Peace for the World

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

Thursday, January 11, 2018


Maureen Clare Murphy-10 January 2018

These are the Palestinian children killed by Israel in 2017.
Fourteen Palestinian boys and girls under the age of 18 were shot dead by Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank and Gaza Strip during the year.
There were 21 fewer children killed than in 2016, which was the deadliest year for Palestinian children in the occupied West Bank in the past decade.

Trump just torpedoed his own administration’s position on FISA


During a week in which President Trump called himself  a “very stable genius,” he has once again proved that the White House he inhabits is not a particularly stable place — thanks to him.

 
In a tweet Thursday morning, Trump called into question his own administration's position on the reauthorization of a program that allows the government to conduct foreign surveillance on U.S. soil, also known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008.
Here's what Trump tweeted:
“House votes on controversial FISA ACT today.” This is the act that may have been used, with the help of the discredited and phony Dossier, to so badly surveil and abuse the Trump Campaign by the previous administration and others?
Less than 11 hours before the tweet, though, the White House reiterated its position in favor of said reauthorization and against an effort on behalf of libertarian-leaning members of Congress to limit its powers — an amendment known as “USA Rights.” Here's the statement from press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, sent just after 9 p.m. on Wednesday:
The Administration strongly opposes the “USA Rights” amendment to the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act, which the House will consider tomorrow. This amendment would re-establish the walls between intelligence and law enforcement that our country knocked down following the attacks of 9/11 in order to increase information sharing and improve our national security. The Administration urges the House to reject this amendment and preserve the useful role FISA’s Section 702 authority plays in protecting American lives.
It's pretty clear why Trump tweeted what he did. He's probably not all that tuned in to what's happening in Congress with FISA, and he was apparently watching plenty of TV on Thursday morning. He saw the word “controversial” and “FISA” in a "Fox and Friends" chyron and remembered that it was the program used to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign aides Carter Pageand Paul Manafort. Those FISA warrants are at the heart of a deep-state conspiracy theory alleging that the Steele dossier was used as a pretext to spy on his campaign and undermine him. And in Trump's world, things like this are pretty simple: If FISA warrants were used in a way that he perceives as being against him, they are bad.

Lawmakers spoke out on Jan. 10 about implementing more protections for American citizens in bills to reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. 
His administration, though, has reached a very different conclusion. To it, FISA warrants are a key tool in the war on terror and for general intelligence-gathering. It remains to be seen if Trump is actually thinking about changing that position, but if he did, it would obviously represent a very significant development for the controversial program, and Trump of course has veto power over such things.

Thus far there are conflicting signals. One of those libertarian-leaning members, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), is reportedly saying he prevailed upon Trump to support scaling back the program . . .



.@SenRandPauI says he spoke with @realDonaldTrump about FISA and both agreed on position counter to what WH statement outlined last night, says POTUS sides with Paul/Amash proposals for FISA reform.
… but then Trump tweeted later Thursday morning that he supported the FISA program — an apparent effort to recall his earlier tweet.
“House votes on controversial FISA ACT today.” This is the act that may have been used, with the help of the discredited and phony Dossier, to so badly surveil and abuse the Trump Campaign by the previous administration and others?
With that being said, I have personally directed the fix to the unmasking process since taking office and today’s vote is about foreign surveillance of foreign bad guys on foreign land. We need it! Get smart!
The vote was already on pretty thin ice, thanks to bipartisan opposition, so it's possible Trump may have just damaged its prospects, despite his clean-up efforts. Exactly what he supports isn't completely clear.
But more than anything, it suggests that those around Trump seem to be acting on such matters without Trump's say-so or without Trump actually tuning in to the things they are asking him about. Did Sanders's statement Wednesday night go out without Trump's approval? Or did he really approve a pro-FISA statement Wednesday night and then send out an anti-FISA statement on Thursday morning?

It's possible the second is true — Trump, after all, is known to have flexible positions on matters depending upon the last person he has spoken to — but the alternative (Option No. 1) is also intriguing. Given that report earlier this week about how Trump is spending less time in the office and more on nebulous “executive time,” how much is he actually paying attention to very important stuff like the FISA reauthorization, and how much is simply being handled by others in his administration?

