Nikki Haley’s Diplomacy of Revenge Targets U.N. Relief Agency

The United States threatens to pull the plug on hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to the Palestinians.

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley cast lone U.S. veto to block resolution on Jerusalem on December 18, 2017, at UN Headquarters in New York. (Ken Betancur / AFP/Getty Images) 

BY COLUM LYNCH-

JANUARY 5, 2018, 5:28 PM
Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, started her diplomatic career as a champion for Palestinian refugees, visiting refugee camps and assuring her U.N. colleagues that she would protect the nearly $300 million in U.S. funding each year that provides schooling for half a million Palestinian children.

Today, she is championing the White House drive to sever the Palestinians most vital economic lifeline unless they participate in U.S.-mediated peace talks. The reversal reflects White House resentment over the Palestinians’ decision to put forward resolutions before the U.N. Security Council and General Assembly denouncing President Donald Trump for his Dec. 6 decision to move the U.S. Embassy to the disputed capital of Jerusalem.

Both of those resolutions passed overwhelmingly, reflecting widespread international opposition to the White House decision and personally embarrassing the president. This week, the State Department decided to put on hold more than $100 million in funding to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) that was scheduled to be paid on the first working day of January, according to two diplomatic sources.

Haley, meanwhile, told other U.N. ambassadors that the money will not be forthcoming unless Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas — who said Trump’s move on Jerusalem disqualifies the United States as neutral mediator — reverses course and comes to the peace table. She has also fumed about what she described as a “hateful” speech by the Palestinian envoy, Riyad Mansour, before the U.N. General Assembly.

The president, she said, considers the two U.N. votes a personal affront.

Haley argued internally in favor of moving ahead and conditioning humanitarian aid on the Palestinian Authority’s willingness to engage in peace talks, according to well-placed sources. She reasoned it would provide her with additional leverage in her future dealings with countries that voted in the General Assembly against the United States over Jerusalem.

Since that vote, Haley has sought to assure the more than 60 countries that didn’t vote in favor of the Palestinian resolution (eight voted alongside the United States, 35 abstained, and 21 did not vote) that they would receive special treatment from the United States. She started with an invitation to a Jan. 3 “friendship” reception at the U.S. mission to the United Nations. But Haley’s campaign to cut off all financial assistance to the Palestinians is feeding anxiety among other top members of the president’s national security team, who have begun to push back on Haley’s threats.

There is concern that the move against the Palestinians could backfire, feeding greater extremism in the region.

But Haley found dwindling support for her position at an interagency meeting of the National Security Council in Washington Friday, according to a congressional aide. Representatives for the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, the Defense Department and the Intelligence Community argued for keeping the aid flowing. A representative for Haley was the lone holdout. 

Lacking consensus, a decision was taken to send the matter back to New York for Haley to reconsider her position. In a peculiar twist, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who supported funding for UNRWA, rejected a request from the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, to release the more than $100 million authorized for UNRWA, the aide said.

But it remains unclear whether Trump and Haley would be prepared to climb down.
Haley has previously told reporters that Trump “doesn’t want to give any additional funding until the Palestinians agree to come back to the negotiation table.”

U.N.-based diplomats were uncertain at the time about what portion of the more than $700 million the United States gives to the Palestinians, including $300 million for UNRWA and hundreds of millions more in development aid through the U.S. Agency for International Development. In subsequent exchanges, Haley informed the diplomats that all of the funds were in jeopardy.

“Only this White House would be so cynical and delusional to think after needlessly inciting the Palestinians’ outrage over Jerusalem, that cutting off aid for Palestinian refugees would force their leaders to negotiate a peace agreement,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Leahy contends that the Israeli military opposes what he characterized as “the White House’s shortsighted bullying tactics.”

UNRWA, he added, “has been consistently supported by Democratic and Republican administrations, provides healthcare, education, and other basic services to vulnerable refugees — men, women, and children, many of them hosted by Jordan and other U.S. allies — whose alternative is joining extremist groups like ISIS.”

UNRWA was created nearly 70 years ago, after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, to assist the more than 700,000 Palestinians displaced by the conflict. Today, it provides food, education, and other services for more than 5 million Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, including a corps of more than 30,000 school teachers who serve more than half a million children.

Last year, Haley assured UNRWA that the United States would maintain current levels of funding for its operations. On Aug. 1, Thomas Shannon, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, wrote to several wealthy donors, including Canada and the Persian Gulf states, and appealed for more than $100 million to meet a gap in the agency’s funding.

As late as last month, Haley was still touting Washington’s support for the agency. On Dec. 18, she cited Washington’s generosity to UNRWA in a Security Council speech defending her veto of a Palestinian-backed resolution that called on the White House to rescind its decision move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The United States, she noted, voluntarily contributes more than 30 percent of the organization’s budget to operate schools and medical facilities throughout the Middle East.

“I have been to the Palestinian refugee camps the United States supports with their contributions,” she said. “I have met with men, women, and children. I have advocated on their behalf.”

For years, the relief agency has enjoyed bipartisan political support from key congressional leaders, and Israeli security officials have viewed it as a necessary, if not always beloved, provider of services for Palestinians. Israel, which grants visas and permits to UNRWA workers, has taken no steps to shutter the agency’s operations.

