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

Saturday, January 20, 2018

Hambantota workers calls off fast-unto-death protest

 Friday, January 19, 2018
The workers attached to Hambantota Port called off their fast-unto-death protest following a discussion with Ports and Shipping Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, earlier today.
The Minister had said that of the 438 employees, 138 will be given employment at the Ports Authority and the rest of employees would be given a compensation of Rs. 1 million.
Magampura Port Workers’ Union President I K Omesh said they called off the protest and hunger strike in agreement to the pledge made by the Minister.
The meeting held between the Minister and union representatives was convened by Ven Omalpe Sobitha Thera.
The protest of the Hambantota workers continuing for 60 days and the fast-unto death campaign continued for 11 days.
Several workers who engaged in the hunger strike were hospitalized due to deteriorated health conditions.  

Politics, lies and audiotape

Saudi reports of the Trump administration’s ultimate vision for a peace deal reportedly pushed Mahmoud Abbas, seen here with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman in December, over the edge.Thaer GanaimAPA images

Omar Karmi-20 January 2018

The reverberations from US President Donald Trump’s bungling demolition job on the two-state solution continue.

Entangled is a region already in chaos and confusion. Old certainties have been uprooted and traditional allies and alliances, for whom the peace process provided convenient cover for inactivity, have been unsettled.

On 14 January, even Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority leader so faithful so long to a process he was instrumental in creating and maintaining, was moved to declare that “today is the day that the Oslo accords end.”

He announced few concrete consequences in an angry two-and-a-half hour speech from Ramallah, and the apparatchiks sent out later to expound were similarly vague (what does “freezing recognition of Israel” even mean?).

Nevertheless, the frustration was real, and his characterization – however obvious and late – of the state of play accurate.

The PA is indeed an “authority without any authority;” Israel is certainly allowed – with PA complicity, he might have added but didn’t – an “occupation without any cost;” US ambassador to Israel David Friedman is, in fact, “a settler who is opposed to the term ‘occupation‘” and undoubtedly “an offensive human being.”

Abbas also had hard words for Arab governments, suggesting that if they did not offer Palestinians “a real hand,” they could “all go to hell.”

Trouble stirs in Arabia

It is no secret that Arab countries, especially, but not only, the so-called “moderate” ones that include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Jordan – who are defined as such in western circles largely for their stance toward Israel – have mostly been all icing and no cake when it comes to Palestine.

Nevertheless, they have also and in public long held (mostly) sharp red lines: neighbors Jordan and Egypt apart, there would be no full diplomatic relations with Israel until the Palestinian “question” was solved. And prescriptions for that solution had to include a (vaguely defined) “just resolution” of the refugee problem, as well as (the more clearly spelled out) statehood and independence for Palestinians in the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza Strip with a capital in East Jerusalem.

The latter was never seen as simply a Palestinian issue but as a wider Arab and Muslim one. Accordingly, the official response to Trump’s December declamation that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel has been unanimous and unambiguous.

On 13 December, the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which includes the world’s Arab and Muslim countries, unequivocally rejected as illegal the American president’s Jerusalem position and declaredEast Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.

Then on 6 January, the Arab League announced that Arab states would embark on a diplomatic drive at the United Nations to seek international recognition for a Palestinian state on 1967 boundaries with East Jerusalem as its capital.

So far, so countless other times. This time, however, for at least some of these countries, it seems this is not just empty rhetoric: it is an outright lie.

New (Arab) world order

Take Egypt. Where the OIC emergency meeting in Istanbul saw the participation of some prominent regional heads of states, including the Turkish president and host, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as well as Jordan’s King Abdullah and Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani, notable too were the absences. Neither Saudi Arabia’s King Salman (or his Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman) nor Egypt’s president Abdulfattah al-Sisi were present.

Indeed, even as Cairo denounced the new US position on Jerusalem, an Egyptian inteligence officer was reportedly recorded on audio attempting to persuade prominent Egyptian TV personalities to convince their viewers to accept it, in effect arguing that Ramallah is just as good a place to have a capital as Jerusalem.

Cairo has denied the report, the Egyptian state prosecutor has announced an investigation into the New York Times article making the allegation, and the TV personalities in question have since walked back some of the comments they made previously.

But the Times has stood by its reporting and in the current political climate, little in it rings false. And that there should even be any doubt about what Arab governments are privately advocating on the fate of Jerusalem underlines the extent to which Arab leaders and governments have become vulnerable to outside pressure.

Arab state weakness generally conforms to a pattern across the region: poor governance as a result of autocratic clientelist state systems that are resistant to outside ideas but reliant on outside funding and patronage or single-resource economies. Corruption, nepotism, toadyism and stagnation follow as a matter of course, with – to paraphrase – sectarianism the last refuge of the scoundrel.