Given what's happened the past 12 hours, it's a completely valid question to ask.

Julian Assange is made an Ecuadorian citizen in effort to resolve impasse

Ecuador’s foreign minister reveals to reporters in Quito that Wikileaks founder was granted citizenship a month ago

Julian Assange has been naturalised after living for five and a half years in the Latin American country’s embassy in central London. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

Legal affairs correspondent-Thu 11 Jan ‘18 

The WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was made an Ecuadorian citizen last month, the nation’s foreign ministry has revealed, in an attempt to resolve the political impasse over his continued presence in the UK.

The 46-year-old has been naturalised after living for five and a half years in the cramped, Latin American country’s embassy in Knightsbridge, central London.

Earlier this week the UK’s Foreign Office revealed that Ecuador had asked for Assange, who was born in Australia, to be accredited as a diplomat. The request was dismissed.

The Ecuadorian initiative was intended to confer legal immunity on Assange, allowing him to slip out of the embassy and Britain without being arrested for breaching his former bail conditions.



 Julian Assange posted this picture of himself in an Ecuadorian football shirt on Twitter. Photograph: Twitter

Assange failed to surrender to the UK authorities in 2012 after the supreme court rejected his appeal against extradition to Sweden to face accusations of sexual crimes, including rape. He was granted asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Swedish prosecutors last year unexpectedly dropped their investigation into allegations against him, which he denied. WikiLeaks, however, fears that the US will seek his extradition if he leaves the embassy, believing there is a sealed US indictment seeking his arrest.

At a press conference on Thursday in the Ecuadorian capital, Quito, the foreign minister, María Fernanda Espinosa, explained that Assange had sought citizenship and that it had been granted on 12 December last year.

“The Ecuadorian government is empowered to grant nationality to the protected person and thus facilitate ... his inclusion in the host state,” Espinosa told reporters.

Assange’s life could be under threat from other states, she warned, adding that she was seeking a “dignified and just” solution to his situation with Britain.

On Wednesday evening, the UK Foreign Office put out a statement explaining that: “The government of Ecuador recently requested diplomatic status for Mr Assange here in the UK. The UK did not grant that request, nor are we in talks with Ecuador on this matter. Ecuador knows that the way to resolve this issue is for Julian Assange to leave the embassy to face justice.”

At the same time Assange appeared on his Twitter account for the first time wearing an Ecuadorian national football shirt.

A statement by Assange’s legal team said: “The UN ruling, issued almost two years ago, is crystal clear in its language. [He] is unlawfully and arbitrarily detained by the UK authorities and must be released. The UK should not permit itself to be intimidated by the Trump administration’s public threats to ‘take down’ Mr Assange.”

It Is Not Time to Bomb North Korea

There’s no reason to start a devastating war when nonmilitary options are working.

North and South Korean officials during a meeting at the truce village of Panmunjom inside the Demilitarized Zone on August 22, 2015. (South Korean Unification Ministry via Getty Images) 

No automatic alt text available.
BY , -
 

Edward Luttwak, judging from his recent article in Foreign Policy, thinks a war between two nuclear-armed states is a good idea. He’s wrong. In fact, nothing could be more ruinous to U.S. interests or more dangerous to America’s friends than attacking North Korea.

You don’t have to take our word for it. When we wrote to the Defense Department this fall to inquire about the risks that a military assault on North Korea would pose, they told us that a ground invasion would be necessary to destroy North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s nuclear sites and noted that the Seoul metropolitan area’s 25 million inhabitants were well within range of North Korean artillery, rockets, and ballistic missiles. As if that weren’t dire enough, the U.S. Congressional Research Service recently estimated that 300,000 people would be killed in the first few days of fighting.

Any attempt to destroy that arsenal would present him with a classic “use it or lose it”
scenario, likely precipitating a nuclear exchange. Alternatively, Kim could choose to respond conventionally with thousands of rockets and artillery pieces, killing tens or hundreds of thousands of U.S., Japanese, and South Korean civilians and military personnel. In either scenario, we lose even if we “win” in a strictly military sense.

