Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Monday, December 19, 2016

U.N. chief fears genocide about to start in South Sudan

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon speaks before the swearing-in of Secretary-General-designate Mr. Antonio Guterres of Portugal at UN headquarters in New York, U.S., December 12, 2016. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon speaks before the swearing-in of Secretary-General-designate Mr. Antonio Guterres of Portugal at UN headquarters in New York, U.S., December 12, 2016. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

By Michelle Nichols | UNITED NATIONS-Tue Dec 20, 2016

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Monday he feared genocide was about to start in South Sudan unless immediate action is taken, renewing his plea for the Security Council to impose an arms embargo on the world's newest country.

"If we fail to act, South Sudan will be on a trajectory towards mass atrocities," Ban told the 15-member Security Council. "The Security Council must take steps to stem the flow of arms to South Sudan."

Noting that his special adviser on the prevention of genocide, Adama Dieng, has described genocide as a process, Ban said: "I am afraid that process is about to begin unless immediate action is taken."

Political rivalry between South Sudan President Salva Kiir, an ethnic Dinka, and his former deputy Riek Machar, a Nuer, led to civil war in 2013 that has often followed ethnic lines. The pair signed a shaky peace deal last year, but fighting has continued. Machar fled in July and is now in South Africa.

Ban said reports suggested Kiir and his loyalists "are contemplating a new military offensive in the coming days" against Machar-allied opposition troops, while "there are clear indications that Riek Machar and other opposition groups are pursuing a military escalation."

Dieng told the council last month that he had seen "all the signs that ethnic hatred and targeting of civilians could evolve into genocide," and the head of a U.N. human rights commission said the country was on the brink of an all-out ethnic civil war.

"How many more clues do you, do we all need to move from our anxious words to real preventative action?" U.N. aid chief Stephen O'Brien asked the council on Monday.

U.S. PRESSES TO "STOP ATROCITIES"

South Sudan's U.N. ambassador, Akuei Bona Malwal, on Monday said the descriptions were exaggerated and did not "reflect the reality on the ground."

"There have been no attempts, that we are aware of, on the part of the South Sudanese masses to turn against each other," he told the Security Council.

Following an outbreak of deadly violence in Juba, the capital, in July, the Security Council in August authorized a 4,000-strong protection force as part of a U.N. peacekeeping force already on the ground and threatened an arms embargo if Kiir's government did not cooperate. None of the new troops have yet deployed.

"Obstruction and defiance," the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, said of Kiir's government.

U.N. peacekeepers have been in South Sudan since it gained independence from Sudan in 2011. There are currently some 13,700 U.N. troops and police on the ground.

The United States has been struggling to secure the minimum number of votes needed for the Security Council to impose an arms embargo on South Sudan. To be adopted, a resolution needs nine votes in favour and no vetoes.

Diplomats have said that so far only seven members were in favour, with the remaining eight planning to abstain or vote no. While veto powers Russia and China are sceptical whether an arms embargo would achieve much in a country awash with weapons, diplomats did not expect them to block the measure.

Power said she wants to put a resolution to impose an arms embargo on South Sudan to a vote before the end of the year.

"The situation is not getting better, it's getting worse, and we're sitting on our hands as a council," Power said. "We have to try to stop atrocities in South Sudan."

(Reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by James Dalgleish and Leslie Adler)

Links of ambassador killer crucial for future of Turkish-Russian ties

Death of Russian ambassador unlikely to impact ties between Turkey and Russia without evidence of links to intelligence agencies
ID card of the suspected shooter (Twitter)

Suraj Sharma-Monday 19 December 2016

Editor's Note: This story contains video footage which some users may find disturbing
ISTANBUL, Turkey - The links of the attacker who gunned down Russia’s ambassador to Turkey in the Turkish capital Ankara on Monday evening will be crucial in determining both the future course of events in Syria and Aleppo, and also Turkish-Russian ties.

Russian Ambassador Andrey Karlov was killed by a 22-year-old gunman identified as Mert Altintas, a member of the riot police force for the last two-and-a-half years, as he was attending an art exhibition on Monday evening.

READ: Russian ambassador to Turkey shot dead in Ankara art gallery

The crucial element will be whether the gunman was acting as a lone wolf or belonged to a group or had intelligence agency links, Ahmet Kasim Han, a professor of international relations at Istanbul’s Kadir Has University told Middle East Eye.

“If it is established that the assailant had links with intelligence agencies, the Free Syrian Army or some such more extensive group, the Russians are certainly going to respond,” said Han. “For example if it emerges that there are links with the FSA or some other Syrian rebel group, Russia is going to behave differently even when it comes to its deal with Ankara regarding the evacuation of Aleppo.”

Han said he believed in any other circumstance the incident was unlikely to create an open rupture between Moscow and Ankara. He said this does not mean that Russia “will forget the incident and move on but that it will make a note without necessarily creating an immediate rupture".

Han also pointed out that the incident could even strengthen Turkish-Russian ties if it emerges that the assailant was linked to the Fethullah Gulen movement.

Turkey holds the US-based Turkish preacher responsible for the failed 15 July coup attempt.

“If Turkey can show a clear link between the assailant and Gulen it will mean it will have full Russian support in its ongoing fight against the Gulenist organisation,” said Han.

Huseyin Bagci, a professor of international relations at Ankara’s Middle East Technical University, told MEE that the attack on the ambassador was not good for bilateral relations.

“Talks between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Vladimir Putin will be vital if bilateral relations are not to suffer,” said Bagci.

Speaking in a televised address on Monday evening, Erdogan condemned the attack and called it an attempt to disrupt Turkey-Russia relations.

"I condemn with hate the assassination of Russian Federation Ambassador Andrey Karlov," he said.
"I see this as an attack on Turkey and its people."

He said it was a "provocation given our cooperation regarding Aleppo."

"I explained this to Mr. Putin as well. We are determined to maintain our ties with Russia. I extend my condolences to Mr. Putin and Russia."

He added that a "joint task force" would be set up with Russia to investigate the attack.

