK of Turkey which is coincidently designated as a terrorist group by both Turkey and the US.
Decrying the US plans, Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan accused the US of forming a “terror army.” “A country we call an ally is insisting on forming a terror army on our borders,” Erdoğan said in a speech in Ankara. “What can that terror army target but Turkey? Our mission is to strangle it before it’s even born.” It is worth mentioning here that Turkey’s frustration with the US support to and heavy reliance on Kurdish militia in a fight against the Islamic State is not a recent phenomenon. In fact Turkey’s approach to Syrian conflict, apart from fighting the menace of IS, has largely been shaped by its sensitivity to the issue of Kurdish separatism.
Turkey sent troops into Syria in 2016 to prevent Syrian Kurdish fighters from forming a contiguous entity along its border. It has also supported rival Syrian rebels and independently fought to drive IS from parts of Syria. Moreover, Turkey was one of the leading countries along with Iran, Iraq and Syrian government in denouncing the referendum held by Iraqi Kurds for an independent Kurdish state last year in September 2017. The referendum had raised serious concerns in Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria that it could encourage their Kurdish minorities to break away.
Thus, given the fact that Turkey is home to the largest Kurdish population at an estimated 14 million, makes a long term US military and political support to the Kurds a serious threat to the territorial integrity and security of Turkey. The US policy on Syria now more than ever dashes Turkey’s hopes that after the defeat of the IS, the US would sever its ties with the Syrian Kurds. Thus, dismayed with the US, on Jan. 20, Turkey launched Operation Olive Branch in northwestern Syria’s Afrin to clear the region from the PYD/YPG ‘terrorists’ as well as remaining Daesh elements.
Notwithstanding the high level diplomatic visits to Turkey from the US in a bid to prevent escalation of hostilities in the ties, the situation on the ground bellies any farce of consensus and unity as far as their respective stance on the dynamics of Syrian conflict is concerned.
On the contrary, the situation on the ground suggests that the two countries are probably in for a major direct military confrontation as ominously indicated by Turkey’s decision to enhance the sphere of its military operation into Manbij, where, unlike in Afrin, the U.S. has military presence. However, it is never too late and there is always a light at the end of the tunnel, sincere efforts for peace and appreciation of each other’s concerns instead of prioritizing narrow geopolitical interests can salvage the ties from a major crisis.
To this end, the leadership of the two countries needs to avoid exchange of harsh words. Thus one hopes that ultimately sanity will prevail as both the countries can get nothing out of confrontation except further bloodshed and instability already reining the Middle East.
*Nisar Ahmed Khan, Research Affiliate at Strategic Vision Institute (SVI)
Last week, the family of civil rights activist Paul Morganstern visited Mississippi to see where he worked and died.
Morganstern, a Connecticut native working at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights in the summer of 1968, was driving to Jackson when a drunk driver crossed the center line and killed him at what was known as 1-Mile Hill in Yazoo County. The Lawyers’ Committee and other activists suspected he had been murdered due to his civil rights advocacy.
Stone marker placed at 1-Mile Hill
Following the wreck, Paul’s father and mother did not travel to Mississippi, and, it was not until forty-nine years later, meaning Valentine’s Day, 2018, that Paul’s sister and friends, including me, arrived in Mississippi to celebrate his life and find out more about his death.
First, we wanted to honor him at 1-Mile Hill, but we had no idea where it was. Fortunately, Yazoo County Deputy Jackie Hudson had connected us to Sheriff Jacob Sheriff (actually his name) and Chief Deputy Joseph Head, both of whom offered to accompany us to the abandoned road.
L-R: Barbara Morganstern Sammons, Deputy Jackie Hudson, Warren Mersereau, Tito Craige at Yazoo County Sheriff’s Office.
Sheriff Sheriff, acting as historian and counselor, said that Paul was killed on August 17, 1968, but his contributions to mankind never ended.
Sheriff talked about how civil rights activists are an essential part of Mississippi’s history, adding that, “I can speak from personal experience and I’d say that, due to people like Paul, a lot of positive changes have occurred in Mississippi.”
The sheriff told us he realized that we had come to Mississippi to be present for Paul, and in a certain sense, to complete the circle of his life. He suggested that we follow the Department’s cars to the site of Paul’s death and share what was on our hearts. We went to old Highway 49, each of us shared something about Paul’s all-too-short life.
Chief Deputy Head and Sheriff Sheriff with Barbara Morganstern Sammons at 1-Mile Hill.
Paul’s sister found a comfortable niche under a pine tree for a stone naming Paul as “Advocate” and the sheriff announced a cross will be erected nearby. The men from the Sheriff’s Department spoke extemporaneously, and, in comments that brought tears, they pointed out that, “for sure, Paul will never be forgotten, because he gave of himself so all of us secure our civil rights.” Paul was forgotten no longer.
As someone who never met Paul, I wondered what could be helpful 49 years after his death. But as the sheriff spoke, I realized Paul’s spirit stayed around long after his death certificate was signed. I felt a rush of pride in all civil rights workers, humbled that they gave their lives so all Americans can vote, eat together and travel together.
1-Mile Hill, a dangerous road no longer used.
The Yazoo officials told us that those who die will live longer than a normal life span if they give their lives for others.
Paul’s death will motivate others to follow his path, and, though pessimists suspect a violent death will deter others, the actual effect is just the opposite.
I had never witnessed anything that would qualify as a miracle, but on that day there was a feeling that we were connecting human beings over vast amounts of time and space.
L to R: Davis Mersereau, Barbara Morganstern Sammons, author Tito Craige, Nancy Muller, Deputy Head, Warren Mersereau, Sheriff Sheriff at 1-Mile Hill.