As with all nuclear deterrence campaigns, the only way to truly win is not to play
As with all nuclear deterrence campaigns, the only way to truly win is not to play
Luttwak mentions hardening subway stations as a way to protect Seoul’s citizens. Never mind that no amount of hardening could prevent the destruction of the city. Never mind that South Koreans would be joined in those makeshift shelters by thousands of American and third-country nationals living in Seoul. Never mind that the South would be under great pressure to escalate in the first hours of a conventional exchange.

Moreover, any escalation could — and probably would — draw a Chinese response. Peace on the Korean Peninsula and preserving a buffer between itself and a core U.S. ally remain paramount to the Chinese government, and we would be unwise to bet against China enforcing those interests.

Instead of contemplating military strikes, we should recognize that nonmilitary options for North Korea are real and working. South Korea has already broken with President Donald Trump’s dangerous policy in the interest of negotiations over the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics. This de-escalatory route should be pursued to the fullest extent possible.

Moving forward, we should support and empower the savvy U.S. foreign service officers and civil servants who are working to strangle the Kim regime’s lifelines of money, oil, and contraband. We should name and shame Chinese banks that launder money for North Korean elites, designate them as in violation of U.S. sanctions, and cut them off from the global financial system. And we should continue working to split North Korea from a China that increasingly sees the Kim regime as damaging to its ambitions.

Most importantly, we should reinforce the defenses of our Asian allies as we work to build a unified global front against Kim’s regime. Sanctions are effective only to the extent that they are enforced, and this kind of coordinated international action requires real diplomatic acumen — something the Trump administration has yet to demonstrate.

The bottom line is that hundreds of thousands of people will die within days of a U.S. attack on North Korea and millions more could perish in the war that will inevitably follow. President Trump owes it to our allies in the region and our troops on the ground to adopt a smarter, more cautious approach.

Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens admits extramarital affair but denies reports he blackmailed woman with nude photo

 Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens (R) admitted on Jan. 10 to cheating on his wife in 2015, but denied allegations that he blackmailed the woman to keep her quiet. 
 

Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens (R), responding to media reports, acknowledged Wednesday night that he was unfaithful to his wife “a few years ago” before being elected. But his lawyer denied sensational allegations aired by a local TV station that Greitens threatened to distribute naked photos he took of the woman with whom he was having a relationship if she ever said anything about it.

The woman, who has not been named publicly, was Greitens’s hair stylist, according to media reports confirmed by The Washington Post with a source familiar with the situation.

A joint statement posted Wednesday night by Greitens and his wife, Sheena, said in part that “a few years ago . . . there was a time when he was unfaithful in our marriage. This was a deeply personal mistake. Eric took responsibility, and we dealt with this together honestly and privately.”
Greitens, 44, is a relatively new star in the Republican Party who boasts an extraordinary résumé: Former Navy SEAL and Lt. Commander, attended Duke University on scholarship; Rhodes scholar at Oxford; PhD, author and White House Fellow during the administration of President George W. Bush. He is the author of “Resilience: Hard-Won Wisdom for Living a Better Life” and, according to a profile in St. Louis Magazine, has had presidential aspirations since he was a young man. His wife, Sheena Chestnut Greitens, is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Missouri, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Center for East Asian Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Missouri’s first lady, Sheena Greitens, an assistant professor at the University of Missouri, sits for an interview in Columbia. (Luke Brodarick/Missourian via AP)

A Democrat-turned-Republican, Greitens was elected governor in November 2016 after a campaign that emphasized his status as a family man. Greitens and his wife have two children. “I’m Eric Greitens,” he said during the campaign. “I’m a Navy SEAL, native Missourian and most importantly, a proud husband and father.”
Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens (R) ran a television commercial featuring him with an assault rifle during the 2016 campaign. 
The governor had just delivered his state-of-the-state address Wednesday when KMOV in St. Louis broke the story about his affair with his former hairdresser in 2015.

The extramarital relationship itself, however, may have been the least explosive part of the story.
More unusual was what she purportedly said in a recording made surreptitiously by the woman’s jealous ex-husband, which the station played.

In it, she can be heard telling how Greitens invited her to his home in 2015. Once she arrived, he told her he would show her how to do pull-ups, taped her hands to exercise rings and blindfolded her, all with her consent.

Then, to her shock, she alleged, he snapped photographs of her naked and threatened to distribute the pictures if she revealed the relationship.