Attacker dressed in suit

Karlov was attending a Russian-sponsored exhibit at the Modern Arts Centre in Ankara when Altintas shot him and shouted in Turkish that it was “revenge for Aleppo” and also shouted “Allahu Akbar”.

Hasim Kilic, a photojournalist from Turkish newspaper Hurriyet, who was at the scene told private broadcaster CNN-Turk that the assailant only targeted the ambassador and his other shots were fired in the air.



Altintas, who is reported to be a member of the riot police unit, was dressed in a suit at the event.

Police stormed the building shortly after and killed Altintas. Eyewitnesses also reported him as saying he wouldn’t “leave the building alive.”

Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu arrived at the scene while the standoff between police and Altintas was ongoing, signifying the importance Turkish authorities placed on the incident.

According to Han, Turkish authorities will have to be very careful and measured in statements they make regarding the incidents. Turkey has been in a heightened state of alert since two major terror attacks in the last fortnight in Istanbul and Kayseri.

Turkey also ensures stringent security measures are in place generally with regards to foreign diplomatic missions and diplomats, given the multiple threats it faces.

Security has also been increased since protests have been held outside Russian and Iranian diplomatic missions in Turkey during the past week with angry crowds slamming the roles of those two states in Syria and Aleppo in particular.

Biggest incident since Russian jet downing

The gunning down of Karlov is the biggest incident since Turkey shot down a Russian jet near the Syrian border in November 2015.

Ties between the two countries came under severe strain following that incident with Russia imposing economic sanctions in retaliation. Turkey was also largely left out of the Syrian theatre after the jet downing, fearing a potential Russian attack.

Moscow and Ankara only began to restore ties after Erdogan apologised in June for the downing of the jet. The restoration of ties gathered pace after the failed coup attempt as Putin was quick to back Erdogan without any conditions attached.

This was music to Erdogan’s ears, who felt let down by Turkey’s traditional western allies, who not only hesitated to condemn the coup attempt at first but then also qualified their condemnations with a plea to observe human rights and the rule of law.  
   
Turkey later blamed the shooting of the Russian jet on Gulenist elements in its air force.

‘Deep sadness’

The Turkish Foreign Ministry issued a written statement expressing “deep sadness” over the death of Karlov and “condemning” the assassination.

The foreign ministry statement mentioned that the incident would be thoroughly investigated. 
  
“Turkish officials will need to take the utmost care to make sure their statements are measured not to antagonise the Russian at this point,” said Han.

Turkey’s defence, health and interior ministers gathered in front of the hospital where Karlov was taken after being shot and made a statement to gathered reporters.

“This assassination has hurt us and our country deeply. I offer my condolences to the Russian Federation, the Russian people and the ambassador’s family,” said Soylu, the interior minister.

Erdogan called Putin a few hours after the attack to inform him of developments and to provide information on the attacks.

The Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim was expect to release a written statement later.

The Security Council of the Russian Federation issued a statement saying the attack signalled an attempt to “create a divide between Russia and Turkey”.

World governments and organisations, including Saudi Arabia and the EU, also denounced the attack.

US President-elect Donald Trump condemned the assassination, claiming that the gunman was an "Islamic terrorist".

"Today we offer our condolences to the family and loved ones of Russian Ambassador to Turkey Andrei Karlov, who was assassinated by a radical Islamic terrorist," Trump said in a statement.
"The murder of an ambassador is a violation of all rules of civilized order and must be universally condemned."

Future course of action in Syria

A meeting scheduled in Moscow for Tuesday between the foreign ministers of Russia, Turkey and Iran is slated to go ahead as planned.

READ: Turkey denies secret 'bargain' with Russia over Syria's future

The meeting is to discuss the situation in Aleppo and how to ensure the evacuation of civilians and rebels from eastern Aleppo continues without incident.

According to Han, Russia is unlikely to change its Syria policy over this attack since everything is proceeding just as Moscow wants in Syria. But he warns that cooperation with Turkey over Syria might suffer.

“The current cooperation over Aleppo and Syria is one where Russia more or less dictates what it wants to Turkey,” said Han. “But again depending on what links the attacker had, Moscow could decide to punish Ankara by reducing cooperation over Syria.”

Han, however, said he doubted that Russia will let ties with Ankara reach breaking point again over the assassination of its ambassador in Ankara.

“I believe Russia will react calmly. Depending on what intelligence they gather, they will probably not engage in a public confrontation with Turkey. They will never forget and will respond at some level but I doubt it will be on a public level.”

Moscow Attacks!


We need calm, seasoned professionals to run our intelligence, not wild-eyed ideologues bent on war against Russia. America was headed that way under Obama and Hillary Clinton. If Russia came to this conclusion, it was logical for them to try to sway the outcome of the election – if they really did.

by Eric S. Margolis-Dec 18, 2016

( December 18, 2016, New York City, Sri Lanka Guardian) A senior CIA source tells me ‘with a high level of certainty that Russia’s Vladimir Putin was responsibly for Pearl Harbor, the Korean War, Vietnam and Iraq. This miscreant was also behind 9/11 and ring around the collar.

Not since Dr Fu Manchu have we seen such a wicked genius bent on wrecking the West. Vlad the Bad is so nefarious that he’s managed to rig America’s voting machines and probably the Super Bowl.

Watching the mounting Red Hysteria in the US is bizarre and amusing. But most amusing is the media furor claiming that the Kremlin has ‘meddled’ in US elections. Or even threw the vote to Manchurian Candidate, Donald Trump. If there was any foreign meddling, it came from a Mideast ally, not Russia.

All very childish.

My answer: even if true (and I don’t believe it), so what? Is great power meddling something new? That’s what great powers do.

The US is hardly in a position to play the outraged virgin. Starting in 1946, the US and the Vatican financed Italy’s right-wing Christian Democratic Party, helping it win three national elections against the Left even though it was heavy with former fascists and Sicilian bandits.

Washington organized the overthrow of Syria’s government in 1949. In 1953, the US and Britain colluded to overthrow Iran’s popular democratic government. In 1954, the US overthrew the government of Guatemala. There followed intervention in Lebanon in 1958. Three years later came the infamous Bay of Pigs invasion and over fifty attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro.

