Customs Director General summoned for failing to appear before court in the case of Shashi Weerawansa


Tue, Aug 29, 2017

Aug 29, Colombo: A Sri Lankan court today issued summons to the Director General of Customs Chulananda Perera for failing to appear before court as a witness of the case against Shashi Weerawansa, wife of former minister and NFF leader Wimal Weerawansa.

Shashi Weerawansa is accused of using forge documents to obtain diplomatic and general passports when her husband was a minister of the former government.

When the case was heard before Colombo Chief Magistrate today, Deputy Solicitor General Dileep Peiris informed the court that a letter had been sent to the Magistrate directly saying that witness Chulananda Perera could not be present in court today due to official duties.

He pointed out that if a witness is unable to come, he should inform the court through the Criminal Investigations Department and witnesses cannot send letters directly to the magistrate.

Colombo Chief Magistrate Lal Ranasinghe Bandara accepting the Deputy Solicitor General's request, ordered to issue notice for Chulananda Perera to appear before the court on 9 October to show cause.
Meanwhile, lawyers appearing for Mrs. Weerawansa asked the court to release her passport impounded by the court to enable her to travel to China. The Deputy Solicitor General of the Government objected to the request.

The Court ordered to issue a certified copy of the passport in the court in order to obtain a passport.
Sashi Weerawansa is alleged to have obtained diplomatic and general passports by submitting birth certificates with forged names and dates of birth. She had applied for a diplomatic passport in 2010 by submitting false personal information which was different to what appears in her previous normal passport that expired on May 24, 2009.


The former Controller General of Department of Immigration and Emigration Chulananda Perera has testified that he issued the passport on a written request made by the former minister, Wimal Weerawansa.

UN must name and shame settlement profiteers


Israel and the US are trying to prevent the United Nations from publishing a database of firms which abet war crimes in the occupied West Bank. (The White House/Flickr)

Adri Nieuwhof-29 August 2017

It is vital that a planned United Nations database of companies doing business in Israel’s illegal settlements is published this year.

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the UN’s high commissioner for human rights, has reportedly asked firms to be included on that list for comments by this Friday.

Once that deadline has passed, he should make sure that the list is released without delay. Attempts by the US and Israel to halt the publication of the database – which the UN Human Rights Council agreed to compile in 2016 – must not succeed.

Similar blacklists proved to be valuable tools for campaigners against South African apartheid.
In 1980, a UN committee tasked with monitoring racism in South Africa established a register of sporting contacts with that country.

It named and shamed players who had rejected appeals for a boycott of South Africa, where sports were segregated based on race.

Repercussions

Hundreds of local authorities in Britain and Europe invoked the register to prohibit those included in it from using their sporting facilities. A number of African countries also refused to issue visas to players if they were included in the register.

As a result, siding with the oppressor over the oppressed had tangible repercussions for sporting careers. Many players gave commitments to stay away from South Africa so long as it remained under a racist regime.

In 1983, the UN’s committee on monitoring apartheid published its first register on entertainers who had performed in South Africa.

Some public authorities in Britain used that register to ban musicians whose name appeared on it from appearing in venues they administered.

The register listed such stars as Rod Stewart, Liza Minnelli, Dolly Parton and Elton John. Yet the UN committee made a point of removing entertainers who had performed in South Africa from the register if they pledged not to play there again.

As well as shaming artists who broke the boycott, the UN’s committee made a point of commending those who demonstrated support for the struggle against apartheid. Stevie Wonder, for example, was applauded for accepting a 1985 award in the name of Nelson Mandela, then imprisoned by the apartheid regime.

In 1987, the UN’s General Assembly voted that an oil embargo should be imposed on South Africa, the economy of which relied heavily on oil imports. An intergovernmental group was also formed within the UN to track which firms supplied the apartheid regime with energy.

The group worked closely with grassroots campaigners around the world.

I was among the founders of the Shipping Research Bureau – a Dutch group within the anti-apartheid movement. We provided much information to UN bodies on oil firms’ involvement in South Africa.
Such work exposed the alliance between big business and the apartheid regime.

The US fossil fuels giant Mobil came under so much pressure that it announced its withdrawal from South Africa in 1989.

The UN’s lists on profiteers from South African apartheid were all compiled – using research by grassroots campaigners – in an age before the Internet.

Sharing information is considerably easier today, so lists of firms who abet Israel’s illegal activities could have an even greater impact than similar databases of those who collaborated South African apartheid.

The Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement has made considerable advances – so far without the aid of UN databases. The movement has been able to exert enough pressure on Veolia, Orangeand CRH that those major corporations have quit Israel.


That Israel wants to nip the planned database in the bud is a sign of desperation. Israel is already a pariah state in the minds of ordinary people around the world. If Israel’s crimes do not cease, its isolation will grow.

Angela Merkel: we cannot hold our tongues on risk to rule of law in Poland
German chancellor says EU fears over Polish reforms giving justice minister right to fire judges must be taken seriously

‘The requirements for cooperation within the European Union are the principles of the rule of law,’ Merkel said at a press conference. Photograph: Michael Sohn/AP

Jennifer Rankin-Tuesday 29 August 2017

Angela Merkel has weighed in on a worsening dispute between the EU and Poland about judicial independence, delivering pointed criticism of Germany’s eastern neighbour that underscores its growing isolation.

