Friday, January 12, 2018

No room for shadow boxing for Polonnaruwa’s backwoods folks before Colombo’s masculine team !

(Lanka-e-News - 12.Jan.2018, 11.30AM) In the midst of mudslinging speeches against the UNP (which propelled Maithripala to the presidential seat) leaders mentioning even their names prompted by his evil aims and agendas during the run up to the forthcoming elections by the president while making reference to the Bond Commission report , a UNP leader made a request for a copy of that report .Yet, this request was not granted even after a week had elapsed. It will be a justifiable conclusion that the president deliberately slung mud at the UNP mainly because the president while having the report of the 17 grave corruptions of the Commission inquiring into grave frauds in his hand ,and without mentioning the names of the culprits directly involved in those crimes , took pains when making reference to other matters, to mention Ravi Karunanayake’s name who in fact had no direct involvement in the treasury bond scam .

President declared, in the Commission report it was indicated , a case can be filed by the Bribery Commission in connection with Ravi’s staying in a house of Aloysius. However the president did not make mention of the report of the Commission investigating grave frauds on the 17 corruptions aforementioned and the subsequent report on another 17 corruptions despite having those reports in his hand . Because the culprits in the 34 grave corruptions are SLFP ers , with a view to gain political mileage at the forthcoming elections he did not mention the names of the SLFP criminals. This partiality and (mis) conduct of the president while being head of the country is most abominable and reprehensible.

As a copy of the Bond Commission report which mentioned the name of Ravi Karunanayake was not received by him even 7 days after it was out , and no other UNPer had also received it , he had to make a formal application to the presidential secretariat on the 8 th requesting a copy under the ‘right to information.’

RavI Karunanayake who addressed a media briefing thereafter spoke thus ….

‘I went to the presidential secretariat to meet his secretary . Since he had gone to Moragahakande , I handed over a letter to the additional secretary requesting a copy of the Bond Commission report under the right to information .It is three years since the president was appointed. We were able to pass the enactment of right to information of the public. Hence we are vested with that ‘right to information .’

''At the Bond Commission our names were mentioned. We inform there is no justification in that. The statements made by some targeting the P.M. and UNP ers including me are very unfair. These statements are most unjustifiable. After we receive the copy of the Bond Commission report , we can speak about the steps to be taken in the future. . This is why we have asked for a copy of the report .We request you to give us a copy.

In the hedging soodhuwa (wager) there is about Rs. 76000 million. In the Greek bond issue there is about Rs. 7600 million. In the Sri Lankan deal a loss of Rs. 1460 billion had been incurred . At the same time massive loans have also been taken during the past. Instead of talking about these , speaking about the Bond Commission alone is absolutely unreasonable.
Certainly if anybody has robbed , he/she must be punished. Based on the report of the special presidential Commission inquiring into grave frauds ,huge exposures have been made against over 36 culprits . We have also revealed the culprits and we are prepared to fearlessly come forward to resolve any issue . We are not politicos who are cowards. We have served the villages and the country for the last 25 years.

About the loan of a Rs. million approximately of my daughter , much is being talked . Somebody told a lie. A stray woman from somewhere came forward to make a statement .Many things that are happening are unfair.

I am one who wishes to create a new political culture. What I say is even if you assassinate me please do not assassinate my character.

Our aim is to make truth victorious. This is why we are fearlessly asking for the report regarding the treasury bond.

We are risking even our lives to safeguard our UNP party. We protect our leader Ranil Wickremesinghe .We protect president Maithripala Sirisena. But we are not prepared to rescue parasitic bootlickers. It is our duty to investigate the MiG transaction , instead are we being asked to engage in shadow boxing? After the Bond commission report is out , the truth will be known.''

Before coming on the television screen and saying ‘Ravi Karunanayake is a wrongdoer’ , it is the duty of the president to tell Ravi Karunanayake ‘ Here is the report I have received. This is how the wrong has been pointed out ,‘ because at the elections which installed him in power , it was Ravi Karunanayake the deputy leader of the UNP who spent Rs. 500 million towards his victory.

Maithri who has never known what is gratitude from birth must at least now acquire it . He does not need to become a dog or a bitch to learn that simple quality.

It is well for Maithri to remember , it is not his present bosom pals like Kili Maharaja who are involved in his money laundering transactions , or Wegapitiya or his family members now turned billionaires who spent to earn victory for Maithri then .

At that time even the meal packets to the staff working in Maithri’s election office were supplied by others. Neither Maithri nor his family members now turned proud billionaires spent even to supply plain tea.

Hence , at least Maithri should provide a copy of the Bond Commission report which Ravi has duly requested, shedding his characteristic callous and ungrateful traits at least on this occasion.

When Polonnaruwa village folks hide something effeminately and pummel indirectly with something else , Colombo masculine folks on the other hand conduct themselves straightforward – they are ready to hit back straight and direct.

---------------------------
by (2018-01-12 06:00:32)

Happy New Year: Chinese Flag has now risen in Sri Lanka

Is the BRI too big to fail in re-creating a “new” tributary system of China?

By Patrick Mendis and Joey Wang - Friday, 12 January 2018

President Xi Jinping’s ‘Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era’ is now firmly enshrined as the North Star for Government action as the 19th Communist Party Congress concluded late last year. His thought incorporated into the Constitution is the continued development of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as part of the China Dream.

