Ruwanpura: RDA pushes ahead without EIA report

 Sep 17, 2017

The Road Development Authority (RDA) has started acquiring land for the US$ 1.8 billion (Rs. 275 billion) Ruwanpura Expressway even before a mandatory environmental impact assessment (EIA) and an economic feasibility study are completed, prompting Central Environment Authority (CEA) sources to denounce the process as ‘inside out’.

  Tens of families have been issued notices under the Land Acquisition Act’s controversial Section 38(a) which allows for immediate takeover of land on grounds of “urgency” with compensation to be paid in the unspecified future. It is not clear what the urgency is as neither the EIA nor feasibility study is ready. And there is still no budget to pay landowners for the properties they will forfeit.

The RDA has already advanced Rs 314 million to a consultancy firm for the feasibility study which was initially given out for 32 weeks but is still not final, details obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act revealed. The job was assigned more than two years ago, in November 2014, to Maga Neguma Consultancy and Project Management Services (Pvt) Ltd which subcontracted it to Skills International. A penalty was not imposed for the delay. The agreement was merely extended.

Meanwhile, the EIA–which is crucial as the expressway will traverse environmentally sensitive areas–is yet to be presented to the public for comment. “We have to see it first to gauge whether it is suitable enough to open out for public comment,” a CEA official said, on condition of anonymity. Several areas along the proposed trace, running 73.9km from Kahathuduwa to Pelmadulla via Horana, are prone to disaster.

Eighteen percent of land acquisition is now finished in the 26.3km stretch from Kahathuduwa to Ingiriya while 40 percent of preliminary design work is also done. “The RDA is violating every step in the book in its rush to push this through,” the official pointed out. “What will they do if the EIA is rejected or there is a call for the trace to be changed? Or if the feasibility study deems the project to be economically unviable?”

The Auditor General’s Department has also queried the process, the Sunday Times learns. Civil works contractors have not yet been selected. It has not been decided whether to request proposals from a nominated contractor for the first section or to go for a Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) option, project officers said in response to the RTI application.

However, a Cabinet memorandum dated August 2016, obtained under RTI, states that the Cabinet Committee on Economic Management (CCEM) decided in July last year that the project should be divided into four sections. “…and technical and civil works of each section of the Expressway should be invited from one of the four companies identified for that particular section which were recommended by the Chinese Government,” it states.

This is no different to the much-vilified unsolicited proposals process that was followed by the previous administration which led to allegations of cost inflation and corruption. The Cabinet memorandum clearly states that the “single proposal” option will be chosen, in violation of a declared Government policy of open, transparent bidding.

The memo reveals that the first section from Kahathuduwa to Ingiriya was to be parcelled out to China National Technical Import & Export Corporation; the second 21km section from Ingiriya to Kahengama to China National Aero-Technology International Engineering Corporation; the 12.7km stretch from Kahengama to Bela to Hunan Construction Engineering Group Corporation; and the final 13.9km section from Bela to Pelmadulla to China Harbour Engineering Corporation.

Meanwhile, the National Physical Planning Department (NPPD) of the Ministry of Megapolis and Western Development has already voiced strong concern about the expressway saying it cuts through “central fragile areas” that are crucial to conservation of the country’s water sources. It previously sent letters to this effect to the RDA, CEA and others.

The Draft National Physical Plan– expected to be approved by the National Physical Planning Council headed by President Maithripala Sirisena next month–questions the requirement for both the Ruwanpura and Central Expressways. It strongly flags the sensitivities and fragile nature of these areas.

“If one wants to develop more than that, we will have to forget the beauty, salubrity and heritage and increase carrying capacities, investing huge sums on artificial infrastructure,” said Jagath Nandana Munasinghe, NPPD Director General. “This is the same in Ratnapura and the fragile area of the Sabaragamuwa province.”

The NPPD has pointed out that four urban metro regions–other than the Western Megapolis–are proposed to be developed in Trincomalee-Polonnaruwa-Dambulla; Jaffna-Kilinochchi; Hambantota; and Batticaloa-Ampara. This will attract a major share of the country’s future population.

“Such attraction will result in depopulation trends in the study region within the next 30 years, and thereby cause a decrease in travel demand within the study area,” it states, referring to the regions the Ruwanpura Expressway will cut across. “The growth factors used in the feasibility study to forecast travel demand could have considered such trends.”

Instead of expressways, Dr Munasinghe said, the NPP promotes railway improvements between Colombo and Kandy and Colombo and Hambantota via Ratnapura. “That is less costly, environment friendly and therefore more feasible,” he pointed out.
http://www.sundaytimes.lk

DEFENCE BUDGET TOPS THE LIST; HOW SRI LANKA WANTS TO SPEND ITS MONEY NEXT YEAR.

17/09/2017

Despite the end of the separatist war, defence expenditure continues to draw the highest allocation of funds in successive budgets.

The Appropriation Bill, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers and due to be presented in Parliament next week by Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera, records a commitment of Rs 260,711,375,000 as recurrent expenditure for the Ministry of Defence. The capital expenditure, however, is at Rs 30 billion.

The higher commitments are the result of Sri Lanka’s security apparatus expanding with the addition of new institutions over the years and the resultant updating of equipment. Yet, the sum is lower than the Rs 284 billion allocated in the previous years. In the Appropriation Bill for 2017 presented by then Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake, an allocation of Rs 1,819 billion (Rs. 1.8 trillion) was the estimated expenditure requirements. Of this amount Rs 1,208 billion was the total recurrent expenditure while the total capital expenditure was Rs 610 billion.

