Suriname president acts to again avoid trial in 1982 deaths - by Pieter Van Mael

Bouterse, Suriname's President stops his own murder trial 

President Desi Bouterse sought again Wednesday to prevent authorities from putting him back on trial for the abduction and summary execution of 15 political opponents when he was the military dictator of this South American nation.

Bouterse instructed Suriname's attorney general to immediately halt proceedings against him, invoking an article of the constitution that allows the president to issue such an order in the interests of national security.

The action follows a June court ruling that invalidated an amnesty law pushed through parliament by Bouterse's supporters after he was elected president. The court ordered the resumption of the trial against him and 24 co-defendants.

Since then, the political mood has been tense amid expectations that the president would seek to prevent the case from moving forward. Bouterse had said the trial poses a danger to the internal security of the country, which is struggling through a recession because of the sharp drop in commodity prices.

Justice Minister Jennifer Van Dijk-Silos confirmed that the government had invoked Article 148 of Suriname's constitution in the matter but declined to discuss the decision.

Bouterse said little as he entered and left a closed session of parliament. "Every decision has its advantages and disadvantages," he said, without providing details.

A court session in the case was scheduled for Thursday but it was not immediately clear how the judges would react to the government's action.

"We are shocked, not only because of the president's decision, but also because it was unanimously backed by the entire government," said Eddy Wijngaarde, whose brother, Frank, was among those killed by the regime. "We had hoped at least some ministers would have refused to back the president's latest attempt to make the trial impossible."

Bouterse and 24 allies from his time as a military dictator in the 1980s avoided trial until November 2007 on charges stemming from the execution of the 15 prominent political opponents, an event known locally as the "December killings" that stunned the lightly populated nation on the northern tip of South America.

The former strongman returned to power in 2010 when he was elected president by parliament. Two years later, lawmakers passed an amnesty law and court proceedings were put on hold in a decision that outraged human rights activists.

Bouterse, who was re-elected by parliament last year, has accepted what he calls "political responsibility" for the military's killing of the 15 well-known journalists, lawyers and union leaders but said he was not present when the executions took place. Witnesses in the trial have disputed that claim.

Read more: Suriname president acts to again avoid trial in 1982 deaths - Houston Chronicle

The Netherlands: Istanbul Daesh attack: Flags at half mast as Dutch show solidarity with Turkey

City halls in Amsterdam, Utrecht, The Hague and Rotterdam are flying the Turkish flag at half mast to show solidarity with the victims of Tuesday evening’s bloody airport attack in Istanbul.

At least 41 people were killed in the blasts and the shootings, including several foreigners. King Willem-Alexander and queen Maxima have sent their condolences to everyone affected by the airport attacks. In a joint statement, the couple expressed their deepest sympathy with all the families who have been affected, both inside and outside Turkey.

The Hague mayor Jozias van Aartsen has written to the Turkish ambassador to express his condolences. ‘I hope that the Turkish people can find the strength to recover from this extremely tragic situation,’ he said.

Read more:Turkish flags at half mast as the Dutch show solidarity with Istanbul victims - DutchNews.nl

Turkey: At least 28 innocent people killed, 60 injured by "derelicts" as blasts rock Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport

Istanbul: Daesh Deranged Murderers Killing Innocent People

 At least 35 people have been killed and 60 more injured in two blasts that rocked Istanbul’s Ataturk airport, according to Turkish officials. The explosions were reportedly suicide bomb attacks.

The blasts occurred in the airport’s International Arrivals Terminal. 

A Turkish official confirmed to Reuters that two explosions have hit the airport. According to some Turkish media, the blasts were terrorist attacks targeting two separate locations in the airport.

Twenty-eight people have lost their lives in the blasts that hit the airport, Istanbul Governor Vasip Sahin said, Turkey’s NTV channel reported.

More than 60 people have been injured, six of them seriously, in explosions at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul, according to the Turkish state Anadolu news agency.

Many people caught in the blasts and near the airport posted photos and videos from the scene, showing the destruction caused by the explosions as well as people hiding in various places in search of safety.

Gunfire was heard from the car park near the airport, CNN Turk reports, citing the witnesses. Four armed men were reportedly seen running away from the terminal building after the explosions, according to Turkey’s NTV channel.

Note EU-Digest: Whoever eventually gets  blamed for this cruel act can only be regarded as totally deranged murderers. 