The BRI was first introduced by Xi back in September 2013 as a ‘One Belt and One Road (OBOR) strategy’ during his visit to Kazakhstan. If implemented as planned, it is expected to relieve China of the “Malacca dilemma”. It is a phrase coined in 2003 by then President Hu Jintao on China’s over-reliance through the Malacca Straits between Indonesia and Malaysia.

Touted as the modern-day Silk Road, the network of BRI connectivity would link China with Central Asia, South and Southeast Asia, Africa, and Western Europe through a sprawling web of ports, roads, pipelines, and other infrastructure projects consisting of “65 countries, 29% of global GDP, and 60 percent of the world’s population” according to the Paulson Institute. The goal is to promote increased efficiency in resource allocation and “deep integration of markets,” raise the standards of regional cooperation, and “jointly creating an open, inclusive and balanced regional economic cooperation architecture that benefits all.”

The enormity of such an undertaking, of course, raises far more questions. Indeed, there are many reasons for BRI, and while it is true that many countries along the Belt and Road are in desperate need of large-scale infrastructure investment, it is also true that there are myriad other reasons why China would find these investments worth the attendant risks.

Other forces at work

One reason is to diversify and achieve better returns in China’s foreign exchange reserves. Currently, China sits on somewhere around three trillion dollars. When the OBOR was first introduced in 2013, the returns were earning less than one-percent a year. The hope is that the infrastructure investments will generate a higher profit.

Another reason is to provide relief for domestic overcapacity and the myriad zombie State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), particularly “within the metals and construction and materials sectors.” Beijing has tried to decrease the high levels of inequality between the wealthier coastal cities of the east and the poorer interior western regions through state-directed investments. Not surprisingly, it is in these western regions such as Gansu, Ningxia, Qinghai, Tibet, and Xinjiang, where there is a high-concentration of SOEs and a low-penetration of private initiatives.

Among many other reasons, it is as much, if not more, a matter of self-interest; part of its overall strategy of peripheral diplomacy, as it is about regional stability and development. As such, some are arguing that since these infrastructure projects are motivated more by political factors than real economic rationale, there is significant risk that these projects will fail to deliver the returns expected. These concerns are not without merit.

Too big to fail?

The ratings agency Fitch, for one, is sceptical that “China’s banks can identify profitable projects and manage risks better than international commercial banks and multilateral lenders” with decades of experience in financing emerging-market infrastructure. “After all, Chinese banks do not have a track record of allocating resources efficiently at home, especially in relation to infrastructure projects.” As such, they are unlikely to have more success overseas. Meanwhile, local politicians are incentivized by hanging onto the coattails of these white elephant projects, subordinating business logic to political agendas, and increasing the risks of unprofitable projects.

Fitch also estimates that the countries to which approximately $900 billion in credit has been extended all run a high risk of default. It currently rates those countries with identifiable OBOR projects at typically “speculative grade credit ratings, ranging from B to triple B categories.” Peter Cai of the Lowy Institute in Australia suggests that “nearly two-thirds of OBOR countries have a sovereign credit rating below investable grade.”

Adding to the risks in these projects is the issue of soft budget constraints. The “softening” appears “in mixed economies and is conspicuously apparent in socialist systems,” where the state’s treatment of economic organisations and private firms is paternalistic. The China Development Bank and the China Export-Import Bank, for example, lend largely on political considerations and “do not have clear-cut debt sustainability limits.” Xu Chenggang at Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business in Beijing has opined that “Expansion of these soft budget constraints at such an unprecedented rate and in such a large scale is going to generate unprecedented consequences.” Hence, argues Xu: “Instead of solving the overcapacity problems, they are expanding the problem to projects overseas.”

Contagious Sri Lankan fever

These projects are fraught with financial risks, and Sri Lanka is the prime example. During the nine years of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s autocratic rule, Sri Lanka began slipping away from traditional funding institutions—such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank—and edging toward China, who invested heavily (and happily) in Sri Lanka and, in fact, became its “leading investor and lender, and its second-largest trading partner.”

In the aftermath of the Sri Lanka’s Eelam War that ended in 2009, Western nations began distancing themselves from the Rajapaksa regime over concerns of war crimes and corruption allegations. When President Maithripala Sirisena unexpectedly defeated Rajapaksa in the 2015 election, he had campaigned on the promise to extricate Sri Lanka from China’s onerous debt terms. But by then, the die had already been cast. Exacerbating the issue was that, having risen to a middle-income country, it no longer qualified for concessionary loans and has had to obtain commercial credit where terms are guided by the markets.

After suspending projects like the Colombo Port City, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe Coalition Government tried to renegotiate the terms of servicing its debt, but was told unequivocally that the debt would not be written off. “But if you can’t pay,” the Chinese told Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, “We are ready to swap debt for equity.”

Unable to pay its mounting debts (more than 95% of Government revenue goes toward servicing debt), and already near default, the Colombo Government was forced to do an about-face and enter into a debt-equity swap in which China would pay $1.12 billion for a 99-year lease agreement in which China would have a 70% stake in the Hambantota Port and the control of a strategic land parcel in the Colombo Port City.