The Appropriation Bill is a piece of legislation in Parliament seeking authorisation for the Government to spend money. It sets aside money for specific spending.

Of the amount allocated for the Minister of Defence (a portfolio held by the President), a sum of Rs 4,973,062,200 (Rs. 4.9 billion) as recurrent expenditure for “Operational Activities” and a further Rs 4,789,167,000 for “Development Activities” as capital expenditure. Here is a breakdown of allocations for the armed forces:

Operational Activities – Sri Lanka Army – Recurrent Expenditure Rs 149,536,395,000. Capital Expenditure Rs 6,987,328,000.

Operational Activities – Sri Lanka Navy – Recurrent Expenditure Rs 50,368,948,000. Capital Expenditure Rs 7,108,621,000.

Operational Activities – Sri Lanka Air Force – Recurrent Expenditure Rs 36,512,600,000. Capital Expenditure Rs 6,687,837,000.

Operational Activities – Department of Civil Security – Recurrent Expenditure Rs 17,268,120,000. Capital Expenditure Rs 315 million.

Operational Activities – Department of Sri Lanka Coast Guard – Recurrent Expenditure Rs 38,250,000. Capital Expenditure Rs 53,200,000.

The second highest allocation is to the Ministry of Finance and Mass Media. The Recurrent Expenditure is Rs 196,517,853,000 and Capital Expenditure Rs 37,054,235,000. Other higher allocations include:

The Ministry of Health,Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine – Recurrent Expenditure Rs 134,399,998,000. Capital Expenditure Rs 44 billion.

The Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation – Recurrent Expenditure Rs 118,176,198,000. Capital Expenditure Rs 14,867,350,000.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Recurrent Expenditure Rs 9,956,950,000. Capital Expenditure Rs 14,867,350,000.

The Ministry of Higher Education – Recurrent Expenditure Rs 32,757,000,000. Capital Expenditure Rs 150 billion.

The Appropriation Bill for the Financial Year 2018 makes provisions for expenditure estimated as Rs 1,997,264 million. It consists of Rs 1,308,939 million for recurrent expenditure and Rs 668,324 million for capital expenditure.

In addition, Minister Samaraweera has said, provisions have been made under special laws to service public debt and payment of Widows and Orphan Pension etc, amounting to Rs 2,005,103 million.

The provision requirement for Advance Account Activities is Rs 6,000 million. “Hence, the total expenditure provision for 2018 without budget proposals to be introduced at the Second Reading of the budget is estimated at Rs 3,982,367 million. The revenue at the prevailing rate structure and foreign grants has been estimated to be around Rs 2,175,000 million. Therefore, the total borrowing requirement from both foreign and domestic sources will be Rs 1,813,367 million,” Minister Samaraweera has added.

(Excerpts  courtesy of The Sunday Times)

Another Eyewitness Speaks Out On The Welikada Prison Riot

Sahan Sri is in the picture

by Ashanthi Warunasuirya-2017-09-17

As the authorities continue investigations into the Welikada prison massacre, more eyewitnesses have come forward to reveal information about the incident.

Hewadalugodage Sahan Sri, an eyewitness to the incident who has since fled the country, spoke to The Sunday Leader on what he saw. He had been arrested in 2007 under the terrorism prevention act and had served eight years behind bars and was eventually released being cleared of all charges.

The Welikada prison consists of ward no. 1 which is the Chapel, ward 2 is the kitchen, 3 is the temple ward, 4 Chaminda ward, 5 L hall, 6 K ward, 7 M ward, 8 J ward Hindu Kovil, 9, J01/ J02, 10 work concession ward, 11 church ward, 12 R ward, 13 Wijaya Kumaratunge ward, 14 H ward, 15 Christian church.

Sahan Sri said that on November 09, 2012 around 1 pm although the prisoners were aware that the security forces were outside the prison gates, they were under the impression that it was for a routine inspection of the prison premises. According to the law, even the prison guards cannot enter the prison with weapons. Hence, when the security forces were trying to enter the prison premises carrying their weapons, the guard at the gate had protested. The security guard had in fact noted this incident in his log book. However, upon being notified that they were there on the orders of high ranking defence ministry officials, no one could oppose their actions beyond that. However, according to international laws that we are party to, this was a violation of the rights of prisoners and as the prison inmates were aware of this law, they argued with the prison officials and this turned into a heated argument.  In fact it is a mystery why such an incident took place when in fact the prison was calm and eventless that day.

However, around 2 pm, the armed security forces entered the prison premises and with the assistance of the Prison Police, they first headed to the L ward where the prisoners were being housed. They had put plastic handcuffs on the 400 prisoners there, sent them out of the ward and commenced a search operation claiming to be looking for mobile phones and drugs. From there they went to the Chapel ward. In fact the security forces had searched the prisoners belongings in a manner that most of these belongings could not be used again. From there they headed to the A ward which is one of the four wards where special prisoners were being housed. When they were trying to put the plastic handcuffs on the prisoners, they had protested. The argument turned violent and the security forces had assaulted several of the prisoners. At that point a death row prisoner named Malan had attacked a police intelligence officer. Eventually he was among the 27 prisoners that were killed that day.