The relief agency, however, has been the target of growing criticism by pro-Israel conservatives and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who considers it too sympathetic to Hamas, the Palestinian militant group. In remarks to Likud ministers in the summer, Netanyahu said he had advised Nikki Haley that “it’s time to dismantle UNRWA.”

Ilan Goldenberg, a top advisor to former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, said this is not the first time that funding has been put on hold. In the past, he recalled, pro-Israel critics would stall the funds to protest some action by the Palestinian side.

But inevitably, over time, “things would calm down and the Israelis would come to the Americans and say, ‘You know, it would be a really good idea if you just gave them the money.’”

The Trump administration is different, he added. “And Nikki Haley is fairly on a bender on this one.”
This story has been updated.

First phase of Trump border wall gets $18 billion price tag, in new request to lawmakers

 U.S. Customs and Border Protection released aerial footage shot on Oct. 17 of the eight prototype border walls near the U.S.-Mexico border. (US Customs and Border Protection Office of Public Affairs)

By Nick Miroff and Erica Werner January 5 at 7:27 PM

The Trump administration has told lawmakers that it wants $18 billion over the next decade for the initial phase of a Mexico border wall, laying out for the first time a detailed financial blueprint for the president’s signature campaign promise.

The money would pay for 316 miles of new fencing and reinforce another 407 miles where barriers are already in place, according to cost estimates sent to senators Friday by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If the work was completed, more than half of the 2,000-mile border with Mexico would have a wall or other physical structure by 2027.

Democratic lawmakers blasted the $18 billion request, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, and it arrived in the middle of delicate budget negotiations that include the risk of a government shutdown Jan. 20 if no deal is reached.

“President Trump has said he may need a good government shutdown to get his wall. With this demand, he seems to be heading in that direction,” said Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Immigration subcommittee.
CBP provided the funding outline at the request of Durbin and other senators preparing to launch negotiations this month on several contentious immigration issues, including a potential deal to protect the hundreds of thousands of young immigrants who will be subject to deportation when the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program expires, beginning in March.

The Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe looks at President Trump’s demands in the negotiation over a program shielding young undocumented immigrants from deportation.(Video: Bastien Inzaurralde/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

With their votes needed to keep the government open, Democrats are looking to use their leverage in the spending talks to force the Republicans who control Congress to reach a deal on DACA.
Though Trump ran for office on a promise that Mexico would pay for a border wall, the spending plan indicates American taxpayers would fund it for at least the foreseeable future.

[A look at Trump’s border wall prototypes]

Trump has told Democrats he’s unwilling to reach an agreement unless they fund his wall plan, among other measures, but the CBP document is the first time his administration has sketched out what that might cost.

In addition to the $18 billion in wall funding, the CBP also requested $8 billion for additional personnel and training, $5 billion for new border technology and at least $1 billion to build more access roads. The final price tag for the CBP spending plan would exceed $33 billion over the next decade, according to a copy of the document obtained by The Washington Post.

The $33 billion would not include what are likely to be additional funding requests for the other Department of Homeland Security agencies central to Trump’s plans for an immigration overhaul, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is looking to add 10,000 more officers and dramatically expand the number of beds it has available for immigration detention.

Benjamin L. Cassidy, the DHS assistant secretary for legislative affairs, said in a letter to Durbin that the funding requests “were developed through a rigorous assessment and are derived directly from the experience and insight of U.S. Border Patrol Agents in the field, supported by operational data and analysis.”

Photos of border wall prototypes erected near San Diego

View Photos-Prototypes for President Trump’s border wall with Mexico are built and tested near San Diego. The prototypes form a row of imposing concrete and metal panels, including one with sharp edges on top.

“It is essential to note that this submission represents only one element of the President’s overall immigration priorities,” Cassidy wrote. “Effective border security will not be successful unless we close dangerous legal loopholes that enable illegal immigration and visa overstays. If these loopholes are not closed, and enforcement capabilities are not enhanced, our immigration system and border cannot be secured.”

Democrats have repeatedly said they will not pay for a wall. Even though on a year-over-year basis the CBP request would not represent a dramatic funding increase over current border spending levels, it would represent a long-term commitment to a physical structure that Trump would be able to claim as a political trophy.

Democrats and immigration activists have recoiled at the administration’s other enforcement plans, including proposals to expedite the deportation of unaccompanied minors, tighten asylum standards and crack down on so-called “sanctuary cities” that do not allow local police officers to cooperate with federal immigration agents.

“Trump can have a shutdown fight over his stupid wall that pleases the nativists in his base, or he can have a breakthrough that pairs the Dream Act and border security so he can brag he did something Obama couldn’t get done. He can’t have both,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, an immigrant advocacy group. “This move by the White House does not bode well.”

Republican reaction was muted Friday. Even many Republicans have deemed a physical wall along the entire border unnecessary and impractical, saying that more effective border security could be achieved through other means, including better surveillance and technology.