The far-reaching strategic implications are now clearand certainly have not been lost on protesters and critics who claim that the island’s sovereignty has essentially been handed over to China as if it were Hong Kong to the British Empire.It’s no surprise that some observers call it “One Road, One Trap” to revive President Xi’s “China Dream” into a Middle Kingdom’s tributary system in other means.

Invisible hand by the visible State

Lest policymakers mistake Sri Lanka for a black swan, they should take note that many countries in the region are somewhere on the slope of this debt trap.The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (C-PEC), Malaysia’s Forest City, Cambodia’s Sambor Dam and other infrastructure projects, as well as Bangladesh, Nepal, Indonesia, Maldives and other countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, and Venezuela, are all vulnerable to significant economic, political, and environmental risks when they too readily accept Chinese money tossed in their direction.

Recently, Pakistan pulled the plug on the Diamer-Bhasha dam, a major CPEC project that was a part of OBOR. The Chairman of the Pakistani Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) was quoted as saying that “Chinese conditions for financing the Diamer-Bhasha Dam were not doable and against our interests.”

In a similar blow to OBOR, Nepal recently “scrapped” its $2.5 billion, 1200 MW Budhi Gandaki hydropower plant with the China Gezhouba Group Corps (CGGC), citing “irregularities” because CGGC had been “selected without initiating a competitive bidding process.”; a breach of Nepal’s Public Procurement Act. Budhi Gandaki had also been identified by China as a component of OBOR.
These moves suggest that some of these countries are waking up to the fact that what appears to be Chinese largesse must be subjected to much greater scrutiny, lest they commit themselves to a Faustian deal.

On its face, China does appear to be the loaner of choice over multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank, or the ADB for not interfering in the domestic affairs of recipient countries, and its no-strings attached approach. However, there are, in fact, many unwritten but implied strings attached and, as Sri Lanka has learned, the consequences are costly for their sovereignty and self-governance.

But China views the situation differently. Liu Xiaoxu of the China Academy of Social Sciences writes, “China has no strategic illusion about Sri Lanka, which is too close to India geographically to resist any influence from its powerful northern neighbor, neither is there any deliberate or insidious plan to trick Sri Lanka into a debt trap. Nor is it economically naïve to squander money building the largest swimming pool in a tiny island which is thousands of miles away from it.”

This clearly reveals the working of invisible hands by a very visible statecraft with a mission to create a “pacific” New World Order mirroring the old tributary system as the Chinese Flag has now just risen in Hambantota and Colombo.

(Professor Patrick Mendis, author of ‘Peaceful War,’ and Joey Wang are alumni of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.)

Remembering Khuram: an interview with Nasser Shaikh

Jan 12, 2018

Just over six years ago, on 25 December 2011, British citizen Khuram Shaikh was murdered during a holiday stay in Tangalle, a fishing town on Sri Lanka’s southern coast. The 32-year-old, a prosthetics specialist from Rochdale, who months earlier had been working with amputees in the Gaza strip for the Red Cross, was killed after a brutal and sustained attack by a gang of men during a hotel Christmas party. They had had set upon Khuram after he had intervened to protect a member of hotel staff who was being beaten up.

A friend of Khuram’s, 23-year-old Victoria Alexandrovna, was also attacked and sexually assaulted by the group, leaving her in intensive care. In an act of extraordinary bravery, she would later waive her anonymity to tell her story at trial.

Following a lengthy international battle for justice, marred by intimidation and suspected political interference, four of the perpetrators were in July 2014 convicted for their crimes and sentenced to prison. Among them was Sampath Chandrapushpa Vidanapathirana, a local politician with close links to the family of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

In the wake of news reports in late 2017 that a date had been set for the appeals process – with the Attorney-General, on the one hand, seeking to increase the sentences, and the convicted, on the other, seeking to reduce them – we got in touch with Nasser Shaikh, Khuram’s brother and a leader of the campaign for justice, to talk about the case. Below, he remembers Khuram on the sixth anniversary of his brother’s passing, describes some of the developments before and since the trial, and explains what can be done to maintain pressure on proceedings.

A Court of Appeal hearing has been fixed for 5th February 2018.

Describe to our readers in a few words what kind of person your brother was, some of the things he achieved during his life, and the impact he had on yours?

Khuram wasn’t just an amazing brother who was funny, kind and always supportive, he was someone who lit up a room wherever he went with his infectious charisma. He was so full of life. He was someone I looked up to and was a big inspiration in my life and to many of his friends. He had worked extremely hard following graduation to get into the Red Cross and was so committed to his work. He worked in some of the world’s most dangerous places and always thought of others before himself.

Remind us of how events unfolded following Khuram’s death, in terms of the campaign to bring those responsible to justice. How long it did it take to achieve some measure of accountability and was it, in your view, sufficient?

The campaign to get justice for my brother took two and a half years and was an uphill battle from the beginning. I had travelled out to Sri Lanka on many occasions in the first 12 months or so; seeking answers, and to ultimately get to the truth and have my brother’s killers behind bars. We were misled by the Sri Lankan authorities, and, looking back now, it was clear that the government knew full well that if they dug any deeper a web of atrocities would be uncovered.

Things only started to move when I involved my local MP. He was really helpful in terms of raising the issue in the UK Parliament and lobbying the Prime Minister, David Cameron. As things began to unfold – and an understanding was established that the main suspect was a politician from the Sri Lankan ruling party and close friend of President Rajapaksa’s family – our most senior UK officials, including Prince Charles, became involved. They were vocal about the need for Sri Lanka to do the right thing and not to try to sweep things under the carpet.