The European commission said in July that it would launch legal action against Poland over reforms that gave the justice minister the right to fire judges – a power that undermines the independence of the courts and violates EU rules.

On Tuesday, one day after the Polish government dismissed the EU inquiry as groundless, the German chancellor said she took the commission’s worries very seriously.

“This is a serious issue because the requirements for cooperation within the European Union are the principles of the rule of law,” Merkel told a press conference in Berlin. “However much I want to have very good relations with Poland ... we cannot simply hold our tongues and not say anything for the sake of peace and quiet.”

Warsaw was given one month to respond to a July report from Brussels that said the reforms endangered the rule of law. On Monday, the final day of the deadline, Poland’s foreign ministry published its response, brushing away the commission’s criticism.

“The ongoing legislative measures, whose overriding aim is to reform the judicial system, are in line with European standards and respond to many years of growing social expectations in this regard, and so they groundlessly raise the commission’s doubts,” the ministry said in a statement.

The European commission said it would carefully study the 12-page letter from the Polish government before giving a detailed response. But a spokeswoman said there was a case to answer: “The commission believes that there is such a threat to the rule of law in Poland.”

On a visit to Bulgaria last week, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, said Polish citizens “deserved better” than a government at odds with the EU’s democratic values and economic reform plans. Hitting back in unusually personal terms, the Polish prime minister, Beata Szydło, accused Macron of arrogance resulting from a lack of political experience.

EU ministers are expected to discuss the Polish rule of law procedure in September, when the commission will be looking for backing from member states. Frans Timmermans, the European commission vice-president, has said the commission stands ready to launch a formal warning using the article 7 procedure. Article 7 is the EU’s never-before-used “nuclear option” that could lead to suspension of a country’s voting rights.

Poland’s nationalist government enjoys strong support from the like-minded Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, but other countries in the region have distanced themselves.

Slovakia and the Czech Republic took a neutral position when the Polish rule of law stance was discussed among European ministers last May. Earlier this month, Slovakia’s prime minister, Robert Fico stressed that his country needed to be “close to the [EU] core, close to France, close to Germany” in remarks that set him apart from his hardline neighbours.

Suspending Poland’s voting rights in the EU council of ministers could only happen with support from a weighted majority of member states. First, there would need to be a recommendation from the European commission or the European parliament or one-third of member states.

The president of the European commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, will discuss the issue during a working lunch with Merkel on Wednesday.

Poland said it hoped its “exhaustive clarifications” would end any doubts about the judicial changes.
In late July, the Polish president, Andrzej Duda, signed a bill into law that will allow the justice minister to name the heads of all lower courts. Against a backdrop of street protests, he vetoed two other bills that would have allowed the government to replace supreme court judges and a high-level judicial panel.


The commission published its rule of law recommendation the next day, citing four bills: the two vetoed bills, the lower courts law and a fourth act, which came into force in July and allows assistant judges a bigger role in the Polish courts system. These assistant judges cannot guarantee judicial independence, according to the commission assessment – a view shared by the European court of human rights.

Shut Out of the White House, Iran Hawk Makes Public Appeal to Trump 

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton says Steve Bannon asked him to draft a plan on scrapping the Iran deal. But now Bannon is out, so Bolton released his proposal online.

BY DAN DE LUCE-AUGUST 28, 2017

An outspoken critic of the Iran nuclear deal says he was asked by President Donald Trump’s former strategist, Steve Bannon, in July to draft a proposal on how the United States could withdraw from the agreement.

But after Bannon and other Iran hawks at the White House were sacked in recent weeks, the Iran deal skeptic — former U.N. ambassador John Bolton — decided to publish his plan on Monday, saying he feared his ideas would never reach the president.

“I offer the Iran nonpaper now as a public service, since staff changes at the White House have made presenting it to President Trump impossible,” Bolton wrote in the National Review, which posted his blueprint for exiting the deal. “Although he was once kind enough to tell me ‘come in and see me any time,’ those days are now over.”

A source involved in the Iran policy discussions at the White House confirmed that Bolton was in and out of the Oval Office for at least several weeks. At one point, he was even offered the possibility of serving as deputy national security advisor, with the idea that he might eventually get to replace H.R. McMaster.

The source said Bolton declined, preferring to wait until he was offered the top job.

A spokesperson for Bolton declined to comment and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Foreign Policy.

Bolton was in the running initially for the number two position at the State Department before Trump entered office, but Republicans in Congress opposed the idea and he was never nominated.

It now appears that with Bannon gone, Bolton no longer has access to the Oval Office.

“If the president is never to see this option, so be it,” wrote Bolton

“If the president is never to see this option, so be it,” wrote Bolton, a former ambassador to the United Nations and unabashed neoconservative who served in George W. Bush’s administration. “But let it never be said that the option didn’t exist.”

Bolton’s public appeal reflects a deep frustration among opponents of the Iran deal who until recently viewed the White House as an ally in their effort to undercut the agreement. In a matter of weeks, the political dynamics at the White House have shifted after Trump forced out Bannon and other White House officials, including Sebastian Gorka and senior officials on the National Security Council, Derek Harvey and Ezra Cohen-Watnick.