Paul seemed to have returned, not in a physical sense, but as a spirit being welcomed by the teamwork of Yazoo’s residents and the out-of-towners. There are two things that made me suspect something transcendent was happening.
Deputy Head played a gospel song about the Golden Rule and then Sheriff Sheriff played Midnite, a song written by Brent Jones and that describes an event taking place at the very hour Morganstern died.
Hello my child See you on ya knees It must be midnight I know you’re sad But I’m so glad You took the time out To call me You must be in trouble, yeah I heard emergency and I came on the double Midnight’s the only time That I can hear from you Oh how I wish you’d call me When your skies are blue
Civil Rights In Jackson, Mississippi
“Mississippi had gotten to Paul the way it does reach some people – its skies, its soil, its terror, its brutality, its surging and enveloping heat, the heaviness of its air, its courage, fears and faces of its people, both black and white.” – Jim Tripp, Paul’s roommate, 1969
In the spring of 1968, the Law Students Civil Rights Research Council (LSCRRC) placed Paul Morganstern at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights in Jackson. LSCRRC, founded in 1963, had lofty long-term goals. A 1968 Hastings Law School newsletter envisioned a rosy future for the interns: “Possibly when the youthful members of the Council become the junior and senior men in important law firms and in government offices, many of them will carry their knowledge and their liberalism with them.”
LSCRRC Flyer 1969
Paul Morganstern never became a senior man in a law office. Instead, perhaps as a way to offer condolences to the Morganstern family, LSCRRC published a flyer featuring Paul and a colleague sitting next to KKK graffiti on a Mississippi bridge.
Before the tragic accident, Paul investigated police brutality, took affidavits to seat black delegates at the Democratic National Convention, researched a Fifth Amendment case, supported a boycott of white businesses, and helped students who had been expelled from their college without due process. In his spare time, he investigated discriminatory hiring policies, looked into swimming pools that banned black kids and researched the rights of debtors.
Coming from a childhood living in an interracial community, Paul was shocked by Mississippi’s legal system. In one case that Paul observed, a white defendant was charged for an assault on a black man. Even though the defendant admitted he hit the plaintiff, “two or 3 times in the face causing considerable injury,” he was found not guilty by an all-white jury.
Paul’s favorite project was research into how to apply federal statute 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 in cases of police misconduct. He argued that when states ignored the constitutional rights of its citizens, Section 1983 should be the vehicle for bringing lawsuits in federal court.
As the summer progressed, Paul became fascinated with the men and women who fought back, in spite of overwhelming odds. One hero was John Otis Sumrall, a man who refused to submit to the draft, because “there were no Negroes on the local (draft) board….” A fierce critic of Jim Crow, Sumrall was arrested several times and faced a long prison sentence. Jason Morgan Ward, in Power, Poverty and Peace, wrote that Sumrall had been arrested when he “staged sit-ins at local diners and led a wade-in at the Clarkco State Park’s whites-only swimming beach.”
At some point, Sumrall’s draft board discovered that the thorn in their side could be sent to Vietnam if Sumrall’s criminal record was purged. Accordingly, the district attorney dismissed all charges and Sumrall was ordered to report for induction. Sumrall, fearless and determined, refused to step forward. In December, 1968, Sumrall lost his final appeal and was sentenced to five years in federal prison. After his release, and long after Paul died, Sumrall changed his name to Yahya Shabazz and wrote books on Islamic Law. There is little doubt that, had he lived, Paul would admire Shabazz’s perseverance.
Paul realized his efforts were likely to fail: “(I saw that) … a young man (was) beaten by a deputy sheriff. His case is one which this office probably will not handle, but (my) memo was written…well, for posterity.” It seems clear that Paul knew his work was valuable, even if victories were not realized for generations.
Jim Tripp, Paul’s roommate in Jackson, described how Paul retained his positive attitude: “Paul was a student radical. He often referred to himself, both seriously and jokingly, as a ‘white, Jew, Commie radical’….” Paul loved the underdogs, even the Vietnamese nationalists who faced the wrath of the United States: “He… knew he was not a pacifist because he supported the military efforts of the Vietcong in Vietnam.”
Paul envisioned the possibility of a major confrontation: “The strength of numbers and economic suasion – and, yes even of force, may be necessary to persuade the powers that be to abdicate some of that power and wealth to the toilers.”
His co-workers kept their spirits up by sharing their respect for Paul. On July 29, for example, staff attorney Ike Madison wrote to Paul: “The memo you did on the applicability of section 1983 to state official bonds reflected a very thorough job. I wish I could exchange places with you. Office work just kills me. Power, Ike.”
The greatest tonic for Paul’s soul was his vibrant neighborhood where his best friends were black neighbors. Jim Tripp: “In the mornings before going to the Lawyers’ Committee office on Farish Street in Jackson and, in the evenings, Paul usually played with our neighbors on Florence Avenue. He naturally loved them and they loved him.”
Statement by Larry Aschenbrenner
Chief Counsel for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights in 1968, Jackson, Mississippi
Paul Morganstern was one of the young law clerks who traveled the dusty back roads of rural hamlets and towns drafting and notarizing these affidavits. These sworn statements showed that countless whites flatly refused to let Blacks register. Paul was driving back to Jackson from Yazoo City after collecting evidence for our challenge when he was tragically struck by a drunken driver who was on the wrong side of the highway.
Paul was very serious while at the job and absolutely dedicated to the Movement. But he was also fun loving, gregarious and liked by all, young and old. Summers are long and hot in Jackson with virtually no air conditioning in the Black community. Swimming was about the only way to stay cool. But private pools were non-existent in Black neighborhoods. Further, rivers and streams close by were infested with cottonmouths and Mayor Thompson had closed the municipal pool rather than admit Black children.