CBP said it would like to add more than 2,000 miles of what it called a “total Border wall system” that would eventually encompass 864 miles of new primary wall on land where no barrier currently exists. It would add 1,163 miles of replacement wall or secondary wall, which DHS officials said could consist of a wall backed by a fence or two fences.

Some of the new barriers would have to be installed along the winding banks of the Rio Grande, where landowners have protested construction of new fencing on their ranches and farms.
The $18 billion would cover only the initial phase of the CBP plan. About 650 miles of the border with Mexico currently has some form of physical obstacle, from vehicle barriers to taller steel fencing designed to prevent people from climbing over.

CBP is evaluating several prototypes, all of which are significantly taller, but the funding request sent to senators does not specify what type of barrier would be used.

Trump has said he may travel to San Diego to inspect the prototypes, which range in height from 18 to 30 feet and combine different formulations of see-through steel bars, concrete slabs and metal spikes.

Ed O’Keefe contributed to this report.

Star footballer is now president of Liberia

2018-01-06 

It was late 2003, the Liberian war was winding down after taking the lives of 250,000 civilians, spawning a small army of deadly child soldiers, and I was sitting at lunch in Monrovia inside the president’s palatial office and residence with the American ambassador on my right and George Weah, Fifa’s World Footballer of the Year, on my left. When I introduced myself to the ambassador he made it clear he didn’t want to talk. He wasn’t happy having ended up with a journalist next to him. Every 15 minutes an aide would rush up to him with the latest news on the fighting. We could hear the sound of rifles cracking. I asked him if he was nervous. He ignored me. But Weah was more than ready to chat.  

“What brings you to Liberia?” he asked.  

 “I’m a journalist for the International Herald Tribune”.  

“That’s a great paper. I used to read it when I lived in Paris and Milan. How did you get here?”  
“I flew in on Obasanjo’s plane. (The president of Nigeria). What do you do?”  

“I’m a professional footballer”.  

“Oh, I don’t know much about football. I prefer cricket.”  

Liberia, the country carved out of West Africa by freed slaves returning from America, has long been one of Africa’s poorest

It took a long time for the penny to drop. Later, friends had to tell me I’d been talking to one of the greatest footballers of the world. The eleven year old son of a friend even today re-plays some of his matches on U-tube. Last week Weah won the election for president of Liberia. He enjoys phenomenal popularity especially among the poor in the urban shanty towns in which he grew up. He has spent a substantial part of his own fortune to put thousands of children through school and to pay the traveling costs of the national football team. He won a handsome 60% of the vote.  

Weah was one of the silent but influential peacekeepers that President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria was depending on to change the political climate. Obasanjo, the most astute of all African presidents, had forged a peace by luring President Charles Taylor to a luxurious house in Calabar on the Nigerian coast. No questions were to be asked about his hidden wealth. It was a quid pro quo for Taylor abandoning Liberian politics and also the politics and wars of Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast in which he was the chief gunrunner, diamond smuggler and stirrer up of mayhem. Taylor was arguably the most brutal of all the war lords that Africa has produced. He had his war-lord predecessor as president tortured to death on camera.  

For 17 years Jonathan Power was a foreign affairs columnist and commentator for the International Herald Tribune/New York Times.

Liberia, the country carved out of West Africa by freed slaves returning from America, has long been one of Africa’s poorest. The retiring president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Africa’s first female head of state (and Nobel Peace prize winner to boot) has done a lot to right the ship after decades of civil war.
 But there is a long way to go before normality will be the country’s every day condition. Power is still almost non-existent outside the capital, the health care system is in pieces following the Ebola outbreak in 2014 and the schools are manned by teachers who have no training.  

Despite the slow economic and social progress Liberia has taken to democracy. It was a sober election with no ballot stuffing, intimidation or demonstrations and a graceful concession by Weah’s opponent.  

I recall Obasanjo’s speech at the lunch at which I met Weah. “You must forgive each other - the only thing that can bring peace is love,” said Obasanjo, a fervent Christian. I looked around the large dining hall. It was full of ex-murderers in dark suits and ties. But something rubbed off and with Ms Sirleaf at the helm Liberia has progressed without violence or without locking up those opposed to the new dispensation.  

As for Charles Taylor he is now serving a 50 year sentence in a British jail, having been convicted by the Sierra Leone affiliate of the UN’s International Criminal Court. He thought Obasanjo would honour his deal. But as I discovered in conversation on his plane back to Nigeria that time, Obasanjo had some reservations and caveats from the beginning. One was if Taylor broke his promises- like not keeping in touch with his old warlord pals- the deal was off.  

After nearly three years of living in exile Taylor picked up some vibes that he had made Obasanjo angry. One night he got into his Land Rover and drove to the Cameroon border. But Obasanjo’s soldiers were waiting for him.  

In Liberia there was an audible sound of relief from high and low. 

Their country could not be threatened again. They could not be threatened again. People smiled. People forgave. People worked. And George Weah is now running to kick the ball. I suspect that although it is a long kick it will go straight into the net.  