Read more: Over 20 killed, 60 injured as blasts rock Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport — RT News

The Netherlands: Why does Anti-Islam and Anti-Immigrant Geert Wilders' hides his Indonesian roots?

Geert Wilders in his yonger days

Dutch newspaper "de groene Amsterdammer reported that for years there have been rumors circulating that in reality Geert Wilders is an 'Indo' (an Indonesian-European, an ethnic mix that originated when the Dutch colonised Indonesia).

A Dutch genealogist said he had found several Indonesian ancestors of theright-wing populist Dutch politician known for his rabid anti-immigrant and anti-Islam ideas. Now anthropologist Lizzy van Leeuwen describes how his roots can be seen as the driving force behind his outspoken views.

In an article in the left-wing weekly De Groene Amsterdammer Van Leeuwen asks: "Is it possible that the post-colonial and family history have made Wilders what he and his politics are today?" The article is an intellectual attempt to analyse what drives Wilders to say that "all immigration from Islamic countries should be halted" and that "all fundamental problems in the Netherlands are related to immigration".

Wilders now dies his hair peroxide blond -

The conclusion reached by Van Leeuwen is that these statements - plus the fact that he dies his hair peroxide blond - are indeed related to his genealogical link to the largest Islamic country.

Geert Wilders' increasing popularity made his Party for Freedom the second largest Dutch party in European parliament in June. Known for his anti-establishment and anti-immigration politics, Wilders has been calling himself a 'Dutch freedom fighter'. But given that his mother's roots lay outside of the Netherlands, Van Leeuwen says a sense of 'displacedness' is the recurring, underlying motive in his statements.

The 6-page article reveals that Wilders' grandmother, Johanna Ording-Meijer, came from an old Jewish-Indonesian family and that Wilders lied about this in his 2008 biography. However, Van Leeuwen, an expert on the position of Indo-Dutch people in the post-colonial age, goes beyond the notion that a politician known for judging others on their ethnic roots can himself be traced to foreign ancestors.

Van Leeuwen went into the national archives to find the sad story of Wilders' grandfather on his mother's side. Johan Ording was a regional financial administrator in the Dutch colony who suffered several bankruptcies and was fired while on leave in the Netherlands in 1934. He was reduced to begging when the government refused to give him a pension, but later made it to prison director. Van Leeuwen suggests that Wilders is out to avenge the injustice done to his grandfather.

But more than anything, he was defined by his Indo-roots, she says. Indonesia was a Dutch colony until 1949 and many mixed-race people moved to the Netherlands after the Indonesian independence. Van Leeuwen describes how these people were put in the same 'cultural minority' box with labour immigrants from Turkey and Morocco, whom they felt no connection to at all. More so, they had always felt very patriotic about the Netherlands and harboured strong sentiments against Islam, the dominant religion in their motherland.

Van Leeuwen explains how this group has long been part of extreme-right movements (many supported the Dutch Nazi party NSB in Indonesia in the 1930s) while others belonged to the far-right of the right-wing liberal party VVD. She puts Wilders' statements in the conservative and colonial tradition of this group, which strongly believed in patriotism and "European values".

Van Leeuwen's analysis goes beyond the personal level: "The fact that Wilders obviously operates in a post-colonial political dimension, without it being recognised, says a lot about how the Netherlands dealt with, and still deals with the colonial past. Keep quiet, deny, forget and look the other way have been the motto for decades. Because of that, no one could imagine that what happened in Indonesia 50 years ago could still have its impact on modern-day politics."

And the hair? Van Leeuwen says his died mop is a "political symptom not taken serious enough". She thinks it was a brilliant move to step away from his Indonesian roots and hide his post-colonial revanchism. Although this may also be an example of his "classic Indo identity alienation."

Wilders has not responded to the publication.



Almere-Digest 

Britain: First, the Brexit. Now the United Kingdom is falling apart - by Ben Wellings

Britain: Playtime is over

Britain’s decision to leave the EU is a major moment in post-War European history. This is like the collapse of communism, but with the West on the losing side. It is the first defeat for the British Establishment for centuries.

It is hard to believe in the wash-up of the referendum campaign but this was meant to be cathartic. It was supposed to heal divisions within the Conservatives by giving the people of the United Kingdom a say on membership of the European Union. But it has only entrenched and exacerbated divisions rather than healed them.