Critics of the Iran agreement say they are worried Trump’s advisers and officials at the State Department are not providing the president with a full range of options, including the possibility of either abandoning the accord or telling Congress that Tehran is not complying with the terms of the agreement.

“People close to the president during the campaign, Bannon and others, longtime conservatives and Iran deal skeptics are pretty much frozen out of the decision making process,” said one source with ties to the administration.

The 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers imposes strict limits on Tehran’s nuclear program in return for lifting an array of economic sanctions that damaged Iran’s economy.

The Obama administration presented it as a diplomatic triumph that averted a potential war with Iran and placed Tehran’s nuclear work under international inspections. But opponents say it legitimizes Iran’s nuclear infrastructure for future use and fails to take into account Tehran’s ballistic missiles as well as its support for Hezbollah and other militants across the region.

In his proposal, titled “Abrogating the Iran Deal: the Way Forward,” Bolton argues that Washington should withdraw because Iran is violating the agreement, refusing to allow inspections of military sites and supporting “terrorism.”

He also stresses the need to explain the decision to allies in the Middle East and in Europe privately and then following up later with a public campaign. And he calls for citing intelligence reports that would back up the argument.

“We can bolster the case for abrogation by providing new, declassified information on Iran’s unacceptable behavior around the world,” Bolton said.

Supporters of the Iran agreement say there is no evidence that Iran has violated the nuclear deal in any significant way and allege the intelligence agencies are under pressure from the administration to come up with information that shows Tehran is flouting the deal.

Bolton also suggests considering more drastic measures, including supporting “democratic opposition” to the Iranian regime, backing the rights of various ethnic and religious minorities in Iran, ending all landing and docking rights for Iranian aircraft and ships at allied ports, and shutting off all U.S. visas for Iranians, including for scholarly and sports exchanges.

The president is required to certify to Congress every 90 days whether Iran is in compliance with the nuclear agreement. Trump has reluctantly certified twice that Iran has been abiding by the deal.
But at a White House meeting on the issue in July,

Trump complained to his advisers that he was unhappy with the options presented and that he was not ready to declare Iran in compliance indefinitely.

Trump complained to his advisers that he was unhappy with the options presented and that he was not ready to declare Iran in compliance indefinitely.

Trump was so frustrated that he encouraged aides to prepare a potential plan for withholding certification of Iran at the next 90-day review of the nuclear deal scheduled for October. But a number of the staffers expected to draft such an option are no longer in the administration, and it’s unclear if and how the assignment would be carried out by those remaining.

As a candidate, Trump was a harsh critic of the Iran deal. But after certifying Iran was in compliance with the agreement twice since he was sworn in, supporters came away puzzled, according to Bolton.
“Many outside the administration wondered how this was possible: Was Trump in control, or were his advisers? “

Jana Winter contributed to this article.

Photo credit: DREW ANGERER/Getty Images

North Korea fires missile over Japan, tensions escalate

Pedestrians walk past a TV set showing news about North Korea's missile launch in Tokyo, Japan, August 29, 2017. Source: Reuters/Kim Kyung-Hoon

29th August 2017

NORTH Korea fired a ballistic missile early on Tuesday morning that travelled over Japan and landed in waters off the northern region of Hokkaido. The latest test has triggered swift condemnation from neighbours and their allies, and prompted calls for tougher sanctions and possible military action against Pyongyang.

According to reports, the missile was likely the same type of intermediate range of ballistic missile fired in May. The Hwasong-12 missile is the model the regime threatened to fire at the US territory of Guam earlier this month

.

A South Korean military official told NBC News the missile was fired around 5.57am local time on Tuesday. The official said that the missile flew for about 2,700km, reaching a maximum altitude of 550km.

SEE ALSO: North Korea announces plan to fire missiles towards US territory of Guam

The UN Security Council is wasting no time in taking action and will meet on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the test.

A Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) soldier takes part in a drill to mobilise their Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missile unit in response to a recent missile launch by North Korea, at U.S. Air Force Yokota Air Base in Fussa on the outskirts of Tokyo, Japan, on Aug 29, 2017. Source: Reuters/Issei Kato

The US, South Korea and Japan have all condemned the North’s action and promised a tough response.

Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said on Tuesday he agreed with US President Donald Trump in telephone talks to increase pressure on North Korea.

Trump also said the US was “100 percent with Japan” and he showed a strong commitment to Tokyo’s defence, Abe told reporters.

South Korea’s Yonhap news agency reported top US and South Korean military officers had agreed to a strong response following the test, including possible unspecified military measures.

SEE ALSO: Trump brags about US nuclear arsenal after North Korea’s Guam threat

The chairmen of both countries’ Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed on a phone call “to take response measures at the earliest possible time that can demonstrate the alliance’s strong will including military measures,” Yonhap reported, quoting the South Korean military.

Four South Korean fighter jets bombed a military firing range on Tuesday after President Moon Jae-in asked the military to demonstrate capabilities to counter North Korea.

South Korea’s Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha also held a phone discussion with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to discuss tougher sanctions against Pyongyang.

Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called on China to do more to rein in North Korea’s weapons programme.