On what was supposed to be a banner evening for Greitens, he then was forced to issue the statement with his wife confirming the affair. His wife also issued her own statement:
We have a loving marriage and an awesome family; anything beyond that is between us and God. I want the media and those who wish to peddle gossip to stay away from me and my children.
Neither the governor or his wife said anything about the reported photo shoot or the alleged blackmail threat.

That came in a separate statement by the couple’s attorney, James F. Bennett, who denied the blackmail claim. “There was no ‘blackmail,’ ” lawyer Bennett said in a written statement, “and that claim is false. . . . The outrageous claims of improper contact regarding these almost three-year-ago events are a lie.”

The whole story, which had been the stuff of wild rumors for weeks, originated with the spurned ex-husband, who told KMOV that the relationship between Greitens and the man’s then-wife had led to the breakup of their marriage.

Afterward, the ex-husband went on social media calling Greitens a “homewrecker,” according to KMOV. He then tried to go public with his story and with the recording, speaking with both of Missouri’s major newspapers.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch and the Kansas City Star reported that they too had possession of a transcript of the surreptitious recording and had interviewed the ex-husband. Both papers said they had decided against writing a story because the woman declined to be interviewed. Once the governor released a public statement the papers pushed ahead with their stories.

KMOV decided otherwise. Although it said it had no “on-the-record-comment” from the woman, it went with the story Wednesday night under the headline “Blackmail alleged as Governor Greitens admits to extramarital affair” and took credit for prompting Greitens’s statement.

“I am not after anything,” the ex-husband, who was also unnamed, told KMOV. “I am not a part of politics. I am not a part of anything. I just want to move on with my life.”
He claimed to have been contacted by law enforcement authorities as well as members of the media.
Bennett, Greitens’s lawyer, said in his statement that there was nothing about the relationship that “has generated or should generate law enforcement interest.”

Greitens has received mixed reviews in as governor. While campaigning on a platform of cleaning up government, he admitted to the Missouri Ethics Commission that he had violated campaign finance law, according to the Kansas City Star. He was fined $1,000. He and his senior staff have also come under fire for using an app that deletes text messages after they’ve been read, raising concerns about trying to subvert Missouri open records law.

Comments posted on Greitens’s Facebook page reflected a mixed reaction to the Wednesday’s revelations.

“This was March of 2015,” wrote one woman, “most likely when your wife was pregnant or had a new baby. There are transcripts. What is so fraudulent is that Eric Greitens ran as a ‘family man.’ ”

“There are many in Missouri who stand behind you as governor,” wrote another, “and support your family. . . . Lead on and God Bless!”

Here is the full statement, as posted on Facebook, by Greitens and his wife and the couple’s lawyer:
I wanted to share with you some statements that are important in light of news you may have seen tonight.
A statement from James F. Bennett, our attorney:
“The Governor has now seen the TV report that ran tonight. The station declined to provide the tape or transcript in advance of running their story, which contained multiple false allegations. The claim that this nearly three-year old story has generated or should generate law enforcement interest is completely false. There was no ‘blackmail,’ and that claim is false. This personal matter has been addressed by the Governor and Mrs. Greitens privately years ago when it happened. The outrageous claims of improper conduct regarding these almost three-year-ago events are a lie.”
Joint statement from Sheena and I:
“A few years ago, before Eric was elected governor, there was a time when he was unfaithful in our marriage. This was a deeply personal mistake. Eric took responsibility, and we dealt with this together honestly and privately. While we never would have wished for this pain in our marriage, or the pain that this has caused others, with God’s mercy Sheena has forgiven and we have emerged stronger. We understand that there will be some people who cannot forgive — but for those who can find it in your heart, Eric asks for your forgiveness, and we are grateful for your love, your compassion, and your prayers.”
 
When I heard Ben Bradlee himself tell the story at the heart of Steven Spielberg’s new movie, The Post [3], he shook his head in disgust. In retirement, the former editor would occasionally hold forth in the Washington Post newsroom where I worked, retailing his favorite anecdotes—of which the Pentagon Papers was clearly not a favorite.