From this, a campaign developed and journalists from all over the world became interested in Khuram’s story. I continued to fly over to Sri Lanka, during which I met with Government Ministers and key British diplomats who were really helpful. Because Sri Lanka was hosting the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 2013, we were able to ratchet up the pressure and David Cameron raised Khuram’s case directly with President Rajapaksa when they met in Colombo. Suddenly a change in attitude was seen. There was a realisation that Sri Lanka’s reputation was being damaged because the safety of British citizens could not be guaranteed. Justice had to be seen to be delivered and in July 2014 Khuram’s killers were finally convicted and sentenced to a long term in prison.

We understand from reports that the Court of Appeal had set a date in October 2017 to hear an appeal by the Sri Lankan Attorney General seeking to increase the sentences against the convicted. Meanwhile however, we gather that four further appeals by the convicted seeking to reduce the sentences were also filed and set to be heard on the same day. What came of this, and what are your hopes or concerns about the appeals process?

It’s regrettable that I’ve not been kept up to date on latest developments, though I would assume it hasn’t moved much. The appeal process in Sri Lanka can take many years to complete. Despite the global interest in the case, I haven’t seen any articles of substance on the appeal. I am fairly confident I would be told of any outcomes. Yes, it is correct that the Attorney General is seeking to increase the sentences and this is a view which has been echoed by many since the verdict.

Earlier this year, a senior UK coroner launched a scathing attack on the government of Sri Lanka for their lack of cooperation during the inquest proceedings. Have you ever received an apology from the Sri Lankan authorities for the way in which they failed your family? Or any reassurances that ensuring justice in this case is a priority for them?

No, I’ve never received an apology from the Sri Lankan authorities on their lack of co-operation during the inquest hearing. The UK Coroner’s office asked them on many occasions pre- and post-conviction for material to ensure a timely hearing could go ahead. Instead of being apologetic, the attitude from the Sri Lankan authorities was quite the opposite.

During the campaign I was told by many Sri Lankan officials that I was expecting too much and that the wheels of justice grind a lot slower in Sri Lanka. I was told I could wait up to 10 years before anything was to happen in terms of bringing the case to court. I knew then this was an attempt to distract me from keeping up the fight and therefore to limit the campaign’s damage to Sri Lanka’s reputation as a tourist destination. During the early stages of the campaign I looked into other cases where foreign nationals were either injured or involved in altercations and found some awful miscarriages of justice. Many of those who joined my campaign about the lack of justice in the country included Sri Lankans who shared their own personal experiences with me. I feel really saddened that so many people have been denied justice.

What kind of support have you received from the UK government in recent times and has it been enough?

The UK Government were really supportive from the outset including Ministers not only in the UK but various members within the British High Commission in Colombo. My local MP worked tirelessly to keep the pressure up as everyone wanted a result. The UK Government take these matters very seriously and I know that future support will remain available when required.

Is there anything that our readers and supporters can do to help ensure that international pressure on this case is maintained?

Firstly, I would ask your readers to keep monitoring the Facebook page and, if they haven’t done so, to ‘Like’ the page to ensure they get updates. Whist the campaign is much quieter than before, it is important these supporters are there if and when needed in the future. Even pressing a simple ‘Like’ on the most personal posts shows unity and solidarity, and is viewed with much warmth and respect by the family.

Secondly, I would ask readers to email the High Commissioner of Sri Lanka in the UK, Amari Wijewardene, asking her to keep a close eye on the appeals process to ensure the verdict against my brother’s killers is upheld. I remember someone telling me that the Presidential pardon was used widely by the Rajapaksa regime to enable those in power to act with impunity. Though I am hopeful that this tactic is a thing of the past with the new government, it would shame Sri Lanka if anything untoward came from the appeals process. Rest assured that if it did, the thousands who joined our campaign – including members of the public, politicians and journalists – would have something to say about it. I very much doubt that the noise they would make would be the sort of thing that the government of Sri Lanka would want prospective tourists to hear.

The March of Folly Understanding why Mahinda Rajapaksa lost

By Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha-2018-01-12`

I looked last week at Nalaka Godahewa's account of why Mahinda Rajapaksa lost, which he attributed to the excessive influence of eight people who "were not listening to the voices of the grassroots anymore." Though an intelligent analysis of some aspects of the last years of the Rajapaksa Administration, the article failed to distinguish between positive influences and those who contributed heavily to the defeat.

I was happy though that Godahewa was complimentary about Gotabaya Rajapaksa, and I wished he had also noted how effectively P.B. Jayasundera and Ajith Nivard Cabraal had contributed to the economic wellbeing of the country, certainly in comparison with the current mess. And I felt too that there was more to be said for Lalith Weeratunga, though he failed to exercise his undoubted influence productively.

With regard to the four others Godahewa identifies, I feel he is generally right, though again the analysis could have been less perfunctory. And I was sorry he left out two characters who I felt did more than anyone else to destroy the President, though again neither has been accused of financial misdemeanours.

One was G.L. Peiris, whose influence Godahewa belittles in asserting that "Sajin de Vass Gunawardena was a huge influence in the External Affairs Ministry, though officially, Peiris was in charge."