“China has to ratchet up the pressure,” Turnbull told an Australian radio.

---

“They have condemned these missiles tests like everyone else but with unique leverage comes unique responsibility.”

China is North Korea’s main ally and primary trading partner with an estimated 80 percent of the North’s trade being between the two.

China‘s Commerce Ministry late on Friday banned North Korean individuals and enterprises from doing new business in China, in line with UN Security Council sanctions passed earlier this month.

Beijing is yet to comment on Tuesday’s missile test.

Additional reporting by Reuters

 Top Trump Organization executive asked Putin aide for help on business deal

The Washington Post's Carol Leonnig and Tom Hamburger explain the Trump Organization's efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. (Jenny Starrs, Meg Kelly/The Washington Post)

 By Rosalind S. Helderman, Carol D. Leonnig and Tom Hamburger August 28 at 9:13 PM

A top executive from Donald Trump’s real estate company emailed Russian President Vladi­mir Putin’s personal spokesman during the U.S. presidential campaign last year to ask for help advancing a stalled Trump Tower development project in Moscow, according to documents submitted to Congress on Monday.

The request came in a mid-January 2016 email from Michael Cohen, one of Trump’s closest business advisers, who asked longtime Putin lieutenant Dmitry Peskov for assistance in reviving a deal that Cohen suggested was languishing.

“Over the past few months I have been working with a company based in Russia regarding the development of a Trump Tower-Moscow project in Moscow City,” Cohen wrote to Peskov, according to a person familiar with the email. “Without getting into lengthy specifics, the communication between our two sides has stalled.

“As this project is too important, I am hereby requesting your assistance. I respectfully request someone, preferably you, contact me so that I might discuss the specifics as well as arranging meetings with the appropriate individuals. I thank you in advance for your assistance and look forward to hearing from you soon,” Cohen wrote.

Cohen’s email marks the most direct outreach documented by a top Trump aide to a similarly senior member of Putin’s government.

Team Trump’s ties to Russian interests View Graphic

Cohen told congressional investigators in a statement Monday that he did not recall receiving a response from Peskov or having further contact with Russian government officials about the project. The email, addressed to Peskov, appeared to have been sent to a general Kremlin press account.

The note adds to the list of contacts between Trump associates and Russian officials that have been a focus of multiple congressional inquiries as well as an investigation led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III exploring Russian interference in the 2016 election. U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the Kremlin intervened to help elect Trump.

Cohen’s email to Peskov provides an example of a Trump business official directly seeking Kremlin assistance in advancing Trump’s business interests.

Cohen told congressional investigators that the deal was envisioned as a licensing project, in which Trump would have been paid for the use of his name by a Moscow-based developer called I.C. Expert Investment Co.

Cohen said that he discussed the deal three times with Trump and that Trump signed a letter of intent with the company on Oct. 28, 2015. He said the Trump company began to solicit designs from architects and discuss financing.

However, he said that the project was abandoned “for business reasons” when government permission was not secured and that the matter was “not related in any way to Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign.”

Cohen’s request to Peskov came as Trump was distinguishing himself on the campaign trail with his warm rhetoric about Putin.

Cohen said in his statement to Congress that he wrote the email at the recommendation of Felix Sater, a Russian American businessman who was serving as a broker on the deal.

In the statement, obtained by The Washington Post, Cohen said Sater suggested the outreach because a massive Trump development in Moscow would require Russian government approval.

White House special counsel Ty Cobb said Trump knew nothing about Cohen’s effort to enlist Pes­kov’s help.

“The mere fact that there was no apparent response suggests this is a non-collusion story,” he said.
Cohen has been one of Trump’s closest aides since 2007, serving as a business emissary, lawyer and sometimes spokesman for Trump. Friends said Trump has treated Cohen like a member of his family.

Cohen, who was executive vice president of the Trump Organization, did not have a formal role in Trump’s campaign. But he spoke with reporters as a defender of Trump and appeared on television as a surrogate for the candidate. He left the company shortly before Trump was inaugurated as president, and, since January, has served as one of Trump’s personal lawyers.

In a statement to The Post, Cohen described the potential Moscow project as “simply one of many development opportunities that the Trump Organization considered and ultimately rejected.”

“It should come as no surprise that, over four decades, the Trump Organization has received and reviewed countless real estate development opportunities, both domestic and international,” he added.

Cohen said he abandoned the project because he lost confidence that the Moscow developer would be able to obtain land, financing and government approvals. “It was a building proposal that did not succeed, and nothing more,” he said.

The Post reported Sunday that Cohen had been in negotiations with Sater and foreign investors to build a Trump Tower in the Russian capital from September 2015 through the end of January 2016, at the same time Trump was campaigning for president. Trump entered the race in June 2015, and by January 2016 he was leading in the polls for the Republican nomination.

Cohen told congressional investigators that Sater “constantly” pushed him to travel to Moscow as part of the negotiations, but that he declined to do so.

He said that Sater, who has attempted to broker Trump deals for more than a decade, was “prone to ‘salesmanship,’ ” and that, as a result, he did not routinely apprise others in the company about their interactions and never considered asking Trump to go to Moscow, as Sater had requested.