In 1965, the US invaded the Dominican Republic and overthrew its regime. 1973 brought the US-backed coup against Chile’s Marxist government. Nicaragua’s leftists were next on Washington’s hit list. There was masked intervention in Haiti, then a bombing and sabotage campaign in Baghdad, Iraq. A failed attempt to overthrow Iran’s elected government and more machinations in Syria and Libya, followed by outright invasions.

There are many more to mention: Bolivia, Brazil, Congo, Turkey, Indonesia, Azerbaijan, Russia under Yeltsin, Ukraine’s ‘Orange’ Revolution, Georgia, and the overthrow of Ukraine’s elected pro-Russian government. And now, of course, Syria.

Regime change has become as American as apple pie.

The US may even have tried to overthrow France’s president, Charles de Gaulle. Lately, the US helped put Egypt’s bloody dictator in power, overthrowing the democratic government in the process and tapped the phone of close ally, German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

In the past, Soviet intelligence was very good at intrigue, professional spycraft and occasional ‘wet affairs.’ But the Soviets never measured up in sheer volume of meddling and regime change to the mighty US – and still don’t.

I was the first western journalist admitted to KGB headquarters in Moscow – the dreaded Lubyanka – to interview its senior leaders. I also was closeted in the remarkable KGB museum with its curator for a review of intelligence operations since the 1917 civil war. I learned much about covert operations, but less than I wanted about the Soviet agents of influence who surrounded President Franklin Roosevelt.

As a seasoned intelligence watcher for the past three decades, I think claims by US Democrats that they lost the election due to Russian machinations are absolute bunk. One suspects all the noise and fake fury over Clinton’s loss may foretoken an attempt to oust the Trump government by underhanded legal means (‘lawfare’) and popular demos. Why not? We run them all the time in the Mideast and Russia.

The Dems lost because they ran a horrible, corrupt woman who was hated, and mistrusted by many. 
They tried to hide the shameful fact that the Democratic Party rigged the nomination to exclude an honest candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders. This was the scandal, not baloney about voting machine voodoo and red scares.

Claims by senior US intelligence officials that Moscow rigged the US elections show two things: first, if true, they were asleep on guard duty; second, that they have become shockingly politicized. Their job was to inform the White House, not manufacture conspiracy theories.

Some of them were shown to be frighteningly extreme, crazily anti-Russian, and likely agents of our deep government.

We need calm, seasoned professionals to run our intelligence, not wild-eyed ideologues bent on war against Russia. America was headed that way under Obama and Hillary Clinton. If Russia came to this conclusion, it was logical for them to try to sway the outcome of the election – if they really did.

The canard that Hillary Clinton was defeated by the godless Red spymasters are as believable as ‘the dog ate my homework.’ And here I though my fellow Americans were a bit more grown up than this.

‘Inshallah’ in the Age of Trump

Can the hipster invocation of God’s will survive the coming wave of American Islamophobia?
‘Inshallah’ in the Age of Trump

No automatic alt text available.BY BETHANY ALLEN-EBRAHIMIAN-DECEMBER 1, 2016

We English speakers all know: To sound smart (or insufferable), use French. That movie has a certain je ne sais quoi; my grandmother exhibited a true joie de vivre. French has been fancy since 1066 when the conquering Normans ate boef while the lowly English peasants cared for the cÅ«.

Or to sound open-minded (or stoned), use Sanskrit. No one will be surprised to learn that the first recorded use of the word “karma” in a popular U.S. publication was in 1969 — in the California-based Surfer magazine.

These days, another word is making inroads into the American English lexicon. It’s “inshallah” — an Arabic Islamic expression that means “God willing.” Inshallah first made its English debut in the 19th century, but it’s only since 9/11 that the word has become fashionable among non-Muslim, non-Arabic-speaking Americans. You’ve probably heard it already in passing, which is my point. The Atlantic’s James Fallows has tweeted it. Even actor Lindsay Lohan has made a faltering attempt. I’ve heard it in meetings, on the metro, and at a casual Sunday brunch in Brooklyn.

For all these inshallah-invokers, the phrase seems to combine the prestige of French and the multiculturalism of Sanskrit — with an added thrill of risk.

President-elect Donald Trump is stacking his administration with supporters who believe that Islam is inherently violent, dangerous, and threatening. Some who evince this view believe that anything associated with Islam has a diabolical power, an insidious evil that has to be guarded against at every turn as the Puritans guarded against witchcraft.

Michael Flynn, a retired intelligence officer whom President-elect Donald Trump has tapped for national security advisor, has called Islam a “malignant cancer” and believes that sharia, or Islamic law, is creeping into U.S. laws and institutions. Conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney, who advised Trump during the campaign and is “good friends” with Steve Bannon, the president-elect’s senior strategist, has previously written that the U.S. Missile Defense Agency logo contains a hidden star and crescent, the symbol of Islam, and that it thus suggests “official U.S. submission to Islam.” It’s an argument that comes out of the world of Christian fundamentalism, which has long sought out occult symbols in the most innocuous of sources.

This fear extends to the Arabic language. In 2013, Gaffney criticized John Brennan as President Barack Obama’s pick to head the CIA, deeming him the “single most important enabler of the Islamic supremacists’ agenda in government today.” One piece of evidence Gaffney gave for this assertion?
Brennan speaks fluent Arabic. After listing the names of several terrorist organizations at a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in May 2015, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham reportedly quipped that “everything that starts with ‘al’ in the Middle East is bad news.” Al, of course, is simply Arabic’s definite article, equivalent to “the” in English.

It should come as no surprise, then, that inshallah has found itself in the crosshairs of these rising Islamophobes. In June, when BBC presenter Nicky Campbell ended his usual segment with crossed fingers and a poorly inflected “inshallah” — “We’re in Uxbridge next Sunday for a special, asking, ‘Are we facing the end of the world?’ So we’ll see you then, inshallah” — it set off a right-wing media firestorm.
Breitbart wrote that the “incident comes just days after the BBC’s Head of Religion admitted that Islamic State is rooted in Islam.” Jihad Watch, a popular anti-Islam website, commented: “A conquered, colonized people adopts the language and practices of its conquerors.” In April, a University of California, Berkeley, student of Iraqi origin was removed from a Southwest Airlines flight after another passenger heard him speaking Arabic on his cell phone; he had ended his conversation with “inshallah.”