Blacks were still barred from motel chains which remained segregated, contrary to the Civil Rights Law of 1964. About the only pools where Blacks were welcome were the pools of large, integrated chain motels. I recall several happy Sunday afternoons with Paul, at one of those pools, along with a Black couple from our office without kids and Katy and our four kids, 10, 8, 6 and 4. Paul and I and the couple took turns tossing the kids into the pool to the delight and wonderment of all. I have thought of Paul many times over the last 50 years and know what a terrible blow his loss must have been to his folks and family. To all of the Morganstern family and friends, God bless you all.
Growing Up With Radicals
Paul Morganstern’s journey began in Village Creek, Connecticut, a community near Norwalk. Founded in 1949, Village Creek was multi-racial and governed democratically. It was filled with liberals and radicals, some of whom had been blacklisted in the 1950s. Typical of his mentors was resident Frank J. Donner, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Project on Political Surveillance. As he grew more aware of the world beyond his neighborhood, Paul learned that Village Creek might be a utopia, but it was also a target for anti-Communists, especially the supporters of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Some critics nicknamed his village “Commie Creek” and alleged that his home’s flat roof might be flashing signals to Soviet bombers that might attack the United States in World War II.
Through adolescence, Paul listened to World War II veterans talking about war and human rights in Europe. Others told him how Jews and blacks were mistreated in the South and North. Resident Emily Oppenheimer, quoted in Connecticut Magazine, recalled that, “Jews back then couldn’t even have lunch in a hotel in Greenwich.” At Brien McMahon High School in Norwalk, Paul joined the NAACP and declared that he intended to go to medical school.
MLK in center back to camera, Morganstern is behind the poster, partially hidden.
When he was a teenager, there were auspicious events that shaped Paul’s future path, one of which occurred in the summer of 1963 when Paul attended Dr. Martin Luther King’s March on Washington. Near the Reflecting Pool, eighteen-year-old Paul realized that he was standing next to none other than Rev. King.
After graduation from Boston University, Paul entered Howard Law, confident that the historically black school was the best place to study civil rights. In his first year, he heard that 51 long-haired students had been suspended from his former high school in Norwalk.
The school board was claiming that long hair was dangerous because disruptions could follow and girls might even try to wear pants. During winter break, Paul returned to his alma mater and cheered on his former classmates. As an alumnus and law school student, he was a sensation; the students learned about the First Amendment and recognized Paul’s fearlessness and charisma. In February, 1968, however, Judge Thomas O’Sullivan denied the application for a temporary injunction and the Bridgeport Telegram announced, “Court Refuses to Trim School’s Shaggy Boy Ban.” The students lost the battle but the won the war, as, in the decades the followed, long hair was never an issue.
The Bridgeport Telegram
Death Near Yazoo City
Yazoo City Herald, August 22, 1968
At midnight on August 17, 1968, Morganstern was driving to Jackson after working on civil rights assignments in Sunflower County. It was 12:30 a.m. He was five miles South of Yazoo City and drove up 1-Mile Hill, a stretch of asphalt nicknamed “Death Hill.”
Suddenly, a Plymouth Fury veered across the solid yellow center line and drove head-on into Paul. An hour later, R. and A. Wrecker arrived, but Paul’s car was so twisted that it had to be pried apart before Paul’s body could be freed and taken to King’s Daughter Medical Center. It was there that Paul was declared dead by a coroner and his body was sent to Gregory Funeral Home. The next day, Paul’s father authorized the cremation of his son and the shipping of his ashes to Norwalk, Connecticut.
Recalling the murders of civil rights activists like Evers, Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner, the Lawyers’ Committee assumed he was targeted. When I started writing this story, I, too, suspected something like a KKK plot. But there is no evidence that he died in anything but a senseless wreck caused by a drunk. Roy Self, the Lawyers’ Committee investigator, visited the scene of the accident and concluded simply that the driver who hit Paul, “drove illegally on the west side of the center line… endangering lives.” I made dozens of calls to newspapers and police offices but there is no evidence of a premeditated murder.
Back in Norwalk during the days that followed the accident, Paul, Sr. was torn by his desire to find out what happened and a commitment he had made to a local family he was housing after their house burned down. He realized that he trusted Roy Self, the Jackson investigator, and sought his suggestions. Paul Sr. and Paul’s mother, Mildred, received a gracious note that helped them decide to cremate Paul’s in Mississippi and not to investigate further.
As if addressing the Morgansterns, Self wrote, “It was a wise move to authorize Mr. Parks (of Gregory Funeral Home) to proceed with embalmment. He is a good guy and no funeral man could try harder to give every possible service that he did. He is one of the few funeral directors in Mississippi who serves people of all races. Let me assure the family that Paul’s remains have received as tender care as he could receive anywhere. To keep him alive after such a terrible wreck was beyond the power of human hands.”
Paul’s parents could have filed a wrongful death suit, but, in retrospect, they were overwhelmed by the horror of their child’s death. In the forty-nine years since his death, little was said about Paul in the Morganstern family, but things changed last year when his sister, Barbara, found a eulogy and photos in an Oregon attic and when I discovered Paul’s papers at Princeton.
Had Paul’s parents and siblings visited Mississippi, they would have met a grieving community. Paul only spent two months in Jackson, but, as former Chief Counsel Larry Aschenbrenner told me recently, he made a huge impact: “He taught my own kids and the black kids in the community how to swim. They loved him.” Jim Tripp, Paul’s roommate in Jackson, wrote in a eulogy that he wanted to “curse the arbitrariness of life and death” because “in one short moment, what had been a warm, vibrant, just and complex personality became nothing but a memory.”