The prisoners in wards B3, CB, D3 wards of the Chapel building which housed special prisoners, had protested against the brutal manner in which the security forces had attacked their fellow prison mates. Then the security officers had put the prisoners of ward AB back in, locked their doors and fired tear gas to wards AB and several other wards. The prisoners of the lower floor of the Chapel ward had screamed at the top of their voices, demanding that the doors be opened. Seeing the manner in which the security forces were behaving even the prisoners on kitchen duty and other office work and light duties such as sweeping etc, had begun hooting and attacking the security forces personnel with rocks and stones. Even the prisoners of the Bingo ward had broken the locks in their section and come towards the Chapel ward to assist their fellow prisoners. The prisoners were so distraught at the manner in which the security forces were attacking them that they had even taken the bricks that were brought for building construction and began fiercely attacking the security forces. The prisoners too had turned violent by this point.

By 4 pm the security forces had retreated and then began attacking the prisoners with tear gas from outside, for about 1 ½ hours. The Prisons Commissioner too had tried to get the security forces to stop the tear gas attack but had failed and he too had eventually fainted in his office. Many of the prisoners too had taken ill due to the relentless tear gas attacks by the security forces. At that moment when the prison Commissioner did not know what to do, Sahan Sri, Nandimal and several other prisoners had carried the commissioner and put him on a table in the kitchen and allowed him to talk to the prisoners. Speaking to the prisoners, the commissioner had promised justice and urged the prisoners to assist in bringing this situation under control. With the help of the prisoners the commissioner had managed to get out of the prison but even after 20 minutes after he went out, the firing of tear gas had not stopped. Some of the prisoners had climbed the roof of the prisons and had protested against the tear gas attack while another group of prisoners had made holes in the weapons store through the visiting area and obtained several weapons, but they did not have the ammunition for the weapons. Hence the prisoners had obtained T56 rifles and repeater rifles.

Meanwhile as if to offer relief to the prisoners that were suffering due to the tear gas, it began raining and with that the tear gas subsided, but was repeated sporadically. However, by 6 pm the firing of tear gas had stopped and was replaced by  the firing of weapons. By then the prisoners had not harmed the jailors and guards at the ammunition store. The injured prisoners were being brought out of the prison premises and as the prisoners had not had any food or water since that morning, disregarding the firing of the security forces, some of the prisoners had broken into the cafeteria outside the prison and had taken drinks and food for the prisoners inside. They had also brought into the prison a motorcycle and  a three wheeler parked near the cafeteria. Initially the injured were also brought out of the prison in this trishaw and proof of it is that the person who worked at the medicine section of the prison, a resident of Yakkalamulla, Galle was also in the trishaw.

However,  what was reported was that a group of prisoners who had attempted to escape in a three wheeler were shot. The prisoner from Galle who was killed in the trishaw had only a month to complete his sentence and he had also had the facility of visiting his home once in six months. According to Sahan, he had absolutely no reason to want to escape. He also confirmed that the prisoners in the three wheeler were not trying to escape and that they had also not fired at the security forces. Had they fired from the three wheeler, then the police could have easily proved it by examining the three wheeler. By 8 pm, the prisoners sharted shooting into the air with the weapons they had acquired and beyond the prison gates. Some of the other prisoners had also broken into the prison dispensary and helped themselves to the various drugs stored there, these were addicts. They were in prison for drug related cases and considering their backgrounds and level of education and family backgrounds, one cannot expect them to have behaved any better. The prisoners had also used their mobiles to notify the BBC and others outside of what was going on inside the prison perhaps with the intention of safeguarding their fellow prisoners who were under attack and also the political prisoners.

By 10 pm on the promise that no security forces member enters the prison premises, and having notified the Commissioner by phone what these prisoners demands were, they had taken measures to hand over their weapons to the Chief Jailor named Kuda Bandara. Kalu Thushara, whom we spoke about earlier, had assisted the Chief Jailor to gather the weapons that were in the possession of the prisoners. By 11 pm all the weapons in the possession of the prisoners were handed over to Kuda Bandara After the assurance of the Commissioner that the prisoners safety would be guaranteed, the prisoners once again got wind that the security forces were planning on raiding the prison premises later that night. Then by 11.45 another barrage of bullets were fired into the prison by the security forces demanding that the prisoners hand over any remnant weapons. However, by this time the prisoners did not have any weapons in their possession as they had handed everything to Chief Jailor Kuda Bandara. When the military and the STF barged into the prison, Kuda Bandara had tried to safeguard the prisoners, Sahan noted, that it was then that the most unfortunate incidents began to take place.

November 10, 2002 was a tragic day for Welikada and 2 am was the cursed hour that determined the fate of many prisoners and has created so much carnage and trauma. Around 2 am on that fateful day, the firing ceased and military personnel, prison guards and plain clothes officers entered the prison and they were calling out the names of certain prisoners and gathering them one by one. First they called out, “where is the fellow who killed the Buddhist monk in Kotte?” Then one of the inmates said he was in the M ward. Then the names, Potta Naufer, Pinwatte Ukkuwa, Ratmalane Rohana, Kapila, a Major involved in the killing of Parami Kulatunge and they had asked who else is in prison in connection with LTTE cases. Sahan Sri and several others had known that the security forces were assaulting and dragging away Kapila and Malan, from their voices, as they could not see in the dark. They were begging and screaming, pleading that the security personnel do not assault them. Then they had heard the sound of gun shots from the direction of the M ward. They then got word that Manjula, Ponna Kapila and Malan had been shot and killed. The prisoners of the M ward had told them the next day that the prisoners who were shot by the security personnel had been moaning and groaning for a long time asking for water, prior to their horrible death.