More than 90 Iranian university students 'detained' by regime

Reports of over 1,000 people being arrested by authorities comes as Emily Thornberry defends Jeremy Corbyn’s silence on issue


Pro-government protesters gather in the streets of Tehran after Friday prayers. Photograph: Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA

Damien Gayle and agencies-Sat 6 Jan ‘18 16.13 GMT

Ninety university students are among the more than 1,000 people arrested in Iran’s unrest, an Iranian MP has said.

Mahmoud Sadeghi, who represents an electoral district in Tehran, was quoted by the Iranian labour news agency as saying: “It seems that the total number of detainees is around 90. Ten students from universities in Tehran and some other cities are in an uncertain position and … it is still unknown which body has detained them.”

It comes as Emily Thornberry defended Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn over his silence on the civil unrest in Iran, saying the party takes an approach of “extreme caution” when it comes to the politics of the Islamic republic.

The shadow foreign secretary told the BBC it was impossible to determine what political forces lay behind the protests, which began on 28 December and are said to have led to at least 21 deaths – mostly of protesters but also some security guards, according to officials.

Corbyn has been under increasing pressure to speak out about the protests. Tom Tugendhat, who chairs the Commons foreign affairs committee, said it was “extraordinary” that Labour had not spoken out against the Iranian regime.

Thornberry told the BBC’s Political Thinking podcast: “Our approach now is one of extreme caution when it comes to Iran and a recognition that the society in Iran is an immensely complex one, and seemingly contradictory.

“For example, with these current riots, sometimes they are calling to reinstate the monarchy, sometimes they’re calling out against [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei, sometimes they’re calling for Khamenei, sometimes they’re calling for the price of eggs.

“It’s very difficult, in those circumstances, to actually come to a conclusion as to what political forces are behind the current disputes on the streets of Iran.
Emily Thornberry: the shadow foreign secretary said Labour’s approach to the Iran protests is one of ‘extreme caution’. Photograph: David Gadd/Sportsphoto Ltd/Allstar

“So we take a cautious approach to Iran and we don’t want to leap to judgment and say: ‘Well, we don’t like the regime in Iran, these people are against it, they must be the guys with white hats.’

“Because it doesn’t work like that. We’ve seen that in Syria, we’ve seen it in Libya, we see it time and time again.”

Tehran University has set up a committee to track the fate of students arrested during the unrest, according to the university’s vice-president, Majid Sarsangi.

“Our efforts at the university are aimed at cooperating with the relevant authorities to create the conditions for the return of the detained students to the university and their families in the shortest possible time,” Sarsangi told the Iranian student news agency.

According to Reuters, Iran has several parallel security bodies and arrests are often not immediately announced. Videos that have appeared on social media in recent days showed relatives of detainees gathering outside prisons in search of their loved ones.

Iran’s state TV on Saturday showed government supporters rallying in several cities. The demonstrations were described as a “response to rioters and supporters of the riots”.

Yemen war: Corruption stops food aid reaching us, say desperate families

Millions of people are in need of food aid in Yemen - but not all of it is reaching the most desperate

Saeed Abdul Hamid tries to cook in his makeshift home in al-Shimayateen district (MEE)

Saturday 6 January 2018

TAIZ, Yemen - Desperate Yemenis have complained that international food donations are failing to reach those most in need in the war-torn nation, forcing them to buy free supplies from market stalls.

Saeed Abdul Hamid, 35, an unemployed father of five children, has lived with his family inside a tent in Taiz's al-Shimayateen district since January 2017. He depends on his children to beg for food, either at the nearest market or else from house-to-house.

I tried to look for aid from organisations, but they declined to help

- Saeed Abdul Hamid

Abdul Hamid is one of more than 200,000 displaced people in al-Shimayateen district, the centre of operations for international NGOs in Taiz province. He fled there in the belief that aid organisations would be able to feed his family.

But what he discovered, he told MEE, shocked him. "I tried to look for aid from organisations, but they declined to help."

Abdul Hamid said that the local World Food Programme (WFP) committee in al-Safia told him that no new names could be added to the list of aid recipients.

"But the committee could not stop three armed men entering the store and taking six baskets by force," he recalled of his visit in October.

What the WFP does

The WFP has played a critical role for millions of Yemenis during the conflict, which is about to enter its fourth year and has left at least 8,500 people dead and millions more hungry and impoverished.

Before 2015, almost half of all Yemenis lived below the poverty line. Now an estimated 3.3 million children and pregnant or breast-feeding women are acutely malnourished, including 462,000 children under five who face severe acute malnutrition, according to the UN. That's a 57 percent increase in just over two years, threatening the lives and life-long prospects of those affected.

The WFP has classified seven of Yemen's 22 provinces, including Taiz, as being at "emergency" level. This is only one level below "famine," the most severe classification on the five-point Integrated Food Security Phase Classification scale. A further 10 provinces are classified as being at "crisis" level.

In August 2017, it said it and its partners distributed more than 80,000 tonnes of food items to seven million people through some 3,000 distribution points.

The WFP's monthly aid packages consist of 75kg of wheat, 10 litres of vegetable oil, 10kg of pulse beans, 0.5kg of salt and 2.5kg of sugar per person per month.