Paul’s sister remembered that, “I was just 16 years old at the time of his passing and I have never quite resolved my sense of loss.” In the Village Creek Irregular Bulletin, attorney Frank Donner wrote that “Paul from an early age was a socially aware youngster. This conviction about social oppression and social injustice led him to choose law as a career…” Paul’s cousin, Warren Mersereau, knew Paul as a “hero” who, “swam at BU, was tall and self-confident and was so cool that he got away with wearing white loafers. He cared about people, even those he hardly knew.” Mersereau recounted how, in college: “I got a call from Paul. I’m not sure he even knew I was struggling, so I was amazed he took the time to contact me. Without him, I would not have made it through freshman year.”
Finding Reconciliation
“All that we, the living, can do is to record for others and posterity what… he stood for…” — Jim Tripp, 1968
In 2017, with Google searches, I figured out that Paul’s LSCRRC records are housed at the Seeley Mudd Library of Princeton University. I called Warren who told me that, coincidentally, he was in Princeton and could visit the archives. At Seeley, the librarians told Warren that he was not allowed to see the files because, “You’re not Paul Morganstern and the files are sealed.”
Warren: “True enough. I’m not Paul. That’s because Paul died 50 years ago. He’s not asking for his files anytime soon.”
“So why do you want to see them if you aren’t him?”
“Paul’s family and friends are planning a memorial service next year,” Warren responded.
The librarians examined the folder and saw that, indeed, there were letters discussing Paul’s death. The officials apologized, and the folder was delivered. Now, for the first time since 1968, we can read Paul’s perceptions of life in Mississippi.
In the file box is a LSCRRC form which asks, “What other incidents, legal or otherwise, connected with your job have made a particular impression on you? Be specific.”
Paul wrote: “No incidents – just facts…Police beat people over the head with wrenches; shooting in the back.” Then he added, “People (were) forced by virtue of health, age, job opportunities (or in absence thereof) to be on welfare – at the rate of $10-$30/month. And I thought I was living on subsistence!!”
Paul nudged the world to a better place with love as well as righteous anger. He fought for legal rights in the office, but he also found kinship with the young folks of Mississippi. They are among the beneficiaries of his ferocious energy and love.
Paul Morganstern, with Jewish chutzbah and African-American soul, has assured us that posterity is worth fighting for.
Twenty-three of the highest Muslim and Christian authorities across the Arab region on Monday committed to work together to rebuild and protect their communities from the effects of violent extremist rhetoric and actions.
In a historic initiative, they launched the first interreligious platform to advocate for the rights and inclusion of all communities in the Arab world, to combat ideologies instigating hatred and sectarianism, and to jointly address the toughest challenges their communities face.
The dialogue platform is the pioneering initiative of the Vienna-based International Dialogue Center (KAICIID), an intergovernmental organization founded by Saudi Arabia, Austria and Spain, with the Holy See as a founding observer.
Speaking at the launch of the platform, KAICIID Secretary-General Faisal bin Muammar said: “Religion, especially in the Arab world, is a powerful motivating force, and a source of shared identity for millions of people. For too long we have allowed religion to be hijacked and used as justification for causing pain and suffering. With the launch of this platform, the leaders of religious communities say ‘enough’ to this manipulation and misuse.
“There has been enough talk, and not enough action. Through this platform, we will set a visible, tangible example of interreligious cooperation. People need to see that religious communities, working together, are much stronger than any extremists, and that cooperation brings concrete benefits to everyone.”
Some of the planned activities of the platform include training for clergy on how to empower young people to resist violent extremism, and the development of religious education curricula to promote respect for all religions.
The platform will also focus on constructively engaging with all forms of media in the region to deepen respect for diversity and a culture of dialogue. The members of the platform will regularly meet national and regional policymakers to advocate for policies and laws that uphold social cohesion.
The founding members of the platform include Sheikh Dr. Shawki Ibrahim Allam, grand mufti of Egypt; Cardinal Al-Rai, Maronite Patriarch of Antioch and All the East; Patriarch Aram I Keshishian, head of the Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia; Sheikh Abdul-Latif Derian, the grand mufti of Lebanon; Dr. Tawfeeq bin Abdul Aziz Al-Sediry, vice minister of the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Saudi Arabia; Pope Tawadros II, pope of Alexandria, and patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria; and Sheikh Mohammed Hussein, grand mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine.
Al-Rai said: “We are determined to do what we can to safeguard our communities from war, extremism and violence, especially in the name of religion, and to plant values of dialogue, peaceful coexistence and common citizenship. We wish full success for this conference and to see the fruits of its efforts in the interreligious platform which will be launched here.”
Sheikh Allam said: “The world is in dire need of dialogue platforms based on firmly established principles. We need a dialogue that respects our contexts and does not seek to stir animosity, hatred or impose hegemony over one another.”
Spokesman for the Iranian Administration Mohammad Baqer Nobakht said the country would remain committed to the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), only if its national interests are served by the deal.
“If our national interests are not served by the deal, we will not stay in the agreement for a moment,” Nobakht told reporters during his weekly press conference in Tehran on Tuesday.
He further emphasized that his position on the JCPOA is not personal but is “the firm stance” of the Establishment.
In a recent speech at the Chatham House think tank in London, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Seyed Abbas Araqchi said even if US President Donald Trump relents and issues fresh “waivers” to continue suspending anti-Iran sanctions based on the JCPOA, the existing situation is unacceptable for Iran.
“If the same policy of confusion and uncertainties about the JCPOA continues, if companies and banks are not working with Iran, we cannot remain in a deal that has no benefit for us,” Araqchi said. “That’s a fact.”
Trump told the Europeans on Jan. 12 they must agree to “fix the terrible flaws of the Iran nuclear deal” or he would re-impose the sanctions Washington lifted as part of that pact.
The JCPOA was reached in July 2015 and came into force in January 2016.
Since the historic deal was signed in Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repeatedly confirmed the Islamic Republic’s compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA, but some other parties, especially the US, have failed to live up to their undertakings.