Referendums are not compulsory in the UK. Any decision to hold one is essentially political. Usually, you only initiate referendums that you are certain to win; Brexit has altered the rulebook.

What was proposed as a catharsis has induced trauma: trauma that the process and politics of Brexit will do little to repair. The referendum campaign laid bare deep divisions within the United Kingdom.

Other divisions were evident: between young and old; city and country; men and women. The biggest division that this exposed was between the so-called ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ of globalization and European integration: those who have done well out of these political structures and those who have not.

The disbelief amongst the ‘winners’ that Brexit might have been a realistic and attractive prospect was matched amongst the ‘losers’ by anger directed at the prosperous and secure classes.

 Perhaps the most pernicious division was between politicians and people. The murder of Jo Cox was not only a horrific attack on an individual striving for what she saw as the good society. It was an attack on democracy. Her example showed that not all politicians are remote fat cats in thrall to big business. Politicians still hail from the deprived areas in which they grew up, lived and worked.

Of course, direct blame cannot be laid at the door of the Brexit campaign. But in adopting UKIP’s anti-immigration language, Vote Leave’s leaders subordinated some principled critiques of the EU’s failings to a xenophobic politics of fear.

The referendum campaign deepened existing divisions within the Conservatives, from which they may not recover for years. Cameron’s position is surely untenable. BoJo is waiting in the wings.

The Labour Party under Corbyn was missing in action during this campaign, hoping that the Conservatives would hang themselves whilst Labour’s own internal divisions were overlooked. Many former Labour voters opted to leave and the party must answer questions about how its successive leaderships became so divorced from grassroots opinion.

The main beneficiary of Breixt is UKIP. Its message dominated the last three weeks of the campaign and will shape discussion about national identity, inclusiveness and tolerance in England for years to come. There are calls for it to disband having achieved its central aim. But the wind is in the sails of HMS UKIP and we should expect it to change into an established right populist party, ironically making British politics look much more ‘European’ at the very moment when it left.

The term ‘England’ is used advisedly since this was in many ways an English revolt. Outside of London it was rural England and, admittedly, Wales that dragged the UK out. Whether Scotland will abide this remains to be seen. Northern Ireland’s situation is similarity unsure.

There will always be an England; whether there will always be a United Kingdom remains far from clear.

For the first time in history the process of European integration has been reversed. The idea that Brexit will represent ‘the end of western political civilization’ as Donald Tusk claimed may have been alarmist. But Brexit is part of a wider revolt against the established political order whereby the ‘losers’ in the globalized economy are given voice by rich tribunes, be they Old Etonians, City stockbrokers or New York property magnates. This is their first major victory.

Brexit is the product of a revolt against the way that people have been governed in the past thirty years. This was its sole unifying function. It united left and right against the political ‘elite’, ushering in the first defeat for the British Establishment since the loss of the American colonies.

It is hard to be optimistic about this referendum and the politics that it unleashed. The Scottish independence referendum in 2014 was seen as a laudable exercise in democracy. In contrast the Brexit referendum revealed an angry and ugly streak in political life, especially in England.

The United Kingdom is a divided country. It may have won its independence or have made a catastrophic error, depending on your point of view. The fact that it took a xenophobic campaign to achieve this result is nothing to be proud of.

This foundational moment will be tainted with shame for decades to come.

Read more: First, the Brexit. Now the United Kingdom is falling apart - The Globe and Mail

Britain: EU bosses order Britain to "Pack your bags and get out now"

EU bosses ordered Britain: “Pack your bags and get out now.”

The strongly worded message in the wake of Thursday’s Leave vote was designed to stop a domino effect of EU exits and calm the ­frenzied money markets.

Far-right groups in France and Holland seized on the result to demand their own exit referendums.

In Brussels, EU chiefs said they “regret but respect” our decision and that the UK must remain “a close partner”.

But in a clear sign of the battles ahead, a statement from bosses including European Council boss Donald Tusk and European Commission president Jean Claude Juncker called on the UK to start Brexit ­immediately. It said: “We now expect the government to give effect to this decision of the British people as soon as possible, however painful that process may be.

“Any delay would unnecessarily prolong uncertainty.”

There are around 1.2 million British born people living in EU countries without visas, according to figures provided by the UN. Around 800,000 are workers and their dependants.