But the method of their distribution has drawn anger and accusations. Throughout 2017, protests frequently broke out in Taiz's central Jamal Street, as groups of poor people and activists demonstrated against what they say is a corrupt system.

WFP provides rich people with food, and they sell it to markets, while we have to beg this food from people

- Fatima Saleh

Abdul Rahim said that aside from gangs taking food by force, richer Yemenis with contacts among the aid committees have also benefited.

"WFP provides rich people with food, and they sell it to markets, while we have to beg for this food from people. Usually they help us with some wheat from WFP."

Fatima Saleh, a 40-something widow with six children who lives in Taiz city, values the monthly deliveries – even if she does not receive any herself. "My rich neighbour receives three food baskets from WFP each month, and he sells them to the market, while I do not receive anything." Sometimes, she said, she is fortunate enough to receive free food from her neighbours.

Saleh said she did not want to rely on her neighbours and should be a main beneficiary of the WFP but, like Hamid, was told her name could not be added to the list. She said aid supervisors regard the parcels as gifts and often earmark them for their contacts.

Less than three kilometres from Saleh's home lives Emad Ahmed Abdullah Taha Al-Saqqaf, the founder of the Yemen Media Guide, a social-awareness NGO backed by international NGOs, and is also editor-in-chief of Family and Development magazine.

Beneficiaries receive their assigned aid at a WFP distribution centre in Taiz' al-Shimayateen district (MEE)

Saqqaf owns three cars, a modern home in Taiz's al-Hawban neighbourhood and land throughout Taiz province. On paper, he would not seem the most obvious recipient of WFP aid.

But, according to a list of WFP beneficiaries in Taiz obtained by MEE, Saqqaf, his wife and his father receive monthly WFP aid. There is no suggestion that Saqqaf or his family have acted in any way illegally or sold on the food they have received.

Saqqaf does not deny that he receives three food baskets but said WFP deliveries are for everyone, not only the needy.

"I have two wives, so I receive two baskets for them and a third one for my father, and this is the system of WFP centres in Taiz. All people should receive aid of WFP. Those needy people who do not receive it, they should demand their aid."

Where the aid sometimes goes

Some of the WFP aid appears at markets in Taiz and other locations, as traders buy it from wealthier homes and then sell it on to the poor.

Moatasem Haidar, 45, a resident of Taiz city, suffers from heart disease and has not received any monthly aid. He said he has to buy that very same aid from the market, sometimes with WFP branding stamped on the side.

A woman cooks amid discarded vehicle tyres at the al-Safia makeshift camp in June 2017 (MEE)

Haidar, like many others, tried to persuade the  international NGOs to add his name to the list of beneficiaries but without success.

"On 19 December, we protested in Jamal Street against the corruption of the aid's distribution to make the organisations, including WFP, take this issue into consideration and help needy people," he told MEE.

After the protest, he said, WFP supervisors promised to add his family's names to its list of beneficiaries. "Protest is the only way to demand your rights amid war. I think the supervisors will keep their word because they do not want us to protest."

He said that he believes the international NGOs do not know about the issues with distribution, including alleged corruption, as they depend on local partners, including government, for distribution.

Ruba Yassin is founder of the "We Love You" initiative based in Taiz, which collects money from philanthropists to help buy food for the poor. She called on people to protest against corruption and for the authorities to do more.

"All of us know that favouritism and corruption of aid distribution deprive needy people from aid and end up with registering the names of some rich people who do not need aid as beneficiaries."

Abdul Aziz al-Shaibani, the supervisor of WFP aid distribution in al-Shimayateen district, which has a population of around half a million, told MEE that there had been some irregularities in aid distribution in the past and they were going to be resolved in the coming months.

"We are aware that there are some rich people who receive the aid of poor families and there are some poor families do not receive aid in Taiz, but we will solve this problem in 2018," he told MEE. "There are only 65 centres of aid distribution in one district, so it is normal that some irregularities happen, and we do our best to stop them."

A spokesperson for WFP based in Yemen told MEE it was targeting the 6.8 million Yemenis who suffer severe food insecurity but that the situation would only deteriorate as the war continues. Government salaries, on which 30 percent of the population depend, are now only paid irregularly, if at all, increasing the numbers of those who need support. The spokesperson said the WFP had scaled up its operation significantly since April 2017.

But, the spokesperson said: "There are, however, residual risks that in some cases, due to collusion of local authorities, some people who should not receive assistance end up being registered for food assistance. WFP takes these issues very seriously and takes immediate action when such instances come to our attention through our monitoring systems."

Abdul Rahim wants representatives from the WFP see for themselves the suffering of locals in Taiz province and monitor more closely how aid is distributed.

"I hope the leadership of WFP knows my suffering and provide people like me with monthly food. Then my children will go to school instead of begging."