The last few years of revolutions, counter-revolutions, civil wars, wars and invasions right across the Arab regions have also seen the Palestinian issue slide down the list of priorities and ended its role as a safe outlet for popular anger. And then there is Saudi Arabia.

Riyadh revolution

The rise to prominence of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, often referred to as MBS, has unsettled regional politics-as-usual and shaken old alliances and old certainties. Apparently determined to pivot full face toward a confrontation with Iran, Riyadh’s position on other regional issues has suddenly become unpredictable.

YemenLebanonSyria and Egypt have all felt the cold winds of change to various degrees as the new power in Riyadh tests the waters and pursues what he has identified as Saudi interests, right or wrong, with unbridled vigor and in, for Saudi Arabia, unprecedented ways.

It is allegedly Saudi reports of the Trump administration’s ultimate vision for a peace deal – something less than a state for Palestinians, not based on 1967 boundaries and without Jerusalem – that really pushed Abbas over the edge and into apoplexy this week.

In addition, sources close to Abbas let it be known that MBS had pressured the PA leader, during a recent visit, to accept the Trump plan, indicating that Riyadh now firmly valued potential Israeli support against Iran over any push for Palestinian rights.

Bold it may be, but such pressure, on Abbas and others, is likely to fail, just like recent Saudi foreign policy adventures elsewhere in the region have so far failed.

Partly, such a dramatic departure is far too rapid a change for staid Arab state systems to absorb, especially in the face of widespread and deep public disapproval. And partly, while this might just fly in Gulf countries, insulated by money, neither Egypt nor Jordan are likely able to play ball, even if leaders there wanted.

What money can’t buy

Egypt is simply too unstable at the moment to absorb too many shocks to the system. Still reeling from the revolution of 2011 and the counter-revolution of 2013, Cairo also has to deal with a festering civil war in neighboring Libya, tensions with Sudan, a dispute with Ethiopia over a Nile dam that could impact Egypt dramatically and an ever-more deadly insurgency in the Sinai.

Al-Sisi might want to try to accommodate US and Saudi pressure. The humiliating recordings of Captain Ashraf al-Kholi imploring his interlocutors to explain the difference between Jerusalem and Ramallah suggests Cairo has tried. He just can’t.

The last thing al-Sisi needs, with everything else, is to stand accused of abandoning Jerusalem and the Palestinians. And as recently as Wednesday, the Egyptian president again felt compelled to reiterate long-time Egyptian two-state policy that asserts East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital.

Jordan has long had to balance Palestinian and Jordanian – or West and East Bank – interests and has done so largely successfully. But every regional refugee’s favorite destination is full, impoverished and not about to trade its custodianship of al-Aqsa and Jerusalem’s Christian holy sites for responsibility more than two million unhappy and unwilling Palestinians in non-contiguous areas of the West Bank, as envisaged by some in the Trump administration.

Indeed, Amman has already made its displeasure clear, reportedly sacking three princes for getting too close to Riyadh.

Money can’t buy you love, but it can buy you a whole lot of grief. And grief is what is in store for Abbas, Abdullah and al-Sisi should they even begin to go along with a Trump plan that is dead in the water.

MBS will probably soon figure that out. But by then, the game will have changed completely.

Omar Karmi is a former Jerusalem and Washington, DC, correspondent for The National newspaper.

Mike Pence visits Middle East but US role as peace broker may be over

Under Trump, relations between the Palestinian leadership and Washington have soured – and Pence’s trip is expected to confirm the enmity


Oliver Holmes in Jerusalem Sat 20 Jan 2018 10.04 GMT

It’s not the trip to the Holy Land that Mike Pence might have imagined. For a start, the US vice-president – an evangelical Christian – is no longer welcome in Jesus’s birthplace of Bethlehem.

Donald Trump doomed Pence’s chances of a visit to the West Bank when he reversed decades of US policy last month by recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. This broke a longstanding international consensus that the issue would be negotiated in peace talks with the Palestinians, who also claim parts of the city.

While Trump did not rule out a future division of Jerusalem, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, swiftly rescinded Pence’s invitation to meet him and visit Bethlehem, while senior Christian clerics in Egypt – where Pence arrives on Saturday at the start of his four-day trip ­– also cancelled planned events.

Since then, relations between the Palestinian leadership and Washington further soured this week after the US administration froze $65m in aid money for the UN agency responsible for Palestinian refugees. The cut has placed UNRWA in the most severe funding crisis of its seven-decade history.
Trump has said he wants to revitalise long-stalled peace talks in pursuit of what he has described as the “ultimate deal”. Yet when Pence touches down in Tel Aviv on Sunday evening, the US’s role as mediator in the conflict may be over for good.