The security personnel had demanded that the prisoners show them where Kalu Thushara was hiding, but at the time, he was hiding under the table that Sahan Sri and Nandimal were sitting on, but no one had given him up. Somehow they eventually located him and when they were dragging him away, he was pleading of them not to kill him as he had a little child. However, his pleas would not touch the hearts of those who had been assigned to take him out. You would perhaps remember our previous report when we spoke to the family members of Kalu Thushara and they did mention two of the police officers by name, who they said were responsible for his murder. At around 6 am, they had killed the disciple of Wele Suda, Konda Amila. However, two names have come up constantly in these murders and that is of the two CID officers, Emil Ranjan and Rangajeewa. However, they are still free and despite their names being mentioned quite a number of times in most of these incidents, no action has been taken against them. It is puzzling to note that these officers have so far not even been questioned. Even eye witness Sahan clearly notes the names of these two officers. By the time the details of the dead were noted by the prison officials it was about 9.30 the next morning. Anura Senanayake was heading that team. The photographs taken of the murdered prisoners shows the weapons that were handed over the previous night to the Chief Jailor. However, pictures released to the internet the previous night by a prison guard, did not show these weapons. Sahan Sri claims that the intelligence officers had threatened the guard named Madusanka and ordered him not to reveal any of the details of that night, and he claims he has evidence of it.

After the dreadful incident, the CID had come and taken statements from the inmates and when Sahan was giving his statement, one of the officers had told him, if he ever wanted to go home, he should corporate with them and give his statement according to their requirement. “The officials even refused to give me the documents I was supposed to receive and I eventually obtained them with the greatest difficulty. After the new government came to power in 2015, I tried to give evidence before the commission that was appointed to investigate this incident, but the brutal conspirators said on a certain radio programme that we were all Tigers and criminals. Sahan had lodged a complaint with the police against the statement made branding them criminals and terrorists and also regarding his concerns on the safety of his life. Yet he received no response. Sahan has thus refrained from testifying as he was an eye witness, as he still has no faith in this government either. Yet it was at this point that we happened to meet him and he said, under the right circumstances and when he can be assured of his safety, he would be willing to testify.

Arundika joins JO

2017-09-17 

Removed deputy minister of Tourism Promotion and Christian Affairs Arundika Fernando today officially announced that he joined with the Joint Opposition and said that he would work towards to topple the present government.

While addressing his inaugural JO press conference at the Vajirashrama Temple, Punchi Borella today , he said he would do what ever it takes to change the government being as an opposition member.

He said that he would make a written request on Tuesday (19) to the speaker of the House Karu Jayasuriya to allow him to be seated at the opposition side.

“I don’t expect to hold ministerial portfolio in the present government again. I was removed as I was ready to vote against the 20th Amendment. ” he said.

Also he revealed that some United National Party (UNP) backbench MPs and some Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) members are also to join with the joint opposition in future.

Meanwhile, Former state minister of Local Government and Provincial Councils Piyankara Jayaratne who resigned from his portfolio on December 2016 and represented as an independent parliamentarian  has also followed the MP Fernando’s move and joined with the Joint Opposition today. (Thilanka Kanakarathna)

Ruwanpura: RDA pushes ahead without EIA report

 Sep 17, 2017

Re-exporters of areca-nut are in difficulties due to a baseless order by the Sri Lanka Customs, reports say. A considerable, additional foreign exchange was earned through this business for the past few years.

Last year, the ministerial committee on economic management took certain decisions due to a possibility of this business falling into the hands of racketeers and after identifying the barriers. The cabinet has approved the banning of illegal importation of areca-nut, imposing a fine and the forefeiture of such stocks and permitted only the value-added exportation.

However, the Customs has not allowed the importations as per this approval. When asked about it, it says the ban continues on an order from the top, and refuses to identify from whom the order came. Due to the cabinet approval, businessmen have by now opened letters of credit for around Rs. 750 million to 800 million.

Attempts to reach the Customs failed.

In 2015, areca-nut worth around Rs. 1,000 m was re-exported. In 2016, it declined to half that amount, and this year, not re-exportation at all has taken place.

Kashyapa Kotelawala

Why did UN participate in Israeli conference with Nazi sympathizer?


NIckolay Mladenov

Maureen Clare Murphy- 14 September 2017

What was the UN’s special coordinator for the Middle East peace process doing at an Israeli counterterrorism conference in the company of genocide advocates and right-wing ideologues who view the world as a conflict between Judeo-Christian civilization and its enemies?

Nickolay Mladenov’s very presence at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism’s annual conference in Herzliya, as well as his remarks as a keynote speaker, are troubling.

During an improvised bit before delivering his prepared remarks, Mladenov stated that in the future, Europe, like Israel, will increasingly debate “the balance between individual human rights and security, between the state and the individual, and between what one can and one should do, and what one can and shouldn’t do, under the laws of the state and international law in fighting terror.”

That rights aren’t non-negotiable, but something to be “balanced,” is a strange notion for a senior UN official to suggest.

Mladenov’s speech was delivered in the presence of Israel’s justice minister, Ayelet Shaked, who once promoted a genocidal call for the slaughter of Palestinian mothers “who give birth to little snakes.”

She shared that call on her Facebook page just before Israel’s assault on Gaza in 2014 that left more than one in every 1,000 Palestinians there dead.

Individual rights vs. Zionism

Shaked has more recently decried the very judicial system over which she presides for what she says is its deference to individual rights at the expense of Zionism, Israel’s state ideology.