Eleven people became ill at a US military base in Arlington, Virginia, a short walk away from the Pentagon, after opening a suspicious letter. Three were taken to the hospital after a hazardous material situation was declared.
The Arlington Fire Department responded to a hazardous material call at Joint Base Myer–Henderson Hall at 4:30 p.m. local time. Fire crews and hazmat units rushed to the scene. Three people were taken to the hospital and are currently in a stable condition, Arlington County Fire Department reported on Twitter.
At least five people were displaying symptoms such as nose bleeds and itching after coming in contact with the substance, according to local news outlet ARLnow. The roads leading to the base have been sealed by police, it reported.
The base was evacuated as a precaution, a Marine official said, according to ABC News. The US Marine Corps reported on Twitter that “several Marines are receiving medical care as a result of this incident.” The response to the situation has been coordinated with the FBI, it said.
A corporal, a gunnery sergeant and a colonel were among those who showed the symptoms, CNN reported. It is unclear who initially handled the letter or what substance was involved. The base hosts both civilian and military personnel.
Joint Base Myer–Henderson Hall is located just across the Arlington National Cemetery from the Pentagon, the seat of the US Department of Defense, just over a mile (about two kilometers) away.
Defense Secretary James N. Mattis on Tuesday welcomed his Montenegrin counterpart to the Pentagon for a meeting that included the signing of a general security of information agreement as evidence of increased cooperation, chief Pentagon spokesperson Dana W. White said.
In a statement summarizing the meeting, White noted that it marked the first time Defense Minister Predrag Boskovic has visited the Pentagon since Montenegro achieved full membership in the NATO alliance in June.
The two defense leaders discussed opportunities to strengthen the U.S.-Montenegro defense relationship and addressed emerging security challenges, White said.
Expressions of Gratitude
Mattis expressed gratitude for the support Montenegro provided in the wake of the recent grenade attack on the U.S. Embassy in the Montenegrin capital of Podgorica, White said.
“He congratulated Minister Boskovic on Montenegro’s accession as the 29th member of NATO,” she added. “He also thanked him for the strong leadership Montenegro has shown in maintaining stability in the Balkans.”
The secretary also praised the contributions Montenegro has made to the Resolute Support mission in Afghanistan, White said, and lauded the country’s plan by 2024 to meet the pledge agreed upon at NATO’s 2014 summit that member nations would devote at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product to defense spending.
‘A Community of Values’
Before the meeting, Mattis noted that during Montenegro’s NATO accession ceremony, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called the alliance “a community of values.”
“The United States is proud to call you our ally as we stand shoulder to shoulder alongside our fellow NATO members against common security threats,” Mattis told his Montenegrin counterpart. “It is opposed by Russia as it seeks to redraw international borders by force and seeks veto authority over European diplomatic, economic and security decisions.”
Smartphones might make people feel more connected, but they likely don’t belong at the dinner table, according to new research from the University of British Columbia.
Researchers looking at the effect of smartphones on face-to-face social interactions found that people who used their devices while out for dinner with friends and family enjoyed themselves less than those who did not.
“As useful as smartphones can be, our findings confirm what many of us likely already suspected,” said Ryan Dwyer, the study’s lead author and PhD student in the department of psychology. “When we use our phones while we are spending time with people we care about– apart from offending them– we enjoy the experience less than we would if we put our devices away.”
For the study, the researchers asked more than 300 people to go to dinner with friends and family at a restaurant. Participants were randomly assigned to either keep their phones on the table or to put their phones away during the meal. After the meal, they were asked a variety of questions, including how much they enjoyed the experience.
The researchers were careful to ensure participants were unaware they were being monitored for their smartphone use.
When phones were present, participants felt more distracted, which reduced how much they enjoyed spending time with their friends and family (about half a point less on a seven-point scale), the researchers found.
Participants also reported feeling slightly more boredom during the meal when their smartphones were present, which the researchers described as surprising.
“We had predicted that people would be less bored when they had access to their smartphones, because they could entertain themselves if there was a lull in the conversation,” said Dwyer.
The findings were not only limited to restaurant settings.
In a second study involving more than 100 people, participants were sent a survey to their smartphones five times a day for a week that asked how they had been feeling and what they had been doing for the past 15 minutes.
The researchers saw the same pattern, with participants reporting they enjoyed their in-person social interactions less if they had been using their phones.
Elizabeth Dunn, the study’s senior author and professor in the department of psychology, said the findings add a layer to the ongoing debate over the effects of smartphones on public health.
“An important finding of happiness research is that face-to-face interactions are incredibly important for our day-to-day wellbeing,” said Dunn. “This study tells us that, if you really need your phone, it’s not going to kill you to use it. But there is a real and detectable benefit from putting your phone away when you’re spending time with friends and family.”
The findings, published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, will be presented March 2 at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s annual meeting in Atlanta.
Female mice infected with two different strains of the flu exhibit changes to the structure and function of the hippocampus that persist for one month after infection, according to new research published in JNeurosci.
Although influenza is considered to be a respiratory disease, it has been associated with neurological symptoms in some cases. However, the long-term effects of flu on the brain have not been studied.
Martin Korte and colleagues investigated three different flu strains (H1N1, H3N2, H7N7) in mice. Two of these strains, H3N2 and H7N7, caused memory impairments that were associated with structural changes to neurons in the hippocampus.
The infections also activated the brain’s immune cells in this region for an extended period and altered the expression of genes implicated in disorders including depression, autism and schizophrenia. These findings suggest that some strains of the flu may pose a threat to healthy brain function.
Fields, streets and cities, but also forests planted in rank and file, and dead straight rivers: humans shape nature to better suit their purposes, and not only since the onset of industrialization. Such influences are well documented in the Amazonian rainforest.