The latent Islamophobia the word can conjure seems to be part of the its growing appeal among progressive urbanites in the United States. As the Islamophobia industrial complex has expanded, so has a cultural push against it.Garnishing your conversation with an inshallah or two is a small act of resistance, a direct jab at the belief that Islam — and by association, Arabic — is sinister. It’s the linguistic equivalent of donning a headscarf in solidarity for World Hijab Day. Or the spoken version of the anti-Trump ad near Dearborn, Michigan, a city with a large population of Arab-Americans, which was written in Arabic and read: “Donald Trump can’t read this, but he is scared of it.” It’s a subtle political statement, a critique of Republicans who believe certain sounds, like incantations, must cross the lips in order to defeat evil (“radical Islamic terrorism”) whereas other sounds (“inshallah,” “Allahu akbar”) must remain taboo.

But why inshallah and not some other Arabic word? There are dozens of other common Islamic expressions, including bismillah (in the name of God), barakallah (blessings of God), and alhamdulillah (praise be to God), that haven’t crossed into English (though bismillah makes a cameo in Queen’s 1975 classic “Bohemian Rhapsody”).

The reason is that inshallah is a charming, maddening, and undeniably useful expression. On paper, the word is very similar to “God willing,” its Christian, English equivalent. It’s an acknowledgment of the human inability to foresee or control the future while harking to the belief that a Greater Being holds humanity’s fragile plans in its omnipotent hands.

But unlike the English “God willing,” inshallah also serves as a convenient preordained excuse for what may go wrong. If your toilet is broken and your plumber says he’ll come “tomorrow, inshallah,” you may be in for quite a wait. In countries such as Egypt, inshallah has expanded into a society-wide verbal tic invoked by Muslims, Christians, and even the nonreligious for occasions as mundane as ordering a hamburger or riding an elevator — a phenomenon that a 2008 article in the New York Times dubbed “inshallah creep.”

That’s what has made it so easy for visitors to pick up. Inshallah conveys an uncertainty that “hopefully” lacks. “The project will be done by 9 p.m., hopefully” implies that a sense of control still resides in your hands and thus a lingering amount of responsibility if the deadline isn’t met. “The project will be done by 9 p.m., inshallah,” by contrast, indicates that some outside force — an indolent contract worker, slow trains, spotty internet, even fate itself — is now in the driver’s seat and that if things go wrong, it’s not your fault.

It’s also exotic in a way that the down home “God willing” can never be. That phrase conjures images of church pews and pro-life protests outside Planned Parenthood — nothing that progressive Americans typically want to associate with. Throwing inshallah into a sentence here or there — “Tom will be filing that report tonight, inshallah!” — signals membership in a well-educated, well-traveled, and tolerant urban elite.

Arabic-speaking Americans don’t seem to mind this bit of friendly borrowing. Marya Hannun, a Palestinian-American doctoral student based in Washington, D.C., called the trend “charming,” explaining that when speaking Arabic, non-Muslims as well as Muslims use inshallah. She described its use among Americans as “solidarity and finding meaning in a language other than your own.”
“I say it every now and then,” said Thorstan Fries, a New York-based consultant who told me that he picked it up from a college friend studying Arabic. “I started saying it much more frequently after a trip to Morocco a couple years ago. They say it all the time, and I think it’s cool.”

Of course, to view a Middle Eastern import as exotic is also to risk condescension. The very first recorded use of inshallah in the English language was not just atrociously Orientalist — it was also incorrect. In his 1857 work The Kingdom and People of Siam, John Bowring, a British politician and the fourth governor of Hong Kong, wrote, “Inshallah! Such promptitude was, I believe, never before exhibited in an Asiatic Court.” But inshallah is used exclusively for events that have not yet occurred. What Bowring likely meant was mashallah, an Islamic phrase expressing amazement at an existing set of circumstances.

The first to use it in natural speech, not in a grandiose reference to foreign peoples, was T. E. Lawrence, otherwise known as Lawrence of Arabia. Lawrence viewed Arabs with respect, lived among them, and adopted some of their customs — including, apparently, the habit of checking plans against the divine’s schedule. “I have been photographing this last week—and will more next. Developing too inshallah,” he wrote in a letter dated 1911.

Britain’s entanglements in the Middle East, North Africa, and India put it in intimate contact with Muslim peoples decades before the United States became similarly involved. Inshallah followed on the heels of colonialism. For the British upper classes, Arabic was a sign of distinction; the Arabists dominated Britain’s Foreign Office for decades, and Prime Minister Anthony Eden — who sent Britain’s reputation in the Middle East plummeting with the Suez crisis — prided himself on his fluency.

At the time, American English was far more preoccupied with the apparatchiks and cosmonauts of the Cold War. It wasn’t until the expansion of U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, particularly after 9/11, that the region became a national preoccupation. (Though the growing number of Muslim and Middle Eastern immigrants in the United States has also helped popularize the word. One person I spoke to learned it from Arabic-speaking students she encountered at her university; another googled it after he saw Muslim friends posting the word on Facebook.) The study of Arabic has blossomed across the United States, and a legion of American military officials, diplomats, journalists, government contractors, NGO workers, academics, and students flowed in. Upon their return home, many brought with them the ubiquitous, malleable, and easily pronounceable inshallah.

It’s now common currency among the younger generations at the State Department, journalists who’ve spent time in the region, and soldiers who deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan — and, increasingly, among the people who travel in the same elite circles as these folk. As one colleague, who uses the word but has no background in the Middle East, told me, “I learned it because everyone at every damn development NGO uses it.” Others I know say they picked it up from artifacts of contemporary popular culture, like Afghan-American author Khaled Hosseini’s novel The Kite Runner, which was adapted into a movie in 2007, and Rabia Chaudry’s book, Adnan’s Story, published this year.