“Zionism should not continue, and I say here, it will not continue to bow down to the system of individual rights interpreted in a universal way that divorces them from the history of the Knesset [Israel’s parliament] and the history of legislation that we all know,” Shaked declared.

She described Israel’s so-called “nation-state bill” – which compels Israel’s highest court to favor the “Jewish character” of the state over its “democratic” one – as a “moral and political revolution.”

It was in the presence of ethnocratic hardliners like Shaked who reject the concept universal rights that Mladenov stated that “standing up firmly to terror must be an integral part of any peace process,” and that “We need to stand up against terror whenever and wherever it takes place.”

One of Mladenov’s co-speakers at the conference was Gilad Erdan, Israel’s strategic affairs minister who oversees a “black ops” program to combat the nonviolent boycott, divestment and sanctions movement (BDS) in support of Palestinian rights.

Those operations, according to a veteran Israeli analyst, may involve “defamation campaigns, harassment and threats to the lives of activists” as well as “infringing on and violating their privacy.”

Threats against human rights defender

Erdan has vowed that BDS activists “will know they will pay a price for it,” openly threatening Palestinian human rights defender and BDS movement co-founder Omar Barghouti.

Erdan has also declared that “every terrorist should know that he will not survive the attack he is about to perpetrate,” a shoot-to-kill policy applied to scores of alleged Palestinian assailants, including children, which amounts to a de facto death sentence – despite the ban on capital punishment in Israel.

Does Mladenov agree with Israel’s policy that the “balance” between individual rights and security necessitates a compromise to an individual’s very right to life?

In any case, Mladenov seems to think that Palestinians don’t have the right to self-defense or resistance.

During his speech he boasted of the report issued last year by the so-called Quartet for Middle East Peace (the UN, EU, US and Russia) which identified “militant build-up” by Palestinian groups and – in Mladenov’s words – “what is happening in Gaza” – as an obstacle to peace.

His comments echo the position taken by his colleague Robert Piper, the UN’s chief humanitarian coordinator in Palestine.

Piper’s office issued a report this year signaling the world body’s alignment with Israel and its international backers in pushing for Gaza’s total surrender.

That report deems Hamas’ rule there illegitimate – despite the party’s victory in the most recently held Palestinian legislative elections – because of its refusal to comply with the Quartet’s demand that it “recognize Israel’s right to exist and renounce violence.”

No such demand is made on Israel to renounce violence and recognize Palestinians’ right to exist.

Resistance to state terror

Mladenov told the conference in Herzliya that Israel has “lived with terror for decades,” but did not acknowledge that the state itself was founded on terror and ethnic cleansing.

Nor did he acknowledge that Palestinians, like any other occupied people, have the right to self-defense – a right upheld by international law.

But counterterrorism is the paradigm by which states like the US and Israel – using massive and indiscriminate violence against civilians for which they are never held accountable – to advance their own hegemonic interests.

An unending, belligerent military occupation also allows Israel to market its “counterterror” expertise and weaponry as “battle-tested” – on the bodies of Palestinians.

Counterterrorism is the saw-toothed edge of “Brand Israel” and the UN has seemingly bought into it.
During his speech, Mladenov mentioned that the UN secretary-general, Antonio Guterres, has newly established an office for counterterrorism – an effort that has entailed “extensive discussions” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and figures in the Israeli military.

Mladenov did pay lip service to the need for a political horizon that maintains hope of a better future in the Middle East.

“Human sacrifices”

He did not evoke a clash of civilizations like David Friedman, the bankruptcy lawyer and settlement financierserving as Trump’s envoy to Israel.

Friedman repeatedly referred to “radical Islamic terrorists” during his speech at the conference.
Friedman, who, like Mladenov, delivered his remarks on the anniversary of the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US, stated:

“We know that Israelis share not only our grief in the face of terrorism but also our determination to strike at radical Islamic terrorists wherever they are and to make sure that the tactics of radical Islamic terrorists never become political successes.”

He read off a list of attacks waged by Palestinians against Israelis, and condolence calls he recently made to the families of Israelis killed by Palestinian assailants, including two police officers who he said were slain by “radical Islamic terrorists” – conflating Palestinians resisting Israel’s military occupation with Islamic State fighters in Syria.

Friedman insisted that Israelis were not the only ones in the region suffering from terrorism, but he did not mean Palestinians killed by Israeli occupation forces.

Channeling the debunked talking point that Palestinian schools teach “incitement,” Friedman stated: “Palestinian kids taught to hate Jews instead of being taught math and science are the human sacrifices in the cause of radical extremism.”

Never mind that Israeli forces killed nearly three dozen Palestinian children in 2016 – making it the deadliest year for Palestinian children in the West Bank in more than a decade – and killed children in their Gaza homes by the dozens in the summer of 2014.

Most media attention around the counterterrorism conference in Herzliya concerned the participation of Sebastian Gorka, the recently ousted adviser to Donald Trump and pseudo intellectual with ties to Nazi and violent anti-Semitic groups in Europe.

Gorka enjoyed a warm reception as he assured an appreciative audience that “America and Israel are founding members of the Judeo-Christian civilization and together we will defeat our common enemies.”

What business does a UN peace envoy have in such company?