Bangladesh: Shuttle diplomacy in 2017 for Rohingya Refugees

The end of 2017 made a bit clear that Bangladesh got some positive assurance from China that they will help to bring the solution of the Rohingya problem with Myanmar through bilateral arrangement.

by Swadesh Roy- Jan 6, 2018

( January 6, 2018, Dhaka, Sri Lanka Guardian) After two weeks of Rohingya influx, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh started a shuttle diplomacy for drawing attention to the world and way out the solution of the crisis; she successfully continues it for the last four months of 2017. In the last week of August, 87,000 Rohingys came to Bangladesh but by the first week of September it hits 164,000. In the end of the first week of September Turkey’s first lady and their Foreign Minister visited Bangladesh and also visited the Rohingya refugee’s camps. Visiting the camps, the first lady Emine Erdogan and her Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu met the Prime minister of Bangladesh. In that meeting Emine said, “Turkey is trying to build-up a global opinion against the persecution, as the whole world has responsibility to resolve the crisis.” Emine was photographed shedding tears while talking to an elderly Rohingya women. That photograph was twitted by the Turkish Foreign Minister. In that twit, he said, “Turkey will never leave Rohingya Muslims alone. International community should also provide the necessary support without further delay.” Besides, Turkey promised 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid for Rohingyas.

After the Rohingya refugees’ influx in 2017, first visitor was theTurkish first lady and her foreign minister. And in 2017 the last visitor of the foreign delegate was the Prime Minister of Turkey. He visited third week of the December 2017. He emphasis the bilateral arrangement which was signed between Bangladesh and Myanmar. He hoped that through the bilateral arrangement Rohingyas’ return will be made. Despite, the Turkish Prime also urged the international community to find out the way for a political settlement of the Rohingya problem and support Bangladesh.

The end of 2017 made a bit clear that Bangladesh got some positive assurance from China that they will help to bring the solution of the Rohingya problem with Myanmar through bilateral arrangement. China has a big stake in Myanmar. So Turkish Prime Minister was not only the first person but also Chinese Foreign Minister also told about the bilateral solution. Chinese Foreign Minister visited Bangladesh on 18 November, 2017, and in the meeting with the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, he said, Rohingya crisis was a big challenge for Bangladesh. Though he said it is a big crisis for Bangladesh but he did not recognize it as a world humanitarian problem, rather he wanted that his country will facilitate the dialogue between Myanmar and Bangladesh. And he portrayed the problem as an internal problem of Myanmar.

In this issue, Bangladesh is not getting that much help from India to pressurize Myanmar or to project the problem as a world humanitarian crisis. Two things are working here, Myanmar is one of the close neighbors of India, and they had some bilateral interest with them. Besides, Myanmar is the belly state of China and the major business stakes in Myanmar are controlled by China. However, in the third week of October, the foreign minister of India came to Bangladesh and expressed their firm opinion, in the meeting with the Prime Minister of Bangladesh. In that meeting the Foreign Minister of India categorically said, Myanmar must take back their citizens. And she wanted a permanent solution of it, because it is not possible for Bangladesh to bear this burden.

Within the four months of 2017, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh visited Europe and Far East also. In Europe, she visited France. During the bilateral meeting with the French President, he also queried the present position of the Rohingya crisis, Sheikh Hasina informed him about one million refugees and how much burden it is for Bangladesh. President Marcon gave a full support for a permanent solution of it and their support will be presented in any international forums. In the second week of the December Sheikh Hasina also visited Cambodia. The Prime Minister of Bangladesh asked for the support of the Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen to resolve the problem of Rohingya refugees. Hun Sen praised Sheikh Hasina for her humanitarian attitude but they did not go out the boundary of China. They emphasize the bilateral solution.

Beside these, Sheikh Hasina urged to organization of Islamic countries (OIC) and she gave a remarkable speech in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). In her shuttle diplomacy in 2017, two pictures are in the stage. One, she is going to the path of the bilateral with the help of China. Consequently, it was never said that, it is the ultimate result of the shuttle diplomacy of Bangladesh in the last four months of 2017. Conversely, Sheikh Hasina gave the five points in her UNGA address for the permanent solution of the Rohingya problem. Her five points are firstly Myanmar must unconditionally stop the violence and the practice of ethnic cleansing in the Rakhine State immediately and forever. Secondly, Secretary General of the United Nations should immediately send a fact- finding Mission to Myanmar. Thirdly all civilians irrespective of religion and ethnicity must be protected in Myanmar. For the “safe zones” could be created inside Myanmar under UN supervision. Fourthly, to ensure sustainable return of all forcibly displaced Rohingyas in Bangladesh to their home in Myanmar. Fifthly the recommendation of Kofi Annan Commission report must be implemented immediately, unconditionally and entirely.

These five points are the ultimately path of the solution of Rohingya crisis. However, we see that in the last four months of 2017, Sheikh Hasina placed the five points which are the ultimate goal. On the other hand, she is dealing bilaterally with Myanmar, where China- the big power in Asia and the big stake holder in the Myanmar. In the conclusion, it is to be said that in diplomacy there is no immediate conclusion; there is no last path and last word. So, it may be said that the shuttle diplomacy of last four months in 2017 is the beginning of a diplomacy for making over the Rohinghya crisis but time will give its ultimate result.

Swadesh Roy, Executive Editor. The Daily Janakantha, Dhaka, Bangladesh. He is a highest state award winning journalist and can be reached at swadeshroy@gmail.com

Breast size dissatisfaction 'affects self-examination'

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

By Katie Silver-5 January 2018

Women unhappy with their breast size are less likely to carry out regular self-examinations, a study suggests.