Sater said in a statement Monday that he brought the idea of the largest tower in Russia to Cohen, his longtime friend. Despite Sater’s enthusiasm for the plan, he said, the Trump Organization abandoned it.

“Michael Cohen was the only member of the Trump Organization who I communicated with on this project,” Sater said.

Over email, Sater bragged to Cohen that he could get Putin to assist with the project and that it would help Trump’s presidential campaign, according to correspondence submitted to congressional investigators.

“Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it,” Sater wrote in a November 2015 email. “I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.”
The Post on Sunday first reported on the existence of the emails, copies of which were published Monday by the New York Times.

In another email published by the Times, and confirmed by The Post, Sater described accompanying Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump on a 2006 trip to Moscow. “I arranged for Ivanka to sit in Putins private chair at his desk and office in the Kremlin,” Sater wrote.

Ivanka Trump said she had taken a “brief tour” of the Kremlin but did not recall sitting in Putin’s chair.

She added, “I was not part of Michael Cohen’s discussions surrounding a potential Trump project that he was evaluating in 2015 in Russia with the exception of recommending architects to consider as part of the routine design process for any potential deal.”

Donald Trump has tried to distance himself from Sater, a New York developer whose office was located in Trump Tower and who helped broker licensed Trump deals. Sater had served time in jail in the 1990s after a bar fight and pleaded guilty in 1998 to his role in Mafia-linked stock fraud. Federal officials have said he then cooperated on various national security and criminal investigations.
In writing to Peskov, Cohen was reaching out to a Kremlin official considered one of the main gatekeepers to Putin.

Peskov was appointed the head of the presidential press service in 2000, during Putin’s first term, and has served as a spokesman for Putin in various roles since, staying with Putin during his four years as prime minister. Because he regularly travels with and speaks to Putin, he is a target for lobbyists and petitioners trying to attract the Russian president’s attention.

“Aside from being the Kremlin’s mouthpiece, he’s definitely someone who is viewed as a senior lieutenant, an important oligarch in Putin’s power system,” said Steven L. Hall, who retired from the CIA in 2015 after 30 years of managing the agency’s Russia operations. “If you’re looking for someone who is close to Putin, Dmitry Peskov is as good as any of them.”

Asked for comment about the Trump Tower negotiations, Amanda Miller, a spokeswoman for the Trump Organization, emphasized Monday that Cohen did not pursue the deal beyond its initial stages. “After the signing of a non-binding letter of intent . . . it was not significantly advanced (i.e., there was no site, no financing, and no development),” she wrote in an email to The Post. “To be clear, the Trump Organization has never had any real estate holdings or interests in Russia.”

Still, Trump repeatedly tried for three decades to build in Russia. In 2013, he signed a preliminary agreement to build a tower in partnership with Aras Agalarov, a billionaire who had financed the Trump-owned Miss Universe pageant when it was held in Moscow in 2013. Agalarov told The Post last year that his company’s deal with Trump was on hold because of the presidential campaign.

A representative of Agalarov’s company attended a June 2016 meeting with top Trump aides and a Russian lawyer organized by Donald Trump Jr., after he was told that the lawyer would provide damaging information about Democratic rival Hillary Clinton provided by the Russian government.

Scott Balber, an attorney for Agalarov, said Agalarov and his company played no role in the 2015-16 Trump Tower proposal.

Andrew Roth in Moscow contributed to this report.

Top FTSE executive earns 2,500 times more than low-paid employees

• By Martin Williams-29 AUG 2017

The best paid FTSE 100 executive received more than 1,700 times the average UK wage last year, an analysis by FactCheck shows.

Sir Martin Sorrell, who runs the advertising and marketing giant WPP, earned more than £48m, including perks and pension.

Overall, the highest earning executives in each of the FTSE 100 firms were paid an average of more than £4.5m each.

That’s more than 160 times the UK average earnings – and 262 times the Living Wage.

Our analysis follows new plans by the government to tackle “excess in the boardroom”. The UK’s biggest corporations will be forced to say how much more their chief executives earn compared to their average employee.

The prime minister, Theresa May, said that a “small minority of executives narrowly put their own short-term interests first,” with pay rises that “far outstrip the company’s performance”.

The new transparency measures will give us a more detailed look at the wage gap of big corporations. But, in the mean time, we looked at existing data to build a picture of the issue.

Executives Vs. employees

We looked at the latest available financial accounts of every FTSE 100 company. Each firm lists the total earnings of its highest paid director.

This is usually made up of multiple components on top of their basic salaries, such as incentives, bonuses and pensions. So although pay packages may not be directly comparable, this figure gives us the overallamount they received.

The vast majority of these companies had at least one director who earned more than £1m. But many directors received far more.

Thirty of the companies paid more than £5m to at least one of their directors. And the top five executives earned £99m between them.

Although the accounts don’t give details on the average or lowest paid staff, we can compare the figures to UK averages, as well as the Living Wage and Minimum Wage.

Sir Martin Sorrell is not alone among FTSE executives to have earnings that eclipse typical wages in the UK.

Well known firms like BP, Unilever and the pharmaceutical firm Astrazeneca are among those with the highest paid directors. 
However, it is important to note that this is a comparison with median UK earnings, rather than a reflection of average earnings within each company. That data is not available.