There’s now a good chance inshallah may find a permanent home in English. But those afraid of creeping inshallah should take heart. This wouldn’t be the first time that the word has imbedded itself in a Western language. Ojalá is a common Spanish word often translated as “hopefully.” In fact, ojalá is merely the Hispanicized pronunciation of inshallah, which made its way into the language during the centuries of Muslim rule in Spain that ended in 1492. Yet as far as I can tell, despite this obvious case of linguistic jihad, neither Spain nor the 20 other countries where Spanish is the official national language has yet fallen to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Nor has asking a waitress for more pancake syrup — from the Arabic sharab, a versatile word that the West acquired during a previous episode of war-induced cultural cross-pollination, the Crusades — ever proved to spontaneously convert anyone to Islam. Nor has spending hours studying algebra — another one of those menacing “al” words — ever made anyone more inclined to funnel one’s life savings to al Qaeda.

It turns out short vowels, sibilants, and fricatives might not be as magical as some have been urging us to believe. Donald Trump and his national security team would be wise to take note. God willing.

Photo credit: CHIP SOMODEVILLA/Getty Images/Foreign Policy illustration

Philippines: Was Duterte himself a drug addict?

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. Pic: AP

19th December 2016

IN a twist of irony, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, the man behind the ongoing crackdown on the country’s drug criminals, is being urged to prove his fitness for office after he admitted last week to abusing an addictive painkiller.

According to the South China Morning Post (via the AFP), Duterte’s admission has triggered widespread speculation about his health, and revived old rumours that circulated during his election campaign this year claiming he was suffering from cancer.

“To end this speculation, it would be better if his physician explains how the president manages the pain that he suffers,” Duterte ally congressman Carlos Zarate was quoted as saying.

A medical report, Zarate added, would provide clarity towards the president’s health condition.


Duterte, infamous for his hardline stance on drug abuse, admitted last Monday to using fentanyl, a highly potent painkiller used to relieve cancer patients and those suffering from other chronic conditions.

He said he used the painkiller due to a spinal injury caused by motorcycle accidents, adding his doctor had stopped him from using it after he was found to have used more than the prescribed dosage.

Fentanyl, according to the U.S. National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), is a “powerful synthetic opioid analgesic that is similar to morphine but is 50 to 100 times more potent”. The painkiller is also reportedly the same type of drug that killed pop legend Prince due to an accidental overdose.

Despite Duterte’s explanation and claim that he has since stopped using the drug, the admission prompted lawmakers to urge him to undergo a full medical check-up and disclose the results.

Senator Leila de Lima, one of Duterte’s staunchest critics echoed Zarate’s call for the president to disclose his health condition and the medications he uses.

“It is not just the illness itself that we should be worried about, but also the impact or side effects that the medications he is taking may have, especially on his lucidity and ability to make decisions with a clear mind,” she was quoted as saying in AFP.

De Lima’s call was supported by another critic, Senator Antonio Trillanes, who said Duterte “qualified as a drug addict” as he had admitted to taking more than the prescribed dosage of Fentanyl.

Duterte, however, decried the claim. He pointed out that he constantly suffers from migraines and that while he did use the drug, it was because there was a prescription for it.

“Yes. But I’m not an addict. Only when there is [a drug] prescribed. Addiction is when there’s regularity, my friend,” he told a reporter during an ambush interview during his maiden official visit to Singapore last week.

According to ABS-CBN News, Duterte, who was visibly irked by questions on his alleged addiction, then schooled a journalist on the what drug addition means.

“When you take it and there’s a monkey on your back, that’s addiction. You know what? I’ll give you an idea, nicotine is an addictive element. It’s more than…worse than the medications you take for your headache.”

He maintained that he used the drug for his medical condition, saying: “You must know that I have a headache, because I had a bad spill and my– And may I show it to you? This is the cause. So, I have intermittent… but I take the [drug], for my migraine.”

Duterte also said that drug addiction was not as bad as smoking cigarettes even though little was done to address the latter.

“Smoking? That’s far worse. You ask any… it’s far worse than… Nicotine is an addictive form and it has—but since it was there a century, two centuries ago, nobody can stop it”.

Duterte has courted international controversy as some 5,000 drug suspects have been killed since he took office in late June. A large number of the suspects were killed at the hands of local security forces, while many others by vigilante groups since fueled by the president’s anti-drugs message.

The body of a man, with his head wrapped in masking tape, is seen along a street in Pasay city, Philippines, Nov 10. Police say he was found with a sachet of crystal meth. Pic: Reuters/Czar Dancel

The firebrand leader also admitted last week that he personally killed suspected criminals during his time as mayor of Davao City.

The president, who now faces international heat for his administration’s violent war on drugs, said he conducted the killings himself to set an example for the police under his watch.