It’s Time For a New Syria Peace Process

BY LISA ROMAN, ALEXANDER BICK-SEPTEMBER 15, 2017

The United States appears to have given up on finding a comprehensive political settlement to Syria’s civil war. The topic has not been on the agenda for recent U.S.-Russian talks on Syria, which instead have focused on deescalating violence on the ground, and U.S. officials privately admit that they prefer to invest their efforts in projects with a higher chance of success — brokering limited ceasefire agreements, deconflicting counterterrorism operations, and shoring up America’s most important Syrian partner, the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

This approach is broadly consistent with Syria policy in the last two years of the Obama administration, with one critical difference: By publicly declaring that the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is no longer a priorityfor the United States, the Trump administration has tacitly accepted that Assad is here to stay. What it has not done is offer a vision for reconstituting the Syrian body politic with him in place.

That leaves unaddressed a number of questions that have important implications for the United States and its regional partners. Assad may have defeated the bulk of the mainstream opposition, but the country itself is fragmented into multiple, semiautonomous parts that will continue to defy central authority. How will these parts be reintegrated? Will foreign troops, including from Iran, remain in Syria indefinitely? Will refugees who wish to return be permitted to do so? Is the government willing to make concessions and provide assurances sufficient to convince multilateral institutions, such as the World Bank, to contribute to national reconstruction and development?

Resolving these questions is essential if we are to avoid a renewed escalation of violence, prevent Syria’s partition, and restore regional stability. And it will require a political process that the Syrian government is both unwilling and unable to credibly lead on its own.

Yet, the Trump administration continues to publicly back the moribund Geneva peace process. In early October, representatives from the Syrian opposition and the Syrian government will return to Geneva for another round of U.N.-mediated talks. Those talks are unlikely to make substantive progress, and everyone knows it — not only because of the wide divergence between the parties’ respective agendas, but because the process itself is deeply flawed. It’s time to replace Geneva with a more inclusive set of negotiations that better reflects reality on the ground.

The flawed logic of the Geneva Communiqué

Composed in the wake of former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s failed six-point peace plan, the Geneva Communiqué was signed by nine countries and the secretaries-general of the U.N. and the Arab League on June 30, 2012. It aimed to stop the escalating cycle of violence and establish an agreed framework for negotiations to reach a comprehensive political settlement. In practice, this meant trying to narrow the gap between Russia’s call for dialogue with the Syrian government and the desire of the United States and others to see a negotiated transfer of power to a transitional governing body with full executive authority, composed of representatives of the government and opposition.

The awkward compromise between these positions is reflected in the stipulation that agreement on the form and composition of a transitional government would be “by mutual consent,” a clause that facilitated adoption of the communiqué, but at the expense of granting each side an effective veto. The communiqué was otherwise silent on the fate of Assad. Whereas, until recently, the United States insisted that “mutual consent” was impossible without his departure, Russia has maintained publicly from the beginning of the conflict that Assad’s fate is a matter for Syrians to decide, even while repeatedly offering private assurances that Moscow “was not wedded to Assad.”

The communiqué did not prescribe a specific structure for the negotiations themselves. During a series of trilateral meetings between the United States, Russia, and the U.N. in the second half of 2013, the participants agreed that negotiations would be between two parties: the Syrian government and a representative delegation from the opposition. The logic was relatively simple: As the two most influential external actors involved in the conflict, the United States and Russia were responsible both for pressing their respective clients towards compromise and for bringing along their respective regional partners — Iran, in the case of Russia; the Gulf States and Turkey, in the case of the United States.

This approach has not worked. Despite the dogged and admirable efforts of the two U.N. envoys responsible for facilitating the Geneva process, Lakhdar Brahimi and Staffan de Mistura, as well as U.N. Security Council backing, negotiations were stillborn. The communiqué offered important principles to guide a transition, and the first round of talks in February 2014 helped to establish the political opposition’s legitimacy. But Assad was never likely to engage seriously in negotiations that could lead to his removal, and Russia did little to compel its client. Led by its pugnacious U.N. permanent representative, Bashar al-Jaafari, the government delegation maintained a posture of stubborn intransigence throughout successive rounds of talks.

While the opposition insisted on discussing a political transition, the government insisted on discussing terrorism — a broad label it applied to any group opposed to its rule. Meanwhile, the opposition consistently struggled to reconcile the competing interests of its various patrons and to assemble a unified delegation that could credibly represent the interests of the more than a thousand armed groups operating in Syria.

Instead of encouraging compromise, the Geneva process incentivized escalation by external patrons on both sides who sought military advantage on the ground in order to improve the standing of their respective clients at the negotiating table. Many argue that President Barack Obama — who sought to avoid the consequences of a disorderly transition or collapse of central authority akin to the experience of the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya — was never prepared to provide the support necessary to test Assad’s resolve. But the underlying logic of this criticism is empirically suspect.

In fact, major shifts in the balance of power on the ground never led the weaker party to meaningfully alter its negotiating position. Quite the contrary — when the Syrian military was on its heels in early 2013, Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah came to its defense; likewise, advances by opposition groups in the spring of 2015 precipitated a Russian invasion to prop us Assad.

In retrospect, Geneva’s binary, adversarial structure was ill-suited to resolving the Syria conflict — and has only become more so as the battlefield has changed.

The problem with the status quo

Critics of the Geneva process argue that we’re better with it than we are without it. If a comprehensive political solution is beyond reach, many Syrians believe Geneva still offers an important forum in which small, tactical progress may be possible, and it serves as a procedural vessel for a future deal in the event of a change in military or diplomatic circumstances. By virtue of its international legitimacy, Geneva’s continued existence also acts as a counterweight to Russian-led talks in Astana, Kazakhstan.