Sir Martin Sorrell and WPP

Sir Martin’s total pay packet has totaled more than £200m over the last five years, but he has defended his earnings, saying it is “pay for performance”.

He said last year: “I’m not a Johnny-come-lately who picked a company up and turned it round. If it was one five-year plan and we buggered off, fine [to criticise my pay]. Over those 31 years … I have taken a significant degree of risk. [WPP] is where my wealth is. It is long effort over a long period of time.”

Company accounts do not appear to state the average salary of its staff, or how much its lowest paid employees are on. So it is difficult to compare Sorrell’s earnings to others with pinpoint accuracy.

However, WPP’s latest annual report says: “The vast majority of our people already earn significantly above the voluntary living wage rate. However, wage rates in our supply chain may be lower.

“It is our policy for WPP, the parent company, and all our UK companies, to pay the voluntary living wage set by the Living Wage Foundation to all employees and all on-site contractors such as cleaning, security and catering staff in the UK. Our policy is to only offer paid internships and apprenticeships.”

Many adverts for jobs at companies within the WPP empire do not state the salary, so it’s hard to say what the lowest paid employee is on.

However, we did find an advert for a graduate scheme with part of the business group.

The role, which is based in London, pays £19,012 gross per annum. That’s 2,533 times less than Sir Martin.

 

'Raped below a picture of Assad': Women describe abuse at hands of Syrian forces

Eight women have spoken for the first time about repeated rape, extreme sexual violence and brutal torture

Abier Farhud, a victim of torture and abuse in a Syrian prison. She is among seven survivors who have filed a criminal complaint in Germany against secret service officials of Assad's government (AFP)

Amandla Thomas-Johnson-Tuesday 29 August 2017

Ayda was first arrested by Syria’s elite Republic Guards at a check-point in Aleppo. She was taken to their local headquarters where, under a picture of Syria's president Bashar al-Assad, she was beaten, tied, and then raped.

She was taken to a hospital to treat the bleeding stemming from the rape, but after seven days and against the better advice of doctors, security forces brought her to a prison where she was locked in a cell with 20 other women.

Ayda endured three months of repeated rapes and a month of solitary confinement, where she shared a cell with a rotting corpse. She found a razor in the cell and tried to take her own life.

She was twice put onto the notorious "flying carpet" (a wooden plank to which the detainee is attached and then bent backwards) and was made to watch a group of young male detainees sexually abused with bottles. 

By the time she was released, her husband had left her and married someone else. Authorities then forced her to sign an undertaking to leave Syria and never return.

Ayda is one of eight women who have spoken about their treatment at the hands of Syrian authorities for the first time.

Read more ►

Bringing up baby in a Syrian jail: I covered his ears to block out the screams

Their stories were included in a new reportby the NGO Lawyers and Doctors for Human Rights (LDHR) and include horrific details of repeated rapes, extreme sexual violence and torture.

Their names have been changed to protect their and their family’s identities.

Commenting on the case, Toby Cadman, head of chambers at Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers, which is offering legal support to LDHR on the cases, told Middle East Eye: "It is regrettable that there is presently no international accountability mechanism; that will come. 

“Everyone is working together towards justice - and we know from history, justice and accountability comes, even if it takes time. Pushing for accountability and ending impunity is absolutely essential for a future democratic Syria based on the rule of law.”

The experiences - which have all taken place during the country’s civil war - have left the women with indelible psychological and physical scars and made them outcasts in their own communities.

“Without exception, these women are still haunted by the terror of detention. They have become withdrawn, fearful and anxious,” the report said.

Each of the women were medically evaluated by LDHR trained doctors. Medical experts then determined whether the findings were consistent with international standards of sexual violence and torture so that they could serve as evidence in court.

While in detention, the women “in some cases were treated no differently from men”, the report said but there was “no regards to their differing health and personal needs.”

“Against a background of forced nudity on arrival and the spectre of sexual harassment and insults in their cells, in bathrooms and in corridors, the women’s bodies were not their own,” it said.

'The women’s bodies were not their own'

Lawyers and Doctors for Human Right

“There are many cultural, societal barriers to discussing detention and what happens there, particularly for women. Unfortunately, instead of care and support, women who have been detained face stigma and shame in their communities.”

'Human slaughterhouse'

The report is the latest in a string of revelations about the inner workings of Syria’s depraved prisons to emerge in recent years.

Earlier this year, Amnesty International said that as many as 13,000 people had died from torture and starvation at Saydanya prison near Damascus which it described as a “human slaughterhouse”.

The US administration has claimed that the dead bodies at the prison have then been incinerated in a giant crematorium to hide the scale of the mass killing and abuse.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) estimated that as many as 45,000 opponents of the Assad government have been killed inside prisons alone.

However, justice for victims and their families remains elusive, human rights activists said.

Russia - Assad’s key backer - has vetoed proposals at the UN Security Council to set up a court similar to those for the Rwanda and Yugoslavian conflicts.

And Syria has yet to ratify the Rome Statute which allows for the International Criminal Court to prosecute core international crimes should the state not do so.

In February, lawyers for Madrid-based Guernica 37, representing the sister of a Syrian man alleged to have been tortured to death in a Damascus prison in 2013, launched a criminal complaint against nine members of the Syrian security forces in Spain’s national court.