Christine Lagarde avoids jail despite guilty verdict in negligence trial

Judges opt not to give any punishment to head of International Monetary Fund, who was not present for judgment
Christine Lagarde appearing in court in Paris on 12 December. Photograph: Christophe Petit Tesson/EPA
 and Monday 19 December 2016
Christine Lagarde has been found guilty of negligence in approving a massive payout of taxpayers’ money to controversial French businessman Bernard Tapie but avoided a jail sentence.
A French court convicted the head of the International Monetary Fund and former government minister, who had faced a €15,000 (£12,600) fine and up to a year in prison. But it decided she should not be punished and that the conviction would not constitute a criminal record.
The verdict came as a surprise as even the public prosecutor had admitted the evidence against Lagarde was “weak” during a five-day trial last week. Jean-Claude Marin told the court Lagarde’s actions fell into the category of politics and not criminality and called for her to be acquitted.
Lagarde, who has always argued she did nothing wrong and acted “in the public interest”, was not present for the judgment. Her lawyer Patrick Maisonneuve said she had flown back to Washington DC, where the IMF is based.
Within hours of the court’s decision, the IMF’s 24-member board convened a meeting to discuss Lagarde’s future. The IMF’s shareholders were aware of the pending court proceedings when they appointed Lagarde to a second five-year term earlier this year and were weighing up whether she – and the IMF – had suffered lasting reputational damage. The decision not to impose any penalty despite the guilty verdict was seen by some observers as enhancing the chances of the IMF’s managing director holding on to her job.
Support for Lagarde came from the former US Treasury secretary, Larry Summers, who said it was a “sorry day for French justice”. Lagarde was the “best thing” to happen to the IMF in a long time, Summers added.
Lagarde had appeared before the Cour de Justice de la République, a special tribunal set up to judge ministers and public officials for alleged crimes committed while in office. It is made up of three professional judges and 12 politicians from the French houses of parliament.
It was only the fifth time the court had sat and its judgments cannot be appealed against.
Lagarde’s lawyer Patrick Maisonneuve told journalists after the judgment: “We would have preferred an acquittal, but it should be remembered that the court has not imposed any sentence whatsoever.”
The Tapie case has rumbled on since 1993 when the businessman sold his majority share in the sportswear company Adidas to Crédit Lyonnais, a bank then part-owned by the French state, to avoid a conflict of interest when he took up a government post. Tapie accused the bank, which later sold the shares at a higher price, of defrauding him by undervaluing his investment.
Lagarde was the finance minister under Nicolas Sarkozy between 2007 and 2011, when she became head of the IMF – replacing her disgraced compatriot Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who had been put on trial for attacking a New York hotel maid. She referred the case to a private arbitration panel, which awarded Tapie more than €400m. She was accused of “negligence with public money” for having paid up and not contested the award, which experts had advised against.
She denied any wrongdoing and claimed she had not seen all documents suggesting the payout should not be made. Six others, including her former chief of staff Stéphane Richard, now head of telecoms giant Orange, are being investigated for fraud. All have denied acting illegally.
Tapie has since been ordered to pay back the €400m but is appealing against the decision.
Detectives have spent years trying to establish if the award was given to Tapie under Sarkozy’s orders in return for the businessman’s support in his successful 2007 presidential campaign.
The IMF’s administrative body was due to meet to discuss the conviction on Monday. If Lagarde is forced out after the verdict, the battle to replace her will be a tough one. The IMF has 24 voting board members who represent 189 countries. Lagarde won last time despite widespread criticism that the organisation has failed to appoint a non-European leader in its 72-year history.
Lagarde had the backing of then US Treasury secretary Tim Geithner whose support denied the job to Agustín Carstens, current governor of the Bank of Mexico, who will be a strong candidate to replace Lagarde if she is made to go. Carstens is set to become general manager at the International Bank of Settlements in Basel, Switzerland next year.

Universal health care: how to become a national hero

19_bevan_g_w

Victoria Macdonald-

19 DEC 2016

When you look down the list of countries with universal health coverage (UHC) – as we do with our NHS – there at the bottom is the United States with the date 2014 followed by a question mark.


This list was on the website, Truecostblog.com, and they ask that with the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare in 2013 and with President Obama’s inauguration to a second term, will the United States join the 32 developed nations who have universal health care?

Obviously the blog is out of date because history (albeit recent) has now given us that answer and the answer is no. The US will not be joining those other nations. While the President-elect Donald Trump appears to have rowed back on threats to repeal the Affordable Care Act, currently UHC seems a long way off in the US.

Yet at a meeting organised by Action for Global Health to celebrate the third ever UHC day, one of the speakers on the panel (which I was chairing) said that he believed President Obama would one day be credited with having moved America’s poor closer to UHC than any other President.

Robert Yates, head of UHC policy forum, at the Centre on Global Health Security, Chatham House, has long argued that achieving UHC is hugely electorally popular – that it can win elections.

This will resonate in any country. We only need to look to past elections in the UK when promises to invest in the NHS (or to save the NHS, as it is more often put) have been vote winners.

But look further back to the creation of the NHS in a Britain that had barely started recovering from the Second World War and was in turmoil, especially financially.


A universal health system paid for out of taxes was hugely popular and has remained so. And the man who pushed through the legislation, Aneurin Bevan (pictured above), has been glorified ever since.

The argument is that countries, particularly those who are post-conflict or fragile, could capitalise on the human need for universal access to healthcare.

The WHO definition of UHC is “all individuals and communities receive the health services they need without suffering financial hardship”. It is also one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG3)

There are 400 million people who lack access to one or more essential health services and every year 100 million are pushed into poverty because of the cost to them of accessing healthcare.

Mobilising and increasing countries’ own domestic finances will be essential in order to move towards UHC. But just as the UK – post WWII – relied on US aid to help rebuild, we now in turn have the expertise to help others develop systems, processes and technology to put in place UHC.

And while DfID is currently under scrutiny for some of its spending decisions, the department is universally recognised for work it has carried out in developing countries to help them move towards better health system.

So much more than political will is, of course, needed. There are countries who need help with infrastructure, developing health financing systems, education, and especially training and retention of medical staff.

But as a first step, so the argument goes, persuade presidential candidates that they could not only win an election but turn themselves into a national hero simply by giving their citizens access to universal healthcare.

Follow @vsmacdonald on Twitter

Tweet with flashing images sent to epileptic writer

Computer abstract artwork of an electrical storm within a glass model head
Vanity Fair and Newsweek writer Kurt Eichenwald has claimed he suffered an epileptic seizure after receiving a malicious tweet containing flashing images.

BBC19 December 2016

The message, sent from an account which has since been suspended said: "you deserve a seizure for your posts".

Shortly afterwards, Mr Eichenwald's wife tweeted from his account saying the images had caused a seizure.

The incident was reported to the police in the US.

Mr Eichenwald had previously written about how he had been "assaulted" via the internet.

He confirmed in a series of tweets that he is pursuing legal action against the person responsible for this latest incident.

"Last night, for the second time, a deplorable aware I have epilepsy tweeted a strobe at me... It worked," he said.

"This is not going to happen again. My wife is terrified. I am... disgusted. All I will be tweeting for the next few days are copies of documents from the litigation, police reports etc.

"Once we have the lawsuit filed, we will be subpoenaing Twitter for the identity of the individual who engaged in this cross-state assault," he added.

The red and yellow picture with blue lettering tweet which allegedly caused the seizure
A still of the tweet which contained flashing images

Simon Wigglesworth, deputy chief executive at Epilepsy Action, said: "We are appalled that someone would go to these lengths to bring on a seizure in another person."