These arguments make a compelling case that a U.N.-led process for Syria is still needed. But they overlook the costs of maintaining the status quo. First, by limiting talks to the government and opposition, the Geneva process continues to empower the most hardline elements of the conflict, at the expense of a broad swath of Syrian society that has long called for an end to violence. Second, by indulging in what amount to Potemkin negotiations, the United States and its allies are ceding the political field to Assad, and squandering the little leverage they still possess to press the Syrian government to accept the basic political reforms necessary to begin reunifying the country.

Some analysts do believe Syria simply cannot be reunified under Assad. That may be correct, but a diplomatic strategy based solely on biding our time is extremely unlikely to result in Assad’s removal and almost certain to accelerate the centrifugal forces that are already resulting in Syria’s de facto partition.

Designing a more inclusive process than Geneva won’t be easy. At various points over the past three years, Russia has proposed expanding participation in the Geneva talks, but this was motivated less by a genuine commitment to the principle of inclusion than by a cynical desire to undermine the coherence of the opposition delegation.

Part of the problem also lies with us. Despite lobbying from various Syrian groups that do not consider themselves to be either on one side or the other — including not only civil society, women, and business leaders, but also the increasingly powerful Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), the dominant group within the SDF — the United States has long refused to expand the Geneva format. Unless the demands of the hardline elements in the opposition were addressed, it was argued, the fighting would continue, even if agreement was reached. And, while important to an eventual political solution, the PYD was (and remains) unacceptable to our ally Turkey, which views the group as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a designated terrorist organization.

Today, the SDF is arguably the second strongest military force on the ground, after the Syrian government and government-aligned militias. It has been the United States’ most effective counterterrorism partner in Syria, controls large swaths of territory, and poses the clearest challenge to the Syrian regime’s publicly stated aspirations to reassert control over the entirety of Syrian territory. For these reasons alone, the SDF deserves a voice in any political process. Including the SDF also could make it harder for the group to reach a separate settlement with Damascus, an outcome that could complicate U.S. counterterrorism operations.

By contrast, Syria’s mainstream armed opposition has now largely been destroyed. Russia’s military intervention in September 2015 decisively shifted the battlefield momentum, culminating a year later in the opposition’s expulsion from Aleppo. Where it once had many friends, the opposition increasingly finds itself isolated, with fewer and fewer vocal supporters for its insistence that Assad must go. The hard reality is that nearly all of its main state sponsors have at differing points over the last six years come to the conclusion that Assad’s ouster is a lower priority than other strategic objectives.

This message was driven home by President Donald Trump’s public confirmation via Twitter on July 24 that the United States had ended a covert program that reportedly provided vetted opposition groups with hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons and cash. With the mainstream opposition increasingly eclipsed by extremist and terrorist groups, the logic of Geneva means that what little leverage we have is, at least indirectly, tied to the military performance of groups that are openly hostile to the United States.

Nevertheless, in recent weeks discussion has once again turned to how to reform the Syrian opposition’s delegation in Geneva. In late August, Riyadh hosted a series of meetings between the High Negotiations Committee and other opposition groups to encourage a unified approach to the negotiations. Those meetings reportedly failed as a consequence of the Committee’s insistence that Assad immediately step down from power.

Instead of trying to convince the Syrian opposition to moderate its stance, the United States should be laying the groundwork for an alternative to Geneva.

An alternative way forward

A different process, with a different structure, might shift the focus away from Assad, while amplifying the voices of those calling for political reform, including among Syrians close to the government on whose support Assad will increasingly rely as Syria transitions from wartime mobilization to politics. While expectations should be held firmly in check, such a process might also create a framework in which the United States and like-minded countries could collectively employ nonmilitary sources of leverage, such as our influence over the PYD and SDF, the prospect of lifting international sanctions on the Syrian government, and sending the political signals that will be necessary to unlock multilateral financial assistance for reconstruction.

We know from experience how difficult it will be to find a comprehensive solution. There is no silver bullet, and abandoning Geneva carries its own risks — especially if there isn’t agreement in advance on what would replace it. Before diving into something new, it will be critical both to rigorously test assumptions (lest we end up with an equally unworkable process) and ensure that key allies and partners would offer diplomatic support. Those discussions will take time and should begin now.
One possibility would be to encourage the U.N. to expand participation in the current process,
essentially replacing indirect talks between the government and opposition with a series of direct talks among a broader range of actors. This would give official recognition to the many Syrian groups the U.N. has already been engaging on the margins of Geneva, including the PYD and representatives of Syria’s business community, religious and ethnic minorities, women, and civil society — groups who may be less rigid in their views, more in tune with the wants and needs of the average Syrian, and more successful in rallying both elite and popular support around specific reform measures.

Alternatively, the United States could encourage the U.N. to replace Geneva with a U.N.-led national dialogue. The goal would be to create a venue to discuss Syria’s political future and reach agreement on core issues, such as demobilization and the withdrawal of foreign forces, a new constitution and parameters for national elections, administrative decentralization, the release of prisoners, and mechanisms to facilitate refugee return. The record of analogous exercises — for example in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen, is mixed. But, by generating broad-based dialogue outside of formal government institutions, over time such processes can play an important role in shaping national politics.

Following a recent string of military victories, Assad is riding high, and Damascus almost certainly will resist any effort that it sees as restricting its sovereignty. Assad also may believe that Geneva is valuable in so far as it provides continuing cover for the government’s piecemeal efforts to end the war on its own terms.