Palestinian leaders say that the US can no longer act as an honest peace broker; last weekend, Abbas denounced Trump’s actions as the “slap of the century”.

Recent statements from the vice-president’s office have not even mentioned peace talks, saying instead that the trip will focus on security issues.

Press secretary Alyssa Farah said Pence – who will also meet the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah Al-Sisi on Saturday and Jordan’s King Abdullah on Sunday – will “discuss ways to work together to fight terrorism and improve our national security”.

Next week, the former congressman and governor of Indiana will hold meetings with the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and deliver an address to the country’s parliament, the Knesset. He will visit the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial and the Western Wall, the holiest Jewish site where worshippers can pray.

In Jerusalem, signs can been seen welcoming Pence as a “true friend” of Israel.

The ancient city – home to major Muslim, Christian and Jewish sites – was captured in the 1967 six-day war by Israel, which claims it as an “eternal and undivided” capital. Palestinians claim Jerusalem’s eastern sector, which includes the walled old city – an area they hope will be the capital of their future state.

Pence has visited Israel four times before and pushed for Trump’s inflammatory policies in the Middle East, standing next to the president when he made the recent announcement about Jerusalem.
Pence criticised Barack Obama in 2010 for not taking sides in the conflict.

“America’s on the side of Israel,” Pence told the Christian Broadcasting Network. “And to send any other message than our unwavering support, that we will stand with what the sovereign government and the people of Israel decide is in their interest, I think represents a departure from where the heart of the American people are at.”

In Congress, Pence pushed to limit US aid to the Palestinian Authority and is a vocal advocate of the separation wall Israel has built. He has remained popular with evangelical voters in the US.
Trump has tasked his son-in-law Jared Kushner with spearheading a fresh peace initiative, although details of that effort remain scant.

On Wednesday, Abbas said: “Jerusalem will be a gate for peace only if it is Palestine’s capital, and it will be a gate of war, fear and the absence of security and stability – God forbid – if it is not,” he said.
“It’s the gate for peace and war and President Trump must choose between the two.”

Government shuts down after Senate bill collapses, negotiations fail


Funding for the government expired at midnight on Jan. 20 after a short-term spending bill failed in the Senate.


The federal government shut down for the first time in more than four years Friday after senators rejected a temporary spending patch and bipartisan efforts to find an alternative fell short as a midnight deadline came and went.

Republican and Democratic leaders both said they would continue to talk, raising the possibility of a solution over the weekend. Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said Friday that the conflict has a “really good chance” of being resolved before government offices open Monday, suggesting that a shutdown’s impacts could be limited.

But the White House drew a hard line immediately after midnight, saying they would not negotiate over a central issue — immigration — until government funding is restored.

“We will not negotiate the status of unlawful immigrants while Democrats hold our lawful citizens hostage over their reckless demands,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. “This is the behavior of obstructionist losers, not legislators. When Democrats start paying our armed forces and first responders we will reopen negotiations on immigration reform.”


Everything you need to know about a government shutdown

Both parties confronted major political risks with 10 months to go until the midterm elections. Republicans resolved not to submit to the minority party’s demands to negotiate, while Democrats largely unified to use the shutdown deadline to force concessions on numerous issues — including protections for hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants.

The standoff culminated in a late-night Senate vote that failed to clear a 60-vote hurdle, sending congressional leaders and President Trump back to the starting line after days of political posturing on all sides.

“A government shutdown was 100 percent avoidable. Completely avoidable. Now it is imminent,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the Senate floor following the vote. “Perhaps across the aisle some of our Democratic colleagues are feeling proud of themselves, but what has their filibuster accomplished? . . . The answer is simple: Their very own government shutdown.”

The early contours of the blame game appeared to cut against Trump and the Republicans, who control all levers of government but cannot pass major legislation without at least partial support from Senate Democrats. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, Americans said by a 20-point margin that they would blame a shutdown on Trump and the GOP rather than Democrats.

A government shutdown causing employee furloughs has never occurred under unified party control of Congress and the White House. Some furloughs of White House employees began immediately early Saturday.

One possible path out of the impasse appeared in wee hours: Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), leaving the Senate floor, said that he had secured an agreement from McConnell to bring a bipartisan bill addressing “dreamers” — young immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children — up for a vote.

Lawmakers have been busy pointing fingers at who's to blame for the impasse.
Flake said he expected a short-term spending deal to be agreed to during Saturday’s Senate session, extending government funding through Feb. 8. By that same date, he said, McConnell would move to bring up the dreamer bill crafted by Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.).