"Seizures are not only very distressing for the person experiencing them, but can also cause injury and, in the worst cases, be fatal," he added.

Mr Wigglesworth explained that photosensitive epilepsy is a type of epilepsy in which seizures are triggered by flashing or flickering light.

He warned that if this incident had happened in the UK it might have been a breach of the law, perhaps of the Computer Misuse Act.

Stefano Seri, a professor of clinical neurophysiology and developmental neuropsychiatry at Aston University, explained how the material in the tweet must have been carefully constructed.

"Abrupt changes in light intensity, or luminance, can trigger seizures. The most sensitive range is about 15-25 flashes per second," said Prof Seri.

"The picture would need to occupy most of the visual field. It would take some very sick people to do this, but technically, it is possible.

"Modern LED screens are not as provocative as older ones. It takes a very carefully designed stimulus to induce a seizure," Prof Seri added.

Mr Eichenwald is a prominent critic of US president-elect Donald Trump and had clashed with a Fox News host in a TV interview the day before receiving the flashing tweet.

He has also used Twitter to directly address complaints to the incoming US president.

After his wife tweeted about the seizure, the responses received included messages from staunch supporters of Mr Trump, some of whom mocked the situation.

Advice

Professor Seri advised those with epilepsy to be cautious when viewing unknown material online.

"You should sit far enough from the stimulus so it doesn't fill your vision and watch in a sufficiently lit room so the impact of any flashes is lessened," the professor advised.

"In a well lit room your baseline is higher, so changes are less dramatic. Don't open attachments from people you don't know."

There have been instances in the past of accidental seizure triggers being broadcast.

Pokemon character with yellow lighting around it
AP-Image captionA scene from the Pokemon cartoon that allegedly caused children to have seizures in Japan

In December 1997 more than 600 children in Japan were taken to hospital after feeling sick while watching cartoons on television.

Some suffered convulsions, while others complained of eye irritation.

They were reported to have fallen ill after seeing a cartoon monster flash its eyes.

In June 2007 a segment of animated footage promoting the 2012 Olympics was removed from the organisers' website after fears were raised that it could trigger epileptic seizures.

In July 2015 Twitter was criticised for uploading two video adverts that featured a looping, rapid succession of flashing colours.

Eventually the company removed them.

Mr Eichenwald said he would be taking a break from Twitter.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION LIKELY TO PUNISH BIG RACKETEERS IN SRI LANKA

bup_dft_dft-123
Bipartisan group of ministers make proposals to Cabinet to expedite probe on corruption and fraud cases.

Sri Lanka Brief18/12/2016

A formidable section of the Cabinet of Ministers have favoured the establishment of Criminal Justice Commissions (CJCs) to punish those responsible for “frauds, corruption and misuse of funds.”A Joint Cabinet Memorandum handed in by them missed the agenda for Tuesday’s weekly ministerial meeting but was listed as a supplement together with different other items. It was, however, not taken up for discussion since the meeting on Unduwap Poya day had extended beyond noon. President Sirisena was to assure that it would be discussed at the next meeting.

That has enabled the prime mover, Dr Sarath Amunugama, Minister of Special Assignments, to seek endorsements from more ministers. At the time of hand over on December 11 (Sunday), besides Amunugama, 14 ministers had placed their signatures on the Joint Cabinet Memorandum. These ministers, who have been assured support by more colleagues, opine that the CJCs should try those accused after the findings of investigative agencies like the Criminal Investigations Department (CID), the Financial Crimes Investigations Division (FCID) and the Special Crimes Investigation Unit (SCIU) which functions under the Police Chief are completed.

One of the SLFP ministers, a signatory, who spoke on grounds of anonymity, said they expected even the bond scam in the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL), to be placed before the CJC. This is on the grounds that there would be inordinate delays if indictments, if any, were made in courts. He said President Maithripala Sirisena has assured them (the SLFP Ministers) that he would institute a judicial mechanism no sooner Parliament debates the report of the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) which probed the bond issue. One or two days from January 24 to 27 are to be allotted for the debate where there will be no vote when it concludes. The Joint Opposition is demanding two days.

Then Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s Government introduced in Parliament the Criminal Justice Commission Act (No: 14 of 1972). Originally, it was the brainchild of the then Attorney General Victor Tennekoon. It was for the purpose of dealing with members of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) for the abortive April 1971 insurgency. The law then empowered the Chief Justice to name a bench of judges to try the accused and provisions were included to override the provisions of the Evidence Ordinance. Then Chief Justice H.N.G. Fernando named a five judge bench which he chaired. Hundreds of JVPers were arraigned before courts in batches. Most were pardoned whilst some were handed down suspended sentences. Only some top rung leaders were imprisoned. University students were thus able to return to their studies and a number of youth to their previous employment. Justice Fernando noted during sessions that though there were provisions to overlook the Evidence Ordinance, the Commission was not going to do so.

The functioning of this CJC 1 was to inspire the then CID Director Tyrrel Goonetilleke. He lobbied Premier Bandaranaike, her senior ministers and officials to set up a CJC 2 to try those involved in exchange control offences. By then, the CID had launched investigations into a number of cases where there were violations of exchange control laws. Thus, a CJC 2, despite objections from some senior officials, came into being. Mubarak Thaha, who ran a string of night clubs including Atlanta and Tropicana was convicted. Also convicted was bookie owner A.R.M. Mukthar. They were politically associated with the UNP at the time.

Most Sri Lankans, getting impatient over what they see as undue delays in the probes on big corruption rackets, regularly carry out demonstrations such as this. Pic courtesy Daily Mirror

Some features of the CJC were arguably controversial. For instance, the burden of proof was placed on the accused. The Act says, “Any finding made, or sentence imposed by a Commission under this Act shall be final and conclusive, and shall not be called in question in any court or tribunal, whether by way of action, application in revision, appeal, writ or otherwise.”