The study, published in the journal Body Image, examined 384 British women.

The research found these women were also less confident about their ability to detect a change in their breasts and slower to see a doctor if they did detect a change.

Inspecting their breasts "may trigger negative emotions, such as shame and embarrassment", the researchers said.

Most of the women surveyed had some degree of dissatisfaction with their breast size:

• 31% wanted smaller breasts
• 44% wanted larger breasts

Most common cancer

A third admitted they rarely or never engaged in breast self-examination.

The NHS advises women to make sure they know how their breasts usually look and feel at different times of the month, so they are aware of any changes.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in the UK, with more than 55,000 women diagnosed every year.

Of the women surveyed, 55% said they would see their doctor as soon as possible if they detected a change in their breasts.

However, one in 10 admitted they would delay for as long as possible or not see their doctor at all.
Breast cancers detected early are usually easier to treat and more likely to be cured.

Image captionSome breast cancer symptoms to look for

Prof Viren Swami, of Anglia Ruskin University, who conducted the research, said: "For women who are dissatisfied with their breast size, having to inspect their breasts may be experienced as a threat to their body image and so they may engage in avoidance behaviours.

"Promoting greater breast awareness may be a useful means of helping women view their breasts in more functional terms, rather than purely aesthetic terms."

Dany Bell, from Macmillan Cancer Support, said: "Feeling unhappy with your body mustn't prevent people from making these vital checks.

"A breast lump is the most common symptom of breast cancer, so checking regularly could mean catching it earlier."

He said it was important that both men and women performed these self-examinations.

Sophia Lowes, from Cancer Research UK, said the study "didn't consider other factors such as social background that might affect whether they get breast changes checked out".

She said it was important women were aware of what their breasts normally looked and felt like, so they were more likely to notice any changes.

"If you do spot something unusual, tell your doctor," she said.

"In most cases, it won't be cancer - but if it is, finding it early can make a real difference."

SLHRC initiates action sans a complaint on LeN ban- serious violation of Human rights says Chairperson !

(Lanka-e-News - 05.Jan.2018, 10.45AM)  The ban on Lanka e news website precluding its viewers in Sri Lanka  from reading the news reports is a serious violation of human rights , and therefore an investigation has been launched into it , revealed Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission chairperson , Dr.Deepika Udagama on the 4 th. 

Dr. Deepika made these comments when addressing a media briefing on the 4 th at the Commission premises. President’s Counsel Saliya Peiris and SLHRC  Commissioners also participated in the media conference.

What is most significant to note in the action taken by Dr. Deepika the chairperson of the SLHRC is , the investigation has been commenced without anybody making a complaint. Taking into consideration the media reports on the proscription , this action was initiated, Dr. Deepika highlighted.  

Responding to a question posed by a journalist , Dr. Deepika explained , written requests have been made to the Institutions to explain on what basis this ban was imposed, and after the answers  are received , a final decision will be taken.

It is well to recall it is following the rainbow revolution of 2015-01-08 with the unrelenting support of Lanka e news , Commissions such as the SLHRC were made into independent Commissions . But for that Lanka e news inspired  political upheaval these Commissions would not have  been able to act independently , and chairpersons of rectitude and valor like Dr. Deepika would have been stymied in their moves to take independent decisions .

Lanka e news wishes to record  its appreciation even as our many million viewers salute  Dr. Ms. Deepika Udagama and the members of SLHRC for initiating this bold action .  

---------------------------
by     (2018-01-05 05:22:34)

Why Constitutional reform is a threat

The real interest of the masses of Tamil community has nothing to do with Nijabhumi, Elam or autonomous status. 

Second Chamber could be a serious threat to supremacy of Parliament and sovereignty of the people in the process of enacting laws.  

2018-01-06

The Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution is considered the first constitutional reform effected under Yahapalanaya Government. Reducing Presidential Immunity to some extent, making President responsible to the Parliament, restricting number of terms a person can be elected to the office of President not more than two, legalizing the right of access to information, restoration of Constitutional Council and nine commissions covering Election, Public Service, Police, Audit Service, Human Rights, Bribery and Corruption, Finance, Delimitation and National Procurement are some of the progressive salient steps taken in Yahapalanaya Constitutional reforms. However, there are some provisions in the Nineteenth Amendment which have been set for the benefit of the two principal partners of Yahapalanaya Government, not for the national benefit such as article 46(4) and Article 70 of Chapter VIII of the Nineteenth Amendment.

Why Constitutional reform is a threat.docx by Thavam on Scribd

Relevance of 1956 and failure of SWRD

by Asoka Amaratunga-January 5, 2018, 9:58 pm 

Several letters on the state of education in Sri Lanka today and the benefits and disadvantages of the Sinhala Only Act of 1956 have appeared in these columns recently. Though some writers have attempted to debate the importance of the Sinhala Only Act, unfortunately they have not discussed the socio-political and historical relevance of the greater dimensions of the 1956 upheaval. Some have attributed the victory of SWRD to the unpopularity of the then Prime Minister Sir John Kotalawela and the growing popularity of the Left parties and the "hartal". Others have simplistically called it a victory of the common people. Yet others in a negative sense had labeled it as the beginning of extremist nationalism in this country, the consequences of which are still being witnessed. Even SWRD Bandaranaike may not have fully understood this phenomenon and why people voted for him and his Sinhala Only Act. This may have been the reason for his failure. SWRD may have failed to understand the socio-political and historical undercurrents of the surge that propelled him to victory.