The European Commission, presently employs 1,000 U.K. nationals as civil servants across its various departments.

Also for the soon to become redundant former British EU citizens Brexit now means an uncertain future of either getting visas,work permits, going home, or worse case scenario, becoming a refugee themselves requesting asylum in the EU? 

EU-DigestBritain: EU bosses order Britain to "Pack your bags and get out now"

Brexit: A pyrrhic victory? Boris Johnson wakes up to the costs of Brexit - by Gaby Hinsliff

Bye, Bye Britain. Party is over - you are on your own

Boris Johnson, Brexit, Britain, Divorce, EU, “If we are victorious in one more battle … we shall be utterly ruined.”

Like the good intellectual that he’s vigorously pretended not to be of late, Boris Johnson will probably know that line. It’s from the Greek historian Plutarch’s account of the battle that gave us the phrase “pyrrhic victory”, the kind of victory won at such cost that you almost wish you’d lost.

In theory, Johnson woke up on Friday morning having won the war. After David Cameron’s announcement that he would step down come October, Johnson is now the heir presumptive – albeit at this stage very presumptive – to the Tory leadership, perhaps only four months away from running the country.

He has everything he ever wanted. It’s just that somehow, as he fought his way through booing crowds on his Islington doorstep before holding an uncharacteristically subdued press conference on Friday morning, it didn’t really look that way.

One group of Tory remainers watching the speech on TV jeered out loud when a rather pale Johnson said leaving Europe needn’t mean pulling up the drawbridge; that this epic victory for Nigel Farage could somehow “take the wind out of the sails” of anyone playing politics with immigration. Too late for all that now, one said.

he scariest possibility, however, is that he actually meant it. That like most of Westminster, Johnson always imagined we’d grudgingly vote to stay in the end. That he too missed the anger bubbling beneath the surface, and is now as shocked as anyone else by what has happened.

“People talk about reluctant remainers, but I think there have been a lot of reluctant Brexiters around, people who voted leave thinking it wouldn’t happen but they’d be able to vent and to tell all their friends at dinner parties they’d done it,” said one Tory minister.

“He thought what all those reluctant Brexiters thought: it would be a vote for remain, he would be seen as having stood up for a principle.” After which leave’s newest martyr could simply have bided his time for a year or so before being triumphantly installed in Downing Street.

It’s perfectly possible, of course, that the Tories on both sides who suspect Johnson was never an outer in his bones are plain wrong, that the anonymous Labour MP who hotly accused him on Friday of jeopardising thousands of ordinary people’s jobs just to secure one for himself was doing him a terrible injustice.

Perhaps Johnson really did have a last-minute epiphany, declaring for leave in the sober realisation that this was always how it might end – Scotland demanding independence, Northern Ireland’s fragile political settlement at risk, Marine Le Pen jubilant, the Bank of England stumping up £250bn to stabilise the market. Perhaps he’s still convinced all will be fine eventually.

And let’s hope to God he’s right. Any remainer who doesn’t pray to be proved wrong about Brexit is callous, wishing disaster on people who are unable to afford it. But right now, what scorched earth Johnson stands to inherit – a nation febrile and divided, teetering on the brink of economic and constitutional crisis. It’s all over for David Cameron now. But it feels, too, like the end of a broader modernising movement to which both he and Johnson belonged.

Johnson is far from a buffoon. He’s an agile thinker, gifted communicator and natural opportunist who made a reasonable fist of governing London after recruiting some reliable deputies (enter Michael Gove). He’s smart enough to have learned from the recent Labour leadership campaign – in which managerially competent candidates were slaughtered for being on the wrong side of a visceral grassroots argument – that elites only survive in this febrile climate by pleasing the masses. Perhaps somehow it will all come together.

It’s just that on Friday morning Johnson didn’t look like a man with a plan that’s all working perfectly. He looked more like a king unable to take more such victories.

Note Almere-Digest: Following Brexit the EU must make sure not to sign any agreement with Britain which gives them preferential treatment.on Trade,Visa,Tax excemptions and immediately treat their Government and Citizens exactly as they would any other non EU country. 

In doing so it will also send a clear message not only to Britain but also to other EU nations that if you are a member of the EU you can't have your cake and eat it also.

 Read more: A pyrrhic victory? Boris Johnson wakes up to the costs of Brexit | Politics | The Guardian