The CJC Act now remains repealed. This was after the enforcement of the law led to heavy pressure being brought on Premier Bandaranaike. She directed that a Criminal Justice Commissions (Repeal) Law be introduced in 1977. Hence, setting up of new CJCs will necessitate the introduction of a new Bill in Parliament, which ministers say, could incorporate more new provisions. Such provisions, they argue, should include deterrent clauses to prevent bribery and corruption from becoming a hobby of some politicians whatever political side they may belong to.

Here is the full text of the 19-point Joint Cabinet Memorandum titled “Tribunal to Inquire into Corruption” signed so far by 15 members, or a third of the Cabinet of Ministers:

“1. There is now a widespread public desire that corruption be investigated and sanctions imposed on those found guilty expeditiously and in a transparent manner compliant with the principles of natural justice. Corruption per se could lead to the infraction of the criminal law and also the contravention of commercial and civil law.

“2. As such, it is imperative that a Tribunal that can deal with both these aspects be contemplated. Presently none exist within the legal framework. For instance, breaches of the criminal law are tried in a regular Court which is beset with delay. The same delay exists within the framework of the civil and administrative law.

“3. The following options arise for consideration:

“4. Commissions under the Criminal Justice Commissions Act No. 14 of 1972 (CJC Act) had jurisdiction over offences in relation to inter alia offences in relation to currency or foreign exchange of such nature as to endanger the national economy or interest, (Section 2 (1) )

“5. However, in dealing with the above offences the said Commissions had wide powers ranging from inquiring into the matter to imposing sanctions on those found guilty (Sections 2, 5 and 15).

“6. Section 2 (2) (b) / (c) empowered the CJC to inquire and determine whether any person is guilty of such offences and to deal with the persons so found guilty or not guilty in the manner prescribed by this Act.

“7. In terms of Section 15 the CJC shall make a finding that he is guilty of such offence and shall sentence him to any punishment, other than death, to which he might have been sentenced if he had been tried and convicted by the Supreme Court.

“8. Moreover, these commissions also had the power to cause the arrest of any person whose custody was necessary during the pendency of the inquiry (Section 14).

“9. The CJC Act was limited in duration to eight years unless extended by Parliament (vide Section 28). However, this Act was repealed in 1977 by the Criminal Justice Commissions (Repeal) Law (No. 12 of 1977) Act.

“10. Thereafter, the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry Law No. 7 of 1978 as amended by No 4 of 1978 (Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry Act- SPCI -) was enacted.

“11. By contrast an SPCI duly established has very limited power in comparison with the CJC having regard to the powers vested in the CJC to impose sanctions after a finding of guilt.

“12. Presidential commissions only have the power to inquire into and report upon such administration conduct or matter (Section 2).

“13. An SPCI is not empowered to impose sanctions.

“14. These commissions can only recommend the imposition of civic disabilities which is imposed by Parliament (Section 9).

“15. A striking example is the imposition of civil disabilities on the former Prime Minister Hon. Sirimavo Bandaranaike and her expulsion from Parliament and the imposition of civic disabilities on other politicians not from the Government of the time.

“16. As such, an SPCI cannot impose punishment per se which has to be after due trial by a separate Court of law. It is precisely this two tier approach which is the principal shortcoming of the SPCI.

“17. Therefore, it is apparent that the model under the CJC Act together with reforms serves the public interest of having a legally established Tribunal to deal with corruption rather than having a Special Presidential Commissions of Inquiry.

“18. This is because such a Tribunal could be empowered with a wider range of powers including the power to impose sanctions. Thereby, it saves resources (time and money), for an SPCI only has the power to inquire into, determine and report on matters. This necessitates the subsequent initiation of separate legal proceedings in a court of law to hear and determine if offences have been committed and thereafter impose appropriate sanctions. This will inevitably lead to protracted legal proceedings and inevitable delay which is inimical to the national and public interest.

“19. In order to make this model more beneficial, the jurisdiction of the proposed Tribunal and scope of the matters which falls within the jurisdiction of these Tribunals need to be expanded to include inquiry into breaches of civil and commercial law obligations and provision of appropriate relief including imposition of monetary damages, recovery of illegal proceeds and restitution and compensation.”

Bipartisan support
Among ministers who have signed the Joint Cabinet Memorandum besides Sarath Amunugama are: W.D.J. Seneviratne, Patali Champika Ranawaka, Rajitha Senaratne, Mahinda Amaraweera, Susil Premajayantha, Kabir Hashim (who is also General Secretary of the UNP), Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Talatha Athukorale, Faiszer Musthapha, Chandrani Bandara, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka and Arjuna Ranatunga.

In the light of the bi-partisan character the Joint Cabinet Memorandum has assumed since both SLFP and UNP ministers have signed it, and with more due to sign, highly placed Government sources believe, it would receive the approval of the Cabinet of Ministers. These sources said fresh legislation would follow thereafter. Whether provision will then be made to include violators of exchange control laws is not immediately clear.

Bring money back to Sri Lanka
This, as our front page story today reveals, is in the wake of Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake’s new plans to allow those holding funds in foreign banks, earned through ‘legitimate’ means, to bring them to Sri Lanka. However, he said, such a concession under proposed liberalised exchange control laws will not apply to those who have stacked moneys in foreign bank accounts and have been made through questionable means. They cover not only those held in Swiss Bank accounts but also in other safe havens by Sri Lankans after they had set up offshore companies in Panama. Details of the local account holders from a wealth of data exclusively made available to the Sunday Times from America’s International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and Germany’s Suddeutsche Zeitung on offshore accounts set up with the help of Mossack Fonseka, a Panamanian firm, appear in a box story on this page.

The latest proposals by the group of ministers for a judicial mechanism to probe “frauds, corruption and misuse of funds” come during a twin phase. On the one hand, several cases of frauds, corruption and instances where public funds have been embezzled are still being probed. On the other, questions are being raised on some of the mega deals now being awarded by the Government prompting accusations of corruption within the new administration. The Joint Opposition has raised issue over some of these matters, particularly the Hambantota Port Project and the granting of 15,000 acres of land to a Chinese company for an industrial estate. The company in question plans to install its own power generating system to remain self-sufficient in electricity instead of depending on Sri Lanka’s national grid.