The case was brought to light after a defector known as “Caesar” escaped from Syria in September 2013 with more than 50,000 photos documenting the deaths of more than 6,000 people.

The case is thought to be the first in a western court brought against Syrian authorities.

Read more ►

'State terrorism' complaint filed against Syrian officials in Spanish court

The case was made possible because the man’s sister is a Spanish citizen, and under international law, relatives of victims of crimes against humanity committed elsewhere are also considered victims.

Last month Spanish courts reversed an earlier decision to hear the case. Guernica 37 have appealed.

Cadman said that Guernica 37 was working on a number of investigations related to Syria and described the LDHR report as “highly credible and focuses on an issue of very real concern”.

“We will continue to work with Syrian civil society and human rights organisations to document these crimes and bring cases before national courts and to work with Syrian civil society to develop the institutional framework for Syria that will one day bear the greatest burden of holding the perpetrators accountable.”

Exclusive: Bloomberg charity scrutinised by India for anti-tobacco funding, lobbying

Michael Bloomberg speaks at a summit in Mexico City, December 1, 2016.

Aditya Kalra -AUGUST 29, 2017 

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India has been investigating how Bloomberg Philanthropies, founded by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, funds local non-profit groups for anti-tobacco lobbying, government documents show, making it the latest foreign non-government organisation to come under scrutiny.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has since 2014 tightened surveillance of non-profit groups, saying they were acting against India’s national interests. Thousands of foreign-funded charities’ licences have been cancelled for misreporting donations.

Critics, however, say the government has used the foreign funding law as a tool to silence non-profit groups which have raised concerns about the social costs of India’s rapid economic development.

The intelligence wing of India’s home ministry last year drafted a note on Bloomberg Philanthropies, raising concerns that the foundation was running a campaign to “target” Indian tobacco businesses and “aggressively” lobby against the sector.

Though the three-page note, reviewed by Reuters, said the Bloomberg initiative’s “claimed intention to free India of tobacco cannot be faulted” given the known risks from tobacco, it highlighted the sector’s importance, noting it brings in nearly $5 billion in annual revenue for governments, and provides a livelihood for millions of people.

“Foreign interests making foreign contributions ... for purposes of lobbying against an established economic activity raises multiple concerns,” the note said, including, it said, an “adverse economic impact” on 35 million people.

The June 3, 2016 note, marked “SECRET” and circulated to top government officials, including in Modi’s office, has not previously been reported. The probe continued until at least April this year, another government document showed.

Rebecca Carriero, a spokeswoman for Michael Bloomberg and New York-based Bloomberg Philanthropies, declined to comment as they were unaware of any investigation.

A home ministry spokesman said “queries which relate to security agencies cannot be answered.” Modi’s office did not respond to an email seeking comment.

The ministry’s note was one of the factors behind the rejection of a foreign funding licence renewal of at least one Bloomberg-funded India charity last October, said a senior government official aware of the investigation.

Michael Bloomberg, one of the world’s richest people and a former New York City Mayor, has committed nearly $1 billion to support global tobacco control efforts. One of his focus countries is India, where tobacco kills 900,000 people a year.

Other than funding Indian NGOs, Bloomberg’s charity has in the past worked on improving road safety and supported federal tobacco-control efforts. In 2015, Modi called Michael Bloomberg a “friend”, and the two agreed on working together on India’s ambitious plan to build so-called smart cities.

BIGGER WARNINGS, DIFFERENT VIEWS

The home ministry note said the Bloomberg charity successfully lobbied for the introduction of bigger health warnings on cigarette packs, “contrary” to the recommendations of a parliamentary panel.

While the panel called for the size of warnings to be more than doubled to 50 percent of a pack’s surface area, the health ministry sought a higher figure of 85 percent. Despite protests from India’s $10 billion cigarette industry, the Supreme Court last year ordered manufacturers to follow the more stringent health ministry rules.

That, the note said, was the first of the three-phase Bloomberg campaign targeting India’s tobacco industry. It did not explain how exactly the Bloomberg charity lobbied.

While the note mirrored some of India’s tobacco lobby’s positions - such as how anti-smoking policies could adversely impact farmers - the government official said the investigation was not done at the behest of the industry.

“Anti-tobacco lobby wants to kill revenue generating activities,” the official said.

A health ministry official, however, said: “We don’t see tobacco as an economic activity.” He added that the health ministry was unaware of the home ministry’s note on Bloomberg Philanthropies.

BROADER CRACKDOWN

India has stepped up scrutiny of NGOs registered under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).

In 2015, the home ministry put the Ford Foundation on a watch list and suspended Greenpeace India’s FCRA licence, drawing criticism from the United States.

Earlier this year, the government banned foreign funding for the Public Health Foundation of India, a group backed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, saying it used foreign donations to “lobby” for tobacco-control policy issues, “which is prohibited under FCRA.”

In the Bloomberg case, the home ministry note included a chart showing how funds flowed from Bloomberg Philanthropies to its partner, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which was then funding five local FCRA-registered NGOs. These NGOs, the note said, were being used by the Bloomberg charity for "anti-tobacco lobbying activities."