First and foremost one must understand what is meant by nationalism, for what happened in 1956 was more or less a manifestation of national consciousness. Nationalism should not be extremist, racist, aggressive or oppressive and it has never been that in Sinhala nationalism. On the contrary, it has been, in the main, protective, benevolent and generous to all minority communities; that is why they perform so well in every sphere of life in this country. Nationalism must originate, as it has happened in Sri Lanka, from the civilisational consciousness of the people who had built and nurtured a country, protected it from invaders, colonial powers, separatist movements etc. Nationalist feelings develop in the minds of a people, when their country, culture, language and religion are at peril. Historically this had been a persistent threat to Sri Lanka being a small country with strategic importance and a giant neighbour. As a result, the country had suffered and is suffering due to invasions and interference from regional as well as extra-regional countries. Whenever such violations occurred, the people's civilizational consciousness, which exists as a dormant force, harboured in the subconscious mind, could surface and manifest as an uprising or even a rebellion; as it had happened so often in the history of this country. The successful wars conducted against the South Indian and European invasions and the separatists in the recent past bear testimony to this fact. Kings and leaders who gave leadership to these wars and rebellions command great respect, admiration and popularity among the people.

It is no exaggeration to recognize the 1956 SLFP victory as a manifestation of the national consciousness that had been in the minds of the people from the inception of a civilisation in Sri Lanka. From early times there had been leaders who gave leadership to such manifestations. Apart from the heroic kings like Dutu Gemunu of the past, Anagarika Dharmapala could be considered as another leader who realized the need to galvanize this consciousness in order to develop people's resistance against the British occupation. Then there were the leaders who led the war against the Tamil separatist terrorists and who are held in esteem by the people, which again is proof of the presence and its possible surfacing of a civilisational consciousness. This consciousness gradually developed beginning from the time of the first South Indian invasion, and now is a force that rises up whenever the need arises.

Independence from British rule would have brought hope into the minds of people of all communities that they would not be second class citizens in their own country. But that was not to be. The British had, by their cultural invasion, made the ruling elite in the country almost British, sans the white skin. Their motive was to pursue their imperialist agenda via the rulers they had left behind. Nationalism, to some degree, led by people like Anagarika Dharmapala fought against this trend. SWRD Bandaranaike, who had ambitions of coming to power, making use of the opportunity created by the nationalists, adopted the rallying cry of "Sinhala Only". Paradoxically, he had spoken in favour of federalism earlier. He may have somewhat discriminated against the minorities, perhaps driven by political expediency, by opting for Sinhala Only. The word "only" should not have been there in the Sinhala Only Act. There was nothing wrong in making Sinhala the official language and the medium of instruction in schools as P.A.Samaraweera has elaborated, but the Tamil language should have been given its due, and education of English, both in schools and in universities, should not have been neglected. Education, particularly in the universities, was made accessible to the poor rural people by making Sinhala the medium of instruction and this aspect has been discussed at length in these columns. Research studies by educationists have found that education is better when done in one's mother tongue, for both understanding and retention of what is learnt is found to be better. Further, the link between the state and the people is their language, and when the government does business in some other language people cannot communicate with the government, which is essential for good governance. Discrimination against the Tamil language caused by the Sinhala Only Act is water under the bridge; these past mistakes have been corrected and there is no justification in saying that the consequences of that Act are still being witnessed. What is witnessed at present and in the recent past are the consequences of Tamil separatism, which could be traced back to the time before independence.

SWRD did the correct thing in making Sinhala the official language, but he had not realized that what was required was to view all issues from the national point of view. This is what was required to solve the complex problems of the people who had been a subject nation for several centuries. Language, and may be cultural aspects, were not the only issues that needed to be addressed. There was a need to free the people from the colonial yoke. For instance, just to take one important aspect, there should have been an attempt made to develop a national economy. The country's economy was controlled by the western powers to their advantage. The SLFP which was the political party that represented the national interests, failed to address these issues during the period they were in power. From 1956 until 2015 it had failed in this national duty on the occasions when it ruled the country, and this failure proved to be the cause of their defeat at the elections as in 1977 and also in 2014. There are several countries which had successfully developed their country, according to a national programme of work, and freed their countries from the yoke of colonialism. For example, China and to a degree Malaysia, had achieved substantial improvement in most of the important sectors such as culture, language, and economy, adopting a policy based on nationalism. China, particularly, which was comparable to India in the 1940s, has overtaken many countries which were ahead of it and now is second only to the USA and may soon overtake that country too. SWRD no doubt laid the foundation for national development but failed to carry it through. Similarly, his party the SLFP too had failed in this respect.