On the other hand, the influence of humans was debated in Central Africa where major interventions seem to have occurred there 2,600 years ago: Potsdam geoscientist Yannick Garcin and his team have published a report on their findings in the journal PNAS. The research team examined lake sediments in southern Cameroon to solve the riddle of the “rainforest crisis.” They found that the drastic transformation of the rainforest ecosystem at this time wasn’t a result of climatic change, it was mankind.
More than 20 years ago, the analysis of lake sediments from Lake Barombi in southern Cameroon showed that older sediment layers mainly contained tree pollen reflecting a dense forested environment. In contrast, the newer sediments contained a significant proportion of savannah pollen: the dense primitive forest quickly transformed into savannahs around 2,600 years ago, followed by an equally abrupt recovery of the forest approximately 600 years later. For a long time, the most probable cause of this sudden change, dubbed the “rainforest crisis”, was thought to be climate change brought about by a decrease in precipitation amount and increase in precipitation seasonality. Despite some controversy, the origin of the rainforest crisis was thought to be settled.
Yet Garcin, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Potsdam, and his international team of scientists from UP, CEREGE, IRD, ENS Lyon, GFZ, MARUM, AMU, AWI, and from Cameroon suspected that other causes could have led to the ecosystem’s transformation. By reconstructing both vegetation and climate change independently – through stable isotope analysis of plant waxes, molecular fossils preserved in the sediment – the team confirmed that there was a large change in vegetation during the rainforest crisis, but indicated that this was not accompanied by a change in precipitation. “The rainforest crisis is proven, but it cannot be explained by a climate change,” says Garcin. “In fact, in over 460 archaeological finds in the region, we have found indications that humans triggered these changes in the ecosystem.” Archaeological remains older than 3,000 years are rare in Central Africa. Around 2,600 years ago, coincident with the rainforest crisis, the number of sites increased significantly, suggesting a rapid human population growth – probably related to the expansion of the Bantu-speaking peoples in Central Africa. This period also saw the emergence of pearl millet cultivation, oil palm use, and iron metallurgy in the region.
“The combination of regional archaeological data and our results from the sediments of Lake Barombi shows convincingly that humans strongly impacted the tropical forests of Central Africa thousands of years ago, and left detectable anthropogenic footprints in geological archives,” says Dirk Sachse at the Helmholtz Center Potsdam – Research Center for Geosciences (GFZ). Sachse was one of the major contributors to the development of the method for analyzing plant wax molecular fossils (termed biomarkers).
“We are therefore convinced that it was not climate change that caused the rainforest crisis 2,600 years ago, but it was the growing populations that settled in the region and needed to clear the forest for exploiting arable land,” says Garcin. “We are currently observing a similar process underway in many parts of Africa, South America, and Asia.” But the work of Garcin and his team also shows that nature has powerful regenerative abilities. When anthropogenic pressure decreased 2,000 years ago forest ecosystems reconstituted, but not necessarily as before: as in the Amazonian rainforest, field studies show that the presence of certain species is very often related to past human activity.
Chinese Catholics expect religious oppression to worsen if President Xi Jinping’s expected one-man rule becomes reality.
The government proposes to kill the two-term limit for China’s head of state — a plan that is certain to be passed by the National People’s Congress on March 5.
Xi’s first five-year term has been marked by his aggressive actions against critics and religious groups.
Father John of northeastern China told ucanews.com that all Chinese understand what Xi is going to do.
“Xi does not arrange his successor and even Premier Li Keqiang is retained only to be a display,” he said.
“What is the impact on the church? Only worse! Xi is following Mao’s leftist line, which is hostile to religions, especially ‘Western’ religions.”
Ying Fuk-tsang, director of the divinity school at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said the statement about the proposal “indirectly said that Xi Jinping’s religious policy will continue, that the government’s control will be more stringent.”
A northeastern Catholic who asked to be named as Paul told ucanews.com that scrapping the term limit means that Xi may be re-elected for more than two terms.
“The influence will be great. If he wants to be a dictatorship, he will suppress those opposing him, including religion. That is exactly what Mao Zedong was doing,” he said.
He believes the underground church under such a political atmosphere “can only be a slaughtered lamb.”
Father David of an open church group in Sichuan province told ucanews.com that he predicts Xi to become “a second Putin” but he was not worried that religions will be annihilated in China, even though rules will be tightened.
Referring to the expected Sino-Vatican agreement on appointing bishops, the priest believes that under the current political environment in China the Vatican will be deceived.
A priest at an open church in Hebei province told ucanews.com that Xi is a “political dictator” and that religion can only be a “caged bird.”
He added ironically: “Let’s see what magic there is in Rome to expand the cage. For Sinicization, the imperial power is higher than theocracy and the party’s purpose to lead everything is achieved.”
When ucanews.com tried to contact sources in China, many messages were blocked.
“Words are controlled. Needless to say, religious freedom cannot be allowed,” said one Catholic.
A Catholic from Wenzhou Diocese said Xi wants to achieve a communist emperor’s dream to lead China to go backwards, and he said that later “go backwards” will be blocked online as well
The United States is taking steps to resume training with Indonesian special forces unit Kopassus, American officials said, after suspending military ties nearly two decades ago over human rights concerns.
The two governments are working through a process under American law that would allow Washington to re-establish military-to-military contact with Indonesia’s elite army unit, U.S. Defense and State Department officials told BenarNews.
“We are going through the process of what is called ‘remediation,’” Lt. Col. Chris Logan, spokesman for the Pentagon, said during a phone interview when asked to confirm reports that the U.S. military was restoring training with Kopassus.
“[T]hat is the desire in the States. But there are regulations we have to follow to be able to work with them.”