Peiris' endemic insecurity

That does not reduce Peiris' culpability for disastrous foreign relations, and his failure for instance to go to America to meet Hillary Clinton when she invited him, to reply to Manmohan Singh's letter when the Indians were debating which way to vote at the Human Rights Council in March 2014, to move on matters which were agreed with the TNA when we were negotiating with them and the President told us to proceed.

But Godahewa does have a point in that perhaps Peiris' endemic insecurity was exacerbated by the way Sajin was, as it was put, in charge of him. And certainly perhaps the worst influence on the President was Sajin. What finally convinced me to come out against the President (as opposed to staying neutral, for we had told him we could not support him if there were no reforms) was Sajin's attack on Chris Nonis, and the fact that Mahinda Rajapaksa took Sajin's side when that outrageous assault occurred.

Sajin's evil influence, in also sabotaging talks with the TNA, and in helping Kshenuka Seneviratne destroy our foreign relations, in particular with India, I can testify to, having indeed written about it.

I cannot, however, comment on another individual Godahewa mentions, Gamini Senarath who allegedly 'influenced all key appointments in the government.' But that may be true and perhaps indicates why Lalith failed. Though it is said he "had the power to make or break anyone's relationship with the former President," the influence attributed to Senarath suggests Lalith had been superseded (which is why he should indeed have resigned, when he could no longer influence policy either).

Responsiveness to people's needs

Senarath was not one of my dwarfs, but someone else Godahewa mentions, namely Namal Rajapaksa was amongst them.

Though I now realize that a story Arjuna Ranatunga told me about him, which I credited, may not have been true, it is certainly true that Mahinda Rajapaksa could not control him and some of his initiatives did not benefit the country or the people. That worried me, for right to the end I felt that, while Basil Rajapaksa was not responsive in many respects to people's needs, Mahinda had his measure and could rein him in when necessary.

Basil indeed is the most complicated of those Godahewa identifies as having exercised seminal influence during the Rajapaksa Administration.

I myself felt that this influence was perverse, not least because he usurped the authority of many SLFP ministers, which is why none of them are mentioned in the article, but at the same time he achieved much in terms of development.

Though he failed to consult people in the areas in which he worked, and contributed to the alienation of the Tamils, his contribution should not be ignored, not least because it is far in advance of anything this government has done.

Son of member that forced lady teacher to kneel down assaults youth

January 12, 20

The son of the Chief Organizer of the SLFP in Anamaduwa Ananda Sarath Kumara and another youth who have assaulted another youth at Nawagaththegama town have been released on personal bail of Rs. 200,000 each.

The Chief Organizer of the SLFP in Anamaduwa Ananda Sarath Kumara created uproar in the society when he forced a lady teacher to kneel down in front of students and other teachers in the school.

Yjr two youths Ayesh Sshanaka Kumara and Tharanga Madushanka have assaulted the other youth near the petrol filling station at Nawagaththegama on the 10th.

The victim, Vidyapathy Muththalage Bhuddika Shalitha Bandara Subasingha (19), a resident of Nawagaththegama was admitted to Nawagaththegama Hospital but was later transferred to Kurunegala Teaching Hospital.

Forcing principal to kneel: Uva CM denies allegations

2018-01-12

Chief Minister Uva Province Chamara Dasanayake told the media yesterday afternoon at his office that it was absolutely a false allegation that he threatened and forced a principal of a Tamil girls’ school in Badulla to kneel down before him.

He said that he received complaints that the principal concerned being a Hindu had discriminated the students of other faiths and that he called her to his official residence to inquire into the complaint in the presence of the Secretary to the Provincial Ministry of Education, Director of Education and the parents who made the complaint.

“I only requested the principal to be cautious of acts that could disturb communal harmony and after a friendly discussion we could settle the dispute amicably. After the meeting the principal and the parent saluted me in the oriental fashion and left. However, the JVP Provincial Councillor Samantha Vidyarathana has resorted to a false propaganda from the political platform to tarnish my image. I will take legal action against him,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Principal R. Bhavani who refused the allegation levelled against the Chief Minister, confirmed his version of the story.

She said that she met the Chief Minister at his residence to inquire into a complaint made by two parents and that the issue was resolved in a friendly atmosphere. She further said politicians were attempting to gain cheap political mileage through false propaganda. (Prasad Rukmal and Prasanna Pathmasiri)

Trump to punish Palestinians as example for rest of world

A Palestinian child takes part in a protest against Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, in front of UNRWA headquarters in Gaza City, 19 December 2017. The US president is threatening to cut funds to the refugee agency in retaliation for Palestinian opposition to his move.Ashraf AmraAPA images

Ali Abunimah- 11 January 2018

The State Department has denied a report that the US missed a deadline to transfer $125 million to UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestine refugees.

But there are indications of a fierce struggle within the Trump administration about whether to cut funding to the organization that provides health, education and humanitarian services to five million Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

Asked Tuesday about a report from last Friday that the US had missed the payment, US Undersecretary of State Steven Goldstein said, “there are still deliberations taking place. We have not missed the deadline, and we have not halted funding, and the decision is under review.”

“I wouldn’t anticipate a decision this week,” Goldstein added.

Earlier this week, UNRWA spokesperson Chris Gunness told The Electronic intifada that the agency had not been informed one way or the other about any change in US funding.