“Oh, the Times was kicking our ass on a daily basis,” Bradlee moaned. In June 1971, the New York Times [4] had published the Defense Department study that showed U.S. presidents and policymakers had been lying for decades about U.S. prospects for victory in the Vietnam war. The Post newsroom, for all of its vaunted connections, could not put its hands on a copy, while the Times printed scoop after scoop.

“We were sucking their tailpipe,” Bradlee [5] snorted. Or maybe he said “smelling their farts.” Whatever the vocabulary, it was not complimentary.

And while the Post was regurgitating its rival’s reporting, the very nervous publisher Katharine Graham [6] was scheduled to take the company public.

“Kay was in a hell of jam,” Bradlee growled, “and there we were rewriting goddamn Brand X [Post newsroom lingo for the Times].” He found little redeeming in the memory. 

The fact that the Post finally obtained a copy of the Pentagon Papers [7] and wrote its own story, was, in Bradlee’s telling, a booby prize he didn’t much care for. Decades later, he was still embarrassed about being scooped on the biggest story of the year.
Countercultural Pressure

Out of such newsroom banter, director Steven Spielberg has spun The Post, a heartwarming journalistic yarn featuring Meryl Streep’s pitch-perfect portrayal of Graham as an insecure feminist heroine and Tom Hanks’ nuanced depiction of the brash Bradlee whose legend as crusading Watergate editor (burnished in the movie All the President’s Men [8]) has obscured just how conventional he usually was (spoiler alert: though not always).

Journalistically, the New York Times owned the Pentagon Papers story. Daniel Ellsberg, the disillusioned defense intellectual who stole the secret study, gave it to Times reporter Neil Sheehan (who would merely go on to write one of the best books ever about the Vietnam War, A Bright Shining Lie [9]).

Arthur Sulzberger, the owlish Times publisher, took the biggest risk in publishing a string of stories in the face of White House rage. President Richard Nixon sought a Supreme Court injunction to stop the Times from printing more stories, an unprecedented challenge to the First Amendment.
Cinematically, the Post stole the glory by finishing a distant second with a more interesting cast of characters.

Graham, born and bred to expectations of female deference, took over the Post in 1963 after the suicide of mentally ill husband Phil. Self-effacing in every way, she grew into the role of publisher, just as Bradlee, a clever Ivy League insider with CIA friends [10] who was her first major hire, grew into the role of executive editor.

The dynamic that drives The Post is countercultural: how the antiwar movement pushed and pulled these two strong if conventional personalities into doing the right thing. 

The intense Ellsberg, played with steady aplomb by Matthew Rhys [11] (best known as Philip Jennings on The Americans), is the moral motor of the movie. The first 20 minutes are devoted to how Ellsberg did what he set out to do: force others with less conviction to act.

A former Marine-turned-national security analyst, Ellsberg goes into combat in 1965 to see how the war is going and is nearly killed. He is appalled to watch his boss, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara[12], a social friend of Graham’s, then lie to the TV cameras about progress in Vietnam. So Ellsberg steals the secret Pentagon study with the goal of stopping the war. With the help of a couple of hippie friends, he copies all 7,000 pages of it.

When the Times publishes the story, the Post has to play catchup. What elevates Spielberg’s tale above hagiography is the script by Liz Hannah and Josh Singer [13], which deftly evokes the predicament in which Graham and Bradlee found themselves.

Hollywood Revisionism

Politically, the Post was behind the times. The Style section was a catalog of female stereotypes. The editorial page fulminated in favor of the Vietnam War long after much of the country had turned against it (just as the paper’s editorial page would foolishly support the invasion of Iraq [14] in 2003 despite massive and prescient public opposition, even in the newsroom).

The paper was compromised by its proximity to power. Graham was a social friend of McNamara's, just as Bradlee had been a pal of John F. Kennedy's, one of the presidents who had mouthed the platitudes of progress in Vietnam even as he privately resisted Pentagon demands for escalation.

When Graham refuses to ask McNamara for a copy of the Pentagon papers, Bradlee is furious. After the self-satisfied editor implies she is putting friendship over journalism, she silences him by noting he had done exactly that with JFK.

Spielberg's direction captures the distaste that Graham and Bradley, pure products of the Washington establishment, had for the unruly antiwar demonstrators in their peasant dresses and bell bottoms, even as they come to realize that Ellsberg and co. were right: that the time had come for people to act, to denounce, disrupt or otherwise challenge a wasteful and criminal war. Like it or not, they had to side with the scruffy antiwar demonstrators. They had to choose truth over power. To their everlasting credit, they did.