The FCRA licence of at least one of them - the Institute of Public Health (IPH) Bengaluru - was not renewed in October, in part due to the home ministry's note, the government official said.

The IPH said it was told by the home ministry that its licence was not being renewed on the basis of a "field agency report", but no details were given. It was unaware of the investigation on Bloomberg Philanthropies.

In April, the home ministry wrote to the health ministry, citing an "inquiry into foreign funding" for lobbying to change laws in India. The letter, seen by Reuters, mentioned the Bloomberg initiative and directed the health ministry to report on anti-tobacco lobbying by foreign donors in other countries where tobacco is widely used.

The health ministry has not yet sent that report, another government official said. The health ministry did not respond to questions.

Reporting by Aditya Kalra in NEW DELHI, with additional reporting by Duff Wilson in NEW YORK; Editing by Sanjeev Miglani and Ian Geoghegan

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Make medicines accessible for all

•  Everyone everywhere should have access to essential medicines

By Dr. Poonam Khetrapal Singh-Monday, 28 August 2017

Access to medicines is a critical factor to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being of all people of all ages. Medicines exist. But are often inaccessible for reasons beyondcontrol.

They may be too costly – purchasingthem may burden household finances, risking poverty or debt. They may be in short supply due to delivery issues in distribution channels, making continuity of treatment difficult. They may be of substandard quality – whenmedicines are falsified or poorly produced, they are not only ineffective, but also dangerous.

The sentinel role of countries for access to medicines has become more challenging than ever before, given the nature of the pathogens and reduction in time and space on travel. The rising concern of Non Communicable Diseases requiring life course management makes access to medicines key to good health and prosperity.

Ensuring all people everywhere can access essential medicines is one of WHO South-East Asia’s priority areas of work, and a key tool for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals agenda 2030 of health and wellbeing for all.

In recent years, many countries have made notable progress.Affordability of priority medicines has increased. Supply of priority medicines has become steadier. Flexibilities in global trade agreements have been leveraged to reduce prices in several countries; there are numerous regional examples of improved public sector purchasing.

The countries in the region have updated their Essential Medicines lists; supply chain management systems have improved to be more effective and reliable. And action by countries to improve quality of medicines has accelerated.Many countries have included health as top priority in national goals. We could do better.

Certain persisting inadequacies are yet to be addressed:Out-of-pocket spending – includingon essential medicines – remainshigh. Further, supply chains in some areas remain weak; countries lacking manufacturing capacity often cannot leverage competitive prices from suppliers.



Despite challenges, the region’s economic status is changing for the better, a positive sign that, however, will lead to reduced access to external financing for medicines and vaccines. This calls for self-reliance and collaboration by the countries in the region.

The South-East Asia region member countries, supported by WHO, launched South-East Asia Regulatory Network (SEARN) to enhance information sharing, collaboration and convergence of medical product regulatory practices across the region to guarantee access to high-quality medical products to their people.

There are three key areas of action by the countries for increasing access to essential medicines and accelerate progress towards health and wellbeing for all.

First, countries keep their Essential Medicines List (EML) and medicines policy current. By developing clear accountability systems for medicines selection and procurement, health authorities can harness opportunities for access to affordable medicines. Despite the rising antimicrobial resistance, purchasing and supply of antibiotics is seldom rationalised.

In amajor revision of the antibiotics section in the EML’s 40-year history, WHO experts have grouped them into Access, Watch and Reserve —three categories, with recommendations on when each category should be used. This is a good yardstick and starting point for antibiotic use.

Also, across the region, countries are yet to capitalise on the massive drop in price of a range of game-changing medicines – mostnotably for hepatitis C. This must change.

Second, guarantee quality and affordability of medicines. The role of the National Regulator needs to be redefined to that of a facilitator for quality production. This entails providing adequate technical assistance and handholding for achieving quality standards at the level of manufacturing as well.

Countries should continuewithtargeted quality control andtestingofmedicinesthatare sub-standard or falsified. From manufacture to sale, locally produced medicines should always meet international standards.

For affordability, main stress points are promoting competition, implementing a series of price control measures, encouraging doctors to prescribe generics to regulating wholesale and retail mark-ups.Developing pricing strategies linked to health insurance programs, especially where national schemes are in place, is equally important.

Further, countries can actively exploit flexibilities in global trade agreements when negotiating with medicines manufacturers. They can also bargain collectively to increase market buying power.The SEARN can help make regulation more efficient by developing the Region’s diverse capacities and strengths, with significant gains.

Third, generating high-quality information on access to essential medicines within the countries so that the problems may be better addressed. Knowing where and why people are facing shortage, where unsafe or ineffective medicines are being sold, is essential to developing lasting solutions.

From smartphone apps to household surveys, the array of tools at health authorities’ disposal is considerable. By using them effectively authorities can garner the information needed to make smart, high-impact interventions that drive life-changing gains.

Essential medicines should be accessible for all, to achieve universal health coverage. Supported by a clear vision, the dream of health equity and the Sustainable Development Goals of health and wellbeing for all are within reach. A healthier, more equitable and sustainable South-East Asia region can be ours.

(The writer is Regional Director, World Health Organization South-East Asia Region.)