A State Department official told the Palestinian newspaper Al Quds that it was unknown if funding to UNRWA would continue, but that there had been a “technical” meeting at the White House last Friday to examine all the US aid given to Palestinians, including UNRWA, to see where cuts could be made.

The US is UNRWA’s largest single donor. It contributed $380 million of the overstretched and cash-strapped agency’s $1.1 billion budget in 2015.

“Showdown”

A Washington Post column by pro-Israel journalist Josh Rogin this week asserts that the Trump administration “is headed for a showdown over whether to follow through on threats by President Trump and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley to cut off US funding for Palestinian refugees.”

Trump and Haley made the threats as retaliation for the Palestinian Authority’s rejection of the president’s December recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

According to Rogin, the White House has decided to hold an as yet unscheduled meeting of top officials to decide whether or not to release the $125 million that Rogin asserts is “on hold.”
Rogin says that he has been told by several administration officials that Haley has been “pushing for a total cut in US funding for UNRWA.”

Top officials reportedly backing Haley’s position include Trump’s chief of staff John Kelly, national security adviser H.R. McMaster and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner who has been tasked with reviving the so-called peace process.

Rogin also cites “sources close to Haley” telling him the ambassador does “not advocate abolishing UNRWA altogether.”

Eliminating the agency has been long advocated by the pro-Israel far-right, and openly by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in the hope of permanently removing the right of return for Palestinian refugees from the international agenda.

Harming refugees

Rogin says that some administration officials are warning that cutting funding to UNRWA would have potentially disastrous humanitarian consequences, including on US allies.

“Haley is well-intentioned, but the practical effects of the position she has taken will do harm to the refugees, our ally in Jordan, and will leave the Israelis holding the bag when the s–t hits the fan,” Rogin quotes a State Department official telling him.

Options being considered include a partial scaling back of US funding to UNRWA or asking others, such as Saudi Arabia, to foot the bill, according to Rogin.

Some officials believe cuts in US aid will fail to force countries that have been threatened – including the Palestinians and Pakistan – to bow to the Trump administration’s line. But, according to Rogin, by implementing the cuts, “Trump will be able to claim that money was saved and a campaign promise fulfilled.”

Systematic smears

Separately, Norway and the European Union announced an “extraordinary” meeting later this month of a group of donors to the Palestinians which includes representatives from the United States and various international bodies.

The so-called Ad Hoc Liaison Committee has long served as a way for international donors, especially the US, to impose their political demands on the Palestinians under the guise of offering aid.

The ostensible goal of the meeting is to discuss ways to “speed up efforts that can underpin a negotiated two-state solution,” but its timing in the wake of American threats to funding is likely no coincidence.

Palestinian human rights defenders are adding their voices to those warning of the dire humanitarian consequences of major cuts to UNRWA’s resources.

For decades, “UNRWA has faced systematic campaigns aimed at shutting it down and smearing its reputation,” the Gaza-based human rights group Al Mezan said Wednesday.

Al Mezan pointed to the “unprecedented deterioration of the humanitarian situation” in the occupied West Bank and especially Gaza, which has been under a tight Israeli blockade for a decade.
It notes that UNRWA has already been forced to cut services because of shortfalls in its funding amid soaring needs.

But according to Rogin, the Palestinians are to serve as a “major test of Trump’s new approach of using aid to punish foreign governments for bad behavior.”

There could be no clearer – or more cruel – example of the strong taking out their anger and vengeance against some of the most vulnerable people in the world.

Lebanese PM Hariri backs Hezbollah despite Saudi pressure

Hariri, who is in a government coalition with Hezbollah, rejected foreign interference months after his shock resignation in Riyadh

Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri greets his supporters upon his arrival at his home in Beirut on 22 November (AFP)

Friday 12 January 2018

Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri has reiterated his backing for Hezbollah despite pressure from Saudi Arabia to confront the Shia militia.

Speaking to the Wall Street Journal in his first interview with a US newspaper since he withdrew his resignation in December - Hariri, dared to defy Saudi Arabia, largely thought to be behind his shock resignation from Riyadh in November.

Hezbollah are a potent political force in Lebanon and form part of a political coalition with Hariri, dominating Lebanon’s cabinet thought to be the strongest organ of Lebanon’s state.

“Hezbollah has been a member of this government. This is an inclusive government that has all the big political parties, and that brings political stability to the country,” Hariri said. “My main goal is to preserve this political stability for the unity of the country.”

'We cannot accept interference from anyone in Lebanese politics'

- Lebanese PM Saad Hariri

At the same time that reports emerged suggesting that Hariri was being held against his will by the Saudis after a trip to Riyadh in November, the Saudis called for Hezbollah to be disbanded and rebuked them for interference in Lebanon’s politics.

This was interpreted as a sign that the Saudis had pushed Hariri to resign as part of a larger plan to weaken Hezbollah - and by extension its ally Iran.

Lebanon’s prime ministers, who are Sunni as required by Lebanon’s constitution, have traditionally taken the Saudi line on regional issues. But Hariri, keen to avoid becoming embroiled in the regional spat between Iran and Saudi Arabia, said that his country will maintain ties with both countries and reject foreign meddling.

“We cannot accept interference from anyone in Lebanese politics,” Hariri said. “Our relationship with Iran—or with the Gulf—has to be the best relationship, but one that serves the national interests of Lebanon.”