In a decisive moment, exquisitely played by Streep, Graham realizes that she might have let her son (and successor) Don be killed in a useless war waged by her fidgety friend Bob McNamara. Her resolve turns steely. She overrules her male advisers, sides with Bradlee and decides to publish the Post story.

It makes for such a stirring finale on the big screen it hardly matters that I later heard Bradlee dismiss that same story as “nothing special."

The Post Today

Such Hollywood fictionalizing gives The Post its resonance today. When Graham walks out of the Supreme Court toward the end of the movie, the youthful antiwar demonstrators of yesterday have morphed into admiring young women who look very 21st-century.

Of course, the clanking industrial print newspaper business, celebrated in Janusz KamiÅ„ski’s loving cinematography, is now defunct, replaced by sleek digital infotainment platforms, but the journalistic challenge of holding a lawless government accountable remains.

How does the Washington Post [15] of today compare with Spielberg’s Post? The editorial pages combine stout domestic liberalism [16] with a predictably pro-war voice [17]. The overall result is uninspiring. An infusion of Ellsbergian conviction about our ill-conceived, extra-constitutional expeditions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia and Niger, would expand the Post’s audience and serve the country.

In the newsroom, publisher Jeff Bezos follows the Graham family tradition: a noblesse oblige owner committed to the importance of a daily newspaper to the life of a city and the health of a democracy. Like the Grahams, Bezos is also politically ambidextrous in the service of running a profitable business.

The Post's executive editor Marty Baron [18], the laconic hero of the Oscar-winning Spotlight, is less charismatic than Bradlee, but perhaps more independent. The left may mistrust Bezos' immense wealth and lament the Post’s neoconservative tendencies, but it is hard to dispute that Baron has spent his Amazonian cash flow well in the service of exposing President Trump’s lies, [19] crimes [20] and misdemeanors [21].

Media myths aside, Bezos and Baron are sinners, not saints, just as Graham and Bradlee were fallible people, not icons. In 2018, as in 1971, the test of editorial leadership is managing the inevitable tensions between the newsroom and the front office.

Critics want to know: Will Baron’s newsroom look into Amazon’s $600 million cloud computing contract [22] with the CIA? The movie offers the clue of precedent. Did Ben Bradlee question Kay Graham’s friendship with Bob McNamara? Or his own cozying up to Jack Kennedy? Not until pride and politics forced him to a reckoning.

The drama of The Post movie is the challenge for today’s Post, and every other national news organization: to resist management pressure inside the newsroom while standing up to unaccountable power outside. That’s not just Hollywood mythmaking; that’s the nature of the news business.
 
Jefferson Morley is AlterNet's Washington correspondent. He is the author of The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton [23] (St. Martin's Press).
While guns are silent in Marawi, displaced civilians continue to suffer



By  | 

MORE than two months after the war in Marawi ended, tens of thousands of civilians displaced by the conflict still need humanitarian assistance in the coming months, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has said.


OCHA appealed to donors for funds amounting to PHP2.2 billion (US$43.7 million) for continuing support to the needs of the displaced civilians, including food supplies.

“A significant number of the 353,000 people displaced by the conflict will continue to rely on humanitarian assistance for the first quarter of 2018 and beyond,” said OCHA Philippines head Mark Bidder.


As of Dec 10, OCHA said the government, assisted by UN migration agency International Organisation for Migration (IOM) has facilitated the return of 26,000 families following the termination of military operations in Marawi on Oct 23.

Some 9,500 families living in the main battle area spanning 24 villages lost their homes with the intense fighting that left Marawi City in shambles.

Data by IOM showed that 353,626 individuals or 77,175 families were displaced by the war in Marawi after the Islamic State-inspired Maute Group attacked the city on May 23, prompting President Rodrigo Duterte to declare martial law in the entire Mindanao.

The war killed at least 1,100 individuals, mostly Islamic militants, including the key leaders of the siege – two Maute brothers and Isnilon Hapilon, an Abu Sayyaf chieftain who was the designated emir of the Islamic State in Southeast Asia.