In Jakarta, a spokesman for the U.S. embassy said last month’s visit by Defense Secretary James Mattis had demonstrated that “we are committed to deepening our defense cooperation with Indonesia and are seeking opportunities for further engagement in various areas.”
“All engagement activities are conducted in accordance with U.S. law,” the spokesman told BenarNews via email. “We support Indonesia’s efforts to promote human rights and the rule of law, and we continue to discuss the importance of accountability for past abuses.”
Tying aid to rights
Under the so-called “Leahy Laws,” which the U.S. Congress began to implement in 1998, Washington cut ties with Kopassus the following year over allegations that its forces had killed civilians and committed rights abuses in Indonesian-occupied East Timor as well as the Indonesian provinces of Aceh and West Papua.
The laws attach human rights conditions to congressional appropriations of U.S. military aid to foreign countries.
Under the Leahy Laws, Congress can prohibit U.S. assistance to any security unit of a foreign country, if there is evidence that it committed “a gross violation of human rights.” This can include extrajudicial killings, torture and enforced disappearances.
The laws, codified under the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act, allow for the Defense and State departments to resume aid to and ties with a blacklisted unit through a “joint policy on remediation.”
According to a State Department fact sheet on these laws, remediation “can occur when the Departments determine that the government of that country has taken, or is taking, effective measures to bring those responsible to justice” through investigations, prosecutions or administrative actions, among other things.
“We will abide by all the regulations in order to be able to work with all the military forces in Indonesia,” said Logan, with the Pentagon.
“[W]hat it comes down to is we have to have a legitimate plan that would allow us to have a military-to-military engagement with them. We will not be able to do that until we have done this process,” he added.
‘No problem’: Indonesian security minister
The interviews with U.S. officials followed recent comments about Kopassus by Wiranto, Indonesia’s security minister and the former chief of its armed forces.
Last week, he told reporters that American restrictions on the unit had been lifted and the U.S. military would soon take part again with Kopassus in training exercises, after a 19-year hiatus.
“Yes, no more [restrictions on Kopassus],” Wiranto said. “It’s been a month when I met a special envoy from the U.S. and we talked about it, there is no problem.”
Wiranto made the remarks a day after a meeting between U.S. Ambassador Joseph R. Donovan and Moeldoko, President Jokowi’s chief of staff.
Donovan said then that the United States was planning to resume a military training program with Kopassus, according to the Moeldoko’s office.
Questions about accountability
However, it remained unclear whether any former Kopassus members, who had been accused of committing rights abuses while serving with the unit, would be brought to justice ahead of any restoration of full military ties.
Wiranto served as chief of the Indonesian military in 1999, when Kopassus was accused of carrying out abuses in East Timor, as people there voted in a U.N.-backed referendum to break free of Jakarta’s rule.
Since the U.S. blacklisted Kopassus that year, some veterans from the unit have risen to prominent roles in Indonesian politics.
These include Prabowo Subianto, a former Kopassus commander whose forces were accused of killing civilians in Dili, the capital of East Timor, in 1983, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW). In 2014, Prabowo, the chief of the Gerindra party, lost the presidential election to Joko “Jokowi” Widodo. Prabowo is also the former son-in-law of Suharto, Indonesia’s late dictator who ruled for 32 years.
Another ex-Kopassus officer, Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin, who served as deputy defense minister from 2010 till 2014, was allegedly involved with the unit in abducting student activists in Jakarta in 1997 and 1998, as well as abuses in East Timor in 1991 and 1999, HRW said.
“Those who are responsible still need to be brought to justice,” Usman Hamid, the director of the Indonesian chapter of Amnesty International, told BenarNews.
Still, the prospect of ties being renewed between the U.S. military and the Indonesian special forces unit could help improve the image of Kopassus, according to a local analyst.
“[T]he resumption of cooperation can provide a good name for Kopassus and the Indonesian government because Kopassus has always been linked to human rights violations,” said Muradi, a military expert based at Padjadjaran University in West Java.
There is an emerging ideological convergence among activists from different Indonesian Islamic groups toward a more Shariah-oriented outlook. Such a convergence can be seen from the joint efforts of these activists to enact local Islamic regulations in various Indonesian regions.
By Alexander R Arifianto*
Since the Defending Islam rallies in late 2016 and early 2017, there is a perception of a growing ideological convergence between clerics and activists affiliated with different Indonesian Islamic groups, ranging from mainstream ones such as Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah – the two largest Indonesian Islamic groups, to the more conservative groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) and Islamic Defenders Front (FPI).
Beyond the headlines, this apparent convergence can be found in numerous localities throughout Indonesia. Since Indonesia’s political decentralisation began in 2001, activists from these groups have worked together in numerous localities throughout Indonesia to successfully enact and implement local shari’ah regulations known as perda shari’ah in these localities. As of today, nearly 450 local regulations have been implemented by more than 100 Indonesian cities and municipalities.
The Pamekasan Case
Previous research on Islamic regulations in Indonesia concluded that these regulations were developed to bolster the Islamic credentials of local mayors or regents (bupati) so that they could easily win re-election to their positions. They also found the regulations tend to be enacted in the regions with a strong history of Islamism in their politics, for instance, in West Java and South Sulawesi provinces, which were former sites of the Darul Islam rebellion during the 1950s and early 1960s.
However, research by the RSIS’ Indonesia Programme found these regulations are enacted by local councils (DPRD) and executives after extensive lobbying by prominent clerics representing a wide variety of Islamic organisations, which lends support to the ideological convergence thesis outlined above. Also these regulations are now being introduced in areas that historically do not have a strong tradition of regional Islamism, such as in East and Central Java provinces.
An example can be found in the Pamekasan District in Madura Island, East Java province. The regulation here was enacted after an extensive lobbying campaign by a group of local religious scholars (ulama). They were united under the banner of the local branch of the Indonesian Ulama Council (MUI), with support from the local branches of NU, Muhammadiyah, Al Irsyad, and Sarekat Islam (SI).