'Hezbollah has been a member of this government. This is an inclusive government that has all the big political parties'

- Lebanese PM Hariri

Maintaining stability is key to reviving Lebanon’s flagging economy and allowing the country’s annual growth to increase from between one and two percent today to four and six percent, Hariri said.

Hariri declined to discuss details of his stay in Saudi Arabia, but said that “Saudi Arabia never interfered directly in Lebanese politics” and that he hopes Riyadh will restart economic aid to Lebanon.

Hezbollah, a close ally of Iran has played an increasingly important military role across the region, their battle-hardened fighters helping to turn the Syrian civil war in Bashar al-Assad’s favour, and deployed in smaller numbers in Yemen and Iraq in line with Iranian interests.

It is the only Lebanese political party to maintain an armed force, making it difficult to contain.

Hariri said that while Hezbollah is likely to reduce its presence and eventually withdraw from Yemen and Iraq, the situation is more complex in Syria.

“Certain countries that are in Syria today consider Hezbollah as necessary. People who fight with Bashar al-Assad — Russia and Iran — consider them not interfering in Syrian affairs but as being part of that regime solution,” he said, adding: “I don’t believe that, I believe it’s interfering.”

The Lebanese prime minister also warned Israel against taking military action against Hezbollah, saying any such war would be counterproductive.

“My problem with Israelis is this,” Hariri said. ”Every time, they say they want to launch a war with the purpose of weakening Hezbollah. And every single time they went to war with Lebanon, they actually strengthened Hezbollah—and weakened the state.”

‘This is CNN Tonight. I’m Don Lemon. The president of the United States is racist.’

President Trump referred to African nations and Haiti as "shithole" countries on Jan. 11. Here’s how hosts on CNN and Fox News reacted. (Amber Ferguson/The Washington Post)

By Samantha Schmidt January 12 at 3:33 AM

It’s not every day you hear a television news anchor unabashedly calling a public figure “racist.” Broadcast journalists tend to tread lightly when describing racism, using terms such as “racially charged” or “racially tinged.” After all, racism is often in the eye of the beholder.

But it’s not every day that the president of the United States calls Haiti, El Salvador and African nations “shithole countries.” As The Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey reported Thursday, Trump derided protections for immigrants from these “shithole countries,” and suggested that instead, the United States should be bringing more people from countries such as Norway. (Trump hinted at a denial early Friday.)

When covering the president’s remarks, some CNN hosts made it clear that this time, they would not be holding back.

“This is CNN Tonight, I’m Don Lemon. The president of the United States is racist. A lot of us already knew that.”

Those were the first words spoken by the news anchor at the opening of his show. He went on to call Trump’s comments “disgusting” but not shocking. “They’re not even really surprising. Because this is who Donald Trump is.”

His colleague, CNN host Anderson Cooper, was equally straightforward earlier in the evening.
“Not racial. Not racially charged. Racist,” Cooper said. “Let’s not kid ourselves or dance around it. The sentiment the president expressed today is a racist sentiment.”

At the end of his program, Cooper appeared on the verge of tears as he spoke about his connection with Haiti, which he has visited numerous times. Cooper recalled being taught math in high school by a Haitian immigrant, Yves Volel, who ultimately returned to his country and was assassinated while running for president.

Trump’s disparaging remarks about the Haitian people, Cooper noted, came the day before the eighth anniversary of the magnitude-7.0 earthquake that killed more than 200,000 people and displaced some 1.5 million.

“For days and weeks without help from their government or police, the people of Haiti dug through rubble with their bare and bloodied hands to save complete strangers, guided only by the cries of the wounded and the dying,” Cooper said. He recounted reporting on the tragedy in the weeks that followed, and coming across a 5-year-old boy who had been buried under concrete for more than seven days — surviving on rainwater.

“Let me be clear, the people of Haiti have been through more, withstood more, fought back against more injustice than our president ever has,” Cooper said. “I have never met a Haitian who isn’t strong. You have to be to survive in a place where the government has often abandoned its people.

Where opportunities are few and where Mother Nature has punished the people far more than anyone should ever be punished.”

“Haitians slap your hand hard when they shake it,” Cooper said. “They look you in the eye, they do not blink. They stand tall. They have dignity. A dignity many in this White House could learn from. A dignity the president with all his money and power could learn from as well.”

Meanwhile, the sentiment on Fox News could not have been more different. Jesse Watters, host of Fox News’s “The Five,” defended the president’s comments, saying “this is how the forgotten men and women of America talk at the bar.”

“If you’re at a bar, and you’re in Wisconsin, and you think they’re bringing in a bunch of Haiti people, or El Salvadorians, or people from Niger, this is how some people talk,” he said.

“Is it graceful? No,” he added. “Is it polite or delicate? Absolutely not. Is it a little offensive? Of course it is. But you know what? This doesn’t move the needle at all.”

“This is who Trump is,” Watters went on. “He doesn’t care, he shoots from the hip, and if he offends some people, fine. There are so many more offensive things that are happening in this world.”
Fox News host Tucker Carlson suggested in a tweet that if El Salvador isn’t a “shithole,” then its migrants don’t need extended protections.

On his show Thursday, Carlson defended the president and argued that he “said something that almost every single person in America actually agrees with.”