On Oct 23, the government terminated military operations in Marawi that eventually allowed residents to return to villages cleared by the military, excluding the main battle area.

evac-center
Tent cities house civilians displaced by the five month-war in Marawi City. Source: Bong Sarmiento
So far, the government has handed at least 800 transitional shelters to displaced civilians as full-blast reconstruction works for the war-torn city was slated to start in the second quarter of 2018.

Bidder said that many of those who initially returned to Marawi have subsequently gone back to evacuation centres and host communities due to the delays in restoration of utilities, services and schools.

Lawyer Aminoden Macalandap, president of Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Lanao del Sur chapter, also said that many of those who have returned to villages cleared by the military left after seeing their houses destroyed or looted.

Macalandap told Asian Correspondent:
“They either stayed back at the evacuation centre or with their relatives outside Marawi mainly due to lack of livelihood opportunities.”
He lamented that many displaced civilians also opted to remain as refugees as basic services have yet to be restored, including markets to serve the public. On funds intended for Marawi, Macalandap stressed the need for transparency to ensure the money will not be corrupted or will go to wrong priorities.

“What is intended for Marawi must go to Marawi,” he said. Officials estimate that the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Marawi will cost the Philippine government at least US$1.1 billion.

Meanwhile, the United States announced Wednesday an additional assistance for Marawi amounting to PHP330 million (US$6.6 million). 
2017-10-27T102802Z_1980279410_RC11857B1F90_RTRMADP_3_PHILIPPINES-MILITANTS-HIDEOUT
Personal belongings are scattered inside a damaged room of an apartment house located in a residential area in Malutlut district, Marawi city, southern Philippines, on Oct 27, 2017. Source: Reuters/Romeo Ranoco

The allocation from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) brings Washington’s total contribution to the recovery and rehabilitation of Marawi and surrounding areas to over P1 billion ($20.9 million).

This assistance will provide opportunities for young women and men to enhance job skills and attain livelihoods, helping to stimulate the economy. The new fund is also aimed at helping vulnerable populations strengthen positive engagement within their communities.


“This new funding will support some of the most vulnerable populations affected by the conflict,” US Ambassador to the Philippines Sung Kim said in a statement.

“The United States is deeply committed to supporting our friend and ally in long-term recovery efforts to ensure a brighter and more peaceful future for the people of Mindanao,” he said.

The US government, through USAID, has been helping the Philippine government in the recovery, stabilisation, and rehabilitation of Marawi City and the surrounding areas.
USAID’s early assistance involved restoring access to water and distributing desks for schools where displaced students are enrolled.


Kim assured that USAID will continue to coordinate with the Philippine government and humanitarian organisations to deliver critical relief supplies to improve conditions in evacuation centres and transitional housing.

USAID has provided health clinics in Marawi and surrounding areas with supplies and services to combat tuberculosis and support maternal, newborn and child health needs.

To bolster the recovery, USAID will also help restore public services, like water and electricity, and will work with communities to jumpstart livelihoods, promote community dialogue, and improve health and education systems.

To help fortify the area’s longer-term stabilisation and rehabilitation, USAID will offer skills training and psychosocial counselling for youth, and promote community alternatives to violent extremism.

2017-10-28T071908Z_748840992_RC15AEF728F0_RTRMADP_3_PHILIPPINES-MILITANTS
Students from Mindanao State University (MSU) paint a mural symbolizing a call for peace after the end of assault against pro-Islamic State militant groups in Marawi, on a wall along a main highway of Pantar, Lanao Del Norte, southern Philippines, on Oct 28, 2017. Source: Reuters/Romeo Ranoco

Besides US, China, Australia, Japan, Thailand and the European Union, among others, also pledged to help rebuild Marawi.

For his part, Marawi Bishop Edwin dela Pena has called on Catholic dioceses across the country to adopt communities affected by the war in Marawi and to assist in long-term recovery efforts.

The “Adopt a Community” is a project of “Duyog Marawi,” the Prelature of Marawi’s response to help in the healing and recovery of civilians displaced by the Marawi conflict, in partnership with the Redemptorist missionaries and Caritas Philippines.

While the war in Marawi is over, martial law is still in effect in the whole Mindanao until the end of 2018.