The perda was enacted unanimously by Pamekasan’s legislative council owing to the united support from these Islamic organisations, which argued the regulation should be enacted because of the strong Islamic tradition present both within the regency and Madura Island in general.
Uztaz Dwiyanto, the deputy chairman of MUI branch in Pamekasan, said no DPRD councillors were willing to oppose it, as the ulama would have “campaigned to vote them out of office” if they expressed any opposition to the regulation. Kyai Haji Kholil-ur-Rahman, a notable cleric who led the movement to enact the regulation, was then elected as the Bupati of Pamekasan from 2008 to 2013.
After Pamekasan enacted the first perda in 2003, at least five additional regulations were also enacted by the regency — including those which require women to wear headscarves (hijab) while appearing in public places, require all primary school graduates to be tested on their Qur’anic reading proficiency, prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages, and prohibit the establishment of nightclubs and other forms of entertainment within the regency.
The Bojonegoro Regulation
A second example can be found in Bojonegoro District, in the border between East and Central Java provinces. While it is historically known as an area where non-observant Muslims (abangan) predominated as late as the 1980s, it is now transformed as a region where deep expressions of Islamic piety now can be seen clearly in the public sphere. This motivates a group of local clerics to promote a perda mandating primary school graduates to recite the Qur’an properly.
Introduced in 2017, the proposed regulation receives strong support from local branches of Islamic organisations, ranging from NU and Muhammadiyah to more conservative groups like HTI. The latter organisation is having an increased following within this rural region. It has established its own Islamic cooperative, which has attracted many small farmers and tradesmen to become its members, because it does not charge any interests on its loans.
With the Islamist Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) as its primary sponsor, the regulation receives wide support from Bojonegoro’s legislative council. The only party which publicly opposes its enactment is the Indonesian Democratic Party Struggle (PDIP), which expresses concerns that the regulation intervenes in the private lives of Bojonegoro residents.
It also believes the perda can be perceived as a regulation that favours Muslims over other religious faiths, something that violates Indonesia’s national ideology Pancasila, which promotes the equality of all recognised religious groups in Indonesia.
However, other parties represented in the legislative council have expressed their support for the perda, because they do not want to be seen as intimidating the local ulama who are unanimously supporting it, especially as the regency is due to hold its local election in June this year. It is expected to win an easy passage in the council.
Underlying Implications
The effective lobbying for local shari’ah regulations in Pamekasan and Bojonegoro districts illustrates the emerging ideological convergence among activists of mainstream and more conservative Islamic groups in Indonesia to support the enactment of these regulations. This is notwithstanding the fact they are contradictory to the national ideology of Pancasila and the 1945 Indonesian constitution, which bars the creation of laws that favours one religious group above others.
The proliferation of these regulations in multiple localities throughout Indonesia is a ‘bottom-up’ strategy by Islamic groups to change Indonesia’s legal foundation to become more religiously-based instead of Pancasila-based. This is something Indonesian policymakers should be paying more attention to in order to better appreciate the implications for nation building.
*Alexander R Arifianto PhD is a Research Fellow with the Indonesia Programme, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Research published by Public Health England (PHE) estimates that at least 20% of all antibiotic prescriptions written in primary care in England are inappropriate.
This implies that antibiotic prescribing nationally should be reduced by 10% by 2020, in accordance with the national ambition to cut levels of inappropriate prescribing in half. These data are published in five articles in a supplement to the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.
Professor Paul Cosford, Public Health England Medical Director said, “Antibiotics are critical to modern medicine, saving millions of lives since the 1940s when they were first introduced. Using antibiotics when you don’t need them threatens their long term effectiveness and we all have a part to play to ensure they continue to help us, our families and communities in the future. This publication highlights the role GPs can play and I urge all practices to look at ways they can reduce their inappropriate prescribing levels to help make sure the antibiotics that save lives today can save lives tomorrow.”
Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt said. “Drug-resistant infections are one of the biggest threats to modern medicine and inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics is only exacerbating this problem.”
“We are leading the world in our response–since 2012, antibiotics prescribing in England is down by 5% and we’ve invested more than £615 million at home and abroad in research, development and surveillance. But we need to go further and faster otherwise we risk a world where superbugs kill more people a year than cancer and routine operations become too dangerous,” said Hunt.
Antibiotics are important for treating serious bacterial infections, but their effectiveness is threatened by antibacterial resistance. Antibiotics are unique among drugs as the more they are used, the less effective they become and over time resistance develops. In response to this, the UK government set an ambition to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing by 50% by 2020. This work seeks to quantify the amount of current antibiotic prescribing that is inappropriate.
The research found that the majority of antibiotic prescriptions in English primary care were for infections of the respiratory and urinary tracts. However, in almost a third of all prescriptions no clinical reason was documented. Antibiotic prescribing rates varied substantially between GP practices, nonetheless there is scope for all practices across the country to reduce their rates of prescribing.
For most conditions, substantially higher proportions of GP consultations resulted in an antibiotic prescription than is appropriate according to expert opinion. An antibiotic was prescribed in 41% of all uncomplicated acute cough consultations when experts advocated 10%; bronchitis (actual: 82% versus ideal: 13%), sore throat (actual: 59% versus ideal: 13%), rhinosinusitis (actual: 88% versus ideal: 11%), acute otitis media in 2-18yr olds (actual: 92% versus ideal: 17%).
This work demonstrates the existence of substantial inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and poor diagnostic coding in English primary care. Better diagnostic coding, more precise prescribing guidelines, and a deeper understanding of appropriate long-term uses of antibiotics would allow identification of further reduction potentials.