An “awful lot of immigrants” come to the United States from other countries “that aren’t very nice,” Carlson said. “Those places are dangerous, they’re dirty, they’re corrupt, and they’re poor and that’s the main reason those immigrants are trying to come here.”

“People are actually staying in this country right now legally because Haiti is so bad, we don’t think they should have to return,” Carlson said. “So if you say Norway is a better place to live and Haiti is kind of a hole, well anyone who’s been to those countries or has lived in them would agree.”

UN condemns Donald Trump's 'shithole countries' remark as racist

Human rights office steps into row as residents of nations maligned by president respond angrily and demand apology

Trump suggested the US should bring more immigrants from Norway, not ‘shithole countries’. Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

Patrick Wintour, Jason Burke and Anna Livsey-Fri 12 Jan 2018 17.29 GMT

Remarks by Donald Trump describing immigrants from Africa and Haiti as coming from “shithole countries” were racist, the United Nations human rights office has said, as it led global condemnation of the US president.

On Thursday, Trump questioned why the US would want to have immigrants from Haiti and African nations, suggesting instead more immigrants should come from Norway, whose prime minister he had met on Wednesday.

According to a report in the Washington Post, Trump said: “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” after he had been presented with a proposal to restore protections for immigrants from El Salvador, Haiti and certain African nations as part of a bipartisan immigration deal.

In a statement, the White House did not deny the account, instead highlighting Trump’s hardline immigration stance.

The UN human rights spokesman, Rupert Colville, told a Geneva news briefing: “There is no other word one can use but racist. You cannot dismiss entire countries and continents as ‘shitholes’, whose entire populations, who are not white, are therefore not welcome.”

Trump's 'shithole countries' remark is racist, says UN - video

On Friday morning, Trump tweeted that the language he used in the meeting had been tough, but said the reported words were not precisely the ones he had used.

Salvador Sánchez, the president of El Salvador, said Trump’s words had “struck at the dignity of Salvadorans”. “El Salvador formally protests and energetically rejects this kind of comment,” Sánchez wrote on Twitter.

US diplomats and the US embassy in San Salvador sought to assure those in El Salvador of their respect for the country. Jean Manes, the US envoy to El Salvador, tweeted in Spanish: “I have had the privilege to travel around this beautiful country and meet thousands of Salvadorans. It is an honour to live and work here. We remain 100% committed.”

Robin Diallo, the US chargé d’affaires to Haiti, was summoned to meet the Haitian president, Jovenel Moïse, to discuss the remarks. The former Haitian president Laurent Lamothe expressed his dismay, saying Trump had shown “a lack of respect and ignorance”.

Across Africa there was diplomatic fury. Botswana’s government called Trump’s comment “reprehensible and racist” and said the US ambassador had been summoned to clarify whether the nation was regarded as a “shithole” country after years of cordial relations. Uganda’s state minister for international relations, Henry Okello Oryem, called the remarks “unfortunate and regrettable”.

The African Union said it was alarmed by Trump’s language. “Given the historical reality of how many Africans arrived in the United States as slaves, this statement flies in the face of all accepted behaviour and practice,” its spokeswoman Ebba Kalondo told Associated Press.

“This is particularly surprising as the United States of America remains a global example of how migration gave birth to a nation built on strong values of diversity and opportunity.”

Jessie Duarte, the deputy secretary general of South Africa’s ruling ANC, said: “Ours is not a shithole country; neither is Haiti or any other country in distress. It’s not as if the United States doesn’t have problems. There is unemployment in the US, there are people who don’t have healthcare services.”
The leader of South Africa’s main opposition party, Mmusi Maimane, described the comments as “abhorrent”. She tweeted of Trump:

The US state department tried to pour water on the flames, issuing a tweet from its Bureau of African Affairs saying that “the United States will continue to robustly, enthusiastically and forcefully engage in #Africa, promoting this vital relationship”.

Mexico’s former president, Vicente Fox, who has been an outspoken critic of Trump, said in a colourful tweet that “America’s greatness was built on diversity”. He added Trump’s mouth was “the foulest shithole in the world. With what authority do you announce who is welcome in America and who is not? America’s greatness is based on diversity, or have you forgotten your migration background, Donald?”

David Miliband, the president of the International Rescue Committee, saidTrump’s comments were leading a “race to the bottom on refugees”.

Trump has made few references to Africa since his election, and many senior Africa-focused posts in his administration remain unfilled.

In September, he appeared to invent a new country called Nambia while addressing African leaders in Washington. Trump also told them: “I have so many friends going to your countries, trying to get rich. It has a tremendous business potential.”

The US government’s Africa Media Hub made an effort to limit the diplomatic damage of the president’s words.

Without directly referring to Trump’s statement, a tweet said the “US remains committed to working together w/Africans to realize the promise of a more peaceful, more productive, more prosperous 21st century Africa. US deeply respects the people of #Africa & values its partnerships with them.”
Boniface Mwangi, a well-known social activist in Kenya tweeted:

Standing at a coffee stall outside an office block in Rosebank, a commercial and business neighbourhood in central Johannesburg, Blessing Dlamini, a 45-year-old administrative assistant, said Trump’s words came as “no surprise”.

“He has shown the world he is a racist. We should just block him from our thoughts,” Dlamini said.