It may be worth testing whether Russia agrees — especially if a new U.N.-led process is presented as the price for international acquiescence to Assad’s continued rule and a precondition for any discussion of international assistance, something Russia seeks. Despite its staunch support for the Syrian government, Moscow likely perceives more clearly than does Assad the multiplicity of challenges that lie ahead — from the government’s unsustainable fiscal position and chronic manpower shortages to the acute political divisions and demographic trends that helped cause the war in the first place. As a consequence, Russia might be convinced that a new process could serve its interests, and could help cut the timeline for its own commitments in Syria.

Neither is a perfect solution. But they would shift the discussion from war to politics, and potentially set into motion a process that could begin healing the rifts from Syria’s terrible war. The United States could decide to keep up the charade in Geneva, but if we want to see greater stability in the years ahead, we need to change course.

Photo credit: ABDULMONAM EASSA/AFP/Getty Images

Kim Jong Un raises metaphorical middle finger to western diplomacy

By Emma Richards | 16th September 2017

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un guides the launch of a Hwasong-12 missile in this undated photo released by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on September 16, 2017. Source: KCNA via Reuters

YOU almost have to admire the gall of it. Less than 96 hours after the United Nations announced its “strongest measures ever” against the North Korean dictatorship, leader Kim Jong Un sends another ballistic missile sailing over Japan, dropping into the Pacific Ocean, and landing the tough talking diplomats in a sticky mire of humiliation.

I can only imagine the glee on the tin-pot dictator’s face on Friday as he sat back to watch the most powerful nations in the world clamour over each other to condemn in the most certain terms what was essentially the diplomatic equivalent of setting off a firecracker at a wake – no one was harmed, but by God, it pissed people off.

As the most powerful men and women in the world shake their heads, wring their hands, and gather together once more to all agree that their masterplan has once again failed, you’ve got to wonder what’s next.

SEE ALSO: North Korea: UN passes strongest sanctions yet after US compromise

After such strong fighting talk from US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, threatening to “take the future of the North Korean nuclear programme out of the hands of its outlaw regime” and imposing the “strongest measures ever” to curb their weapons development, North Korea just raised one giant metaphorical middle finger to western diplomacy.

The impotent rage and bellicose language coming from the US is surely only playing into Kim’s hands at home. The regime has put time, money and resources into spreading the message of American bravado and aggression to its people. A recent piece from BBC Newsnight detailed how a North Korean defector claimed she did not think of Americans as humans and only referred to them as American-bastards while growing up under the Kim dynasty.

You need only take one look at a bumbling and belligerent Donald Trump threatening to rain “fire and fury” on Pyongyang to see how this argument might hold some sway.

"We learned that Americans are our primary enemies" - North Korea defector Hyeonseo Lee describes how she was taught to hate the US pic.twitter.com/MvEmbSB4wq

— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) September 17, 2017

BBC Newsnight‏Verified account @BBCNewsnight

"We learned that Americans are our primary enemies" - North Korea defector Hyeonseo Lee describes how she was taught to hate the US

6:00 AM - 17 Sep 2017

As the leaders of the world struggle to dream up more imaginative and fear-inducing synonyms for ‘unacceptable’ and ‘condemn’ – and let’s be honest, they’re running pretty thin on the ground for new material at this point – Kim must surely be delighting in all this.

SEE ALSO: North Korea warns US will suffer ‘greatest pain it ever experienced’ after sanctions

What his next move will be is almost impossible to predict with any certainty, but as flying in the face of western attempts to curb him seems to be his preferred method of choice at the moment, more missiles shouldn’t really come as a surprise to anyone. Prepare to witness more gleeful giggles and more toothy grins on that child-like face in coming months.

As North Korea has proven, a little bit of sabre rattling goes a long way when it comes to international attention. When it’s this easy to so succinctly and effectively show up western diplomacy for a sham, Kim will continue to bait the beast, and oh, what fun he shall have!

** This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not reflect the views of Asian Correspondent

Thirty-Five Years after the Sabra-Shatila Massacre: Where is The Resistance?

The photos above were taken by Franklin Lamb during the first week of October, 1982 on the airport road adjacent to the Kuwait Embassy and Shatila Palestinian refugee camp. The photos show two of several signs painted on walls near Shatila on Wednesday, September 15, 1982. The purpose was to guide the Lebanese Forces and Saad Haddad militia into the camp from the Beirut airport approximately two miles south where the militia was ordered by Israel to assemble. The circled triangle is the insignia of the Phalange Militia known as the “Lebanese Forces.” “MP” stands for their Military Police. These signs were approximately 30 yards directly south of the Kuwaiti Embassy roundabout which overlooks the southwest area of Shatila camp. In the upper left of the top photo can be seen the seven stories building that Israeli observers used to view the interior of Shatila as the massacre was being committed and also from which American 81 mm night flares were launched by Israeli forces over Shatila to facilitate the killer militia looking into homes and being able to see in the camps narrow alleys.

A massive crime against humanity which has yet to be adjudicated.

Sep-15-2017 

(Shatila Palestinian Refugee Camp, BE) - This week commemorates the 35th anniversary of the Wednesday, Sept. 15 to Saturday, Sept. 18, Sabra-Shatila Massacre in the Fakhani neighborhood of Beirut.

For many of the families and loved ones of the victims, as is certainly the case with this observer, it seems as though the Sabra-Shatila Massacre was committed at most four or five years ago. So vivid still in our memories are the horror images of that orgy of slaughter.

Thirty-Five Years after the Sabra-Shatila Massacre Where is The Resistance.docx by Thavam on Scribd