Flake had previously gotten a similar commitment from McConnell, but the majority leader insisted in recent days that any dreamer bill would have to be one Trump supported. Flake said he had urged him, and McConnell had agreed, not to wait on the president.

“At this point, we agree we can’t wait for the White House anymore,” Flake said.

A McConnell spokeswoman did not immediately comment Saturday morning on Flake’s account of a deal.

The midnight drama came after an unusually tranquil day inside the Capitol, where visible tensions remained at a low simmer as various parties undertook quiet talks to discuss ways to avoid the shutdown.

Republicans started the day eager to show a united front: House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and McConnell met Friday morning, determined to hold firm to a strategy they had crafted nearly a week prior: Make Democrats an offer they could not refuse by attaching a long-term extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, as well as the delay of some unpopular health-care taxes. And if they did refuse, the leaders believed, the public backlash would be intense — particularly in states where vulnerable Democratic senators are seeking reelection in November.
McConnell delivered a morning salvo on the Senate floor, declaring that Democrats had been led into a “box canyon” by Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).

But by midday, McConnell’s strategy threatened to be upended by Trump — who phoned Schumer and invited him to the White House for a private meeting with no other congressional leaders.

That immediately raised Republicans’ suspicions on Capitol Hill that Trump might be tempted to cut a deal with his fellow New Yorker — much as he did in the early stages of a September standoff — that would undercut the GOP negotiating strategy and produce a deal that congressional conservatives could not stomach.

White House aides assured top congressional leaders that no deal would emerge from the meeting, that it was merely meant to gauge the posture of Schumer and the Democrats. Republicans exhaled when that turned out to be so.

Trump and Schumer talked over a cheeseburger lunch, according to a person familiar with their conversations, covering a wide range of contentious issues. Later on the Senate floor, Schumer described a meeting where he forged outlines of a potential deal with Trump, only to see it fall apart once he left the room.

“I reluctantly put the border wall on the table for discussion — even that was not enough to entice the president to finish the deal,” he said, adding: “What has transpired since that meeting in the Oval Office is indicative of the entire tumultuous and chaotic process Republicans have engaged in in the negotiations thus far. Even though President Trump seemed to like an outline of a deal in the room, he did not press his party in Congress to accept it.”

What ensued for the remainder of the afternoon was a silent standoff, as it became increasingly clear that Republicans would not be able to lure enough Democrats to pass their preferred funding patch.

For a few Democratic senators, a vote to spark a shutdown was too tough to swallow — even for Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama, who faced his first major political dilemma since winning a December special election in a campaign that emphasized his support for CHIP.

“I have made a strong commitment in my state to 150,000 children who need health insurance,” he said, announcing his decision to reporters late Friday.

He joined Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Joe Manchin III (W.Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), all of whom face tough paths to reelection in states that supported Trump in 2016 and voted to keep the government open.

But Michigan Sens. Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow, meanwhile, announced they would both vote against the measure, bolstering the margin opposed to the bill. Four Republicans were also opposed: Sens. Flake, Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.).

Republicans spent much of the day attacking Democrats on several fronts — most frequently by pointing to a litany of critical statements Democratic leaders, including Schumer, had made slamming Republicans ahead of the 2013 shutdown.

In a 2013 ABC News interview, Schumer said, “You know we could do the same thing on immigration . . . We could say, ‘We’re shutting down the government. We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling until you pass immigration reform.’ It would be governmental chaos.”

“I think the longer it goes on, the more the American people see the hypocrisy on the Democratic side,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a veteran of several shutdown dramas.

Democrats, meanwhile, pointed to other parts of the historical record — notably, a Trump tweet from May: “Our country needs a good ‘shutdown’ in September to fix mess!”

Conservatives enthusiastically promoted the notion that Democrats were taking the government to the cusp of a shutdown to benefit undocumented immigrants. Democrats want legal status for dreamers in return for a spending agreement. That fight was prompted by Trump’s cancellation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which is expected to take effect in March barring court challenges.

Numerous Republicans said they were perfectly comfortable waging the shutdown fight on those terms, though Democrats have sought to expand the playing field to other issues such as funding to combat opioid abuse and pension bailouts.

“Are Democrats going to shut the government . . . because we want basic reforms and enforcement measures that are going to prevent further flows of illegal immigrants and unskilled immigrants?” said Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who is pushing for hard-line immigration policies in return for a DACA fix. “Seems to me like a tough position to win in light of the 2016 election.”

Marc Short, Trump’s director of legislative affairs, said that the effort by Democrats to put an immigration fix in the spending bill was unreasonable, given that legislative text has not been drafted and the program doesn’t expire until March.

“There’s no DACA bill to vote on, and there’s no emergency on the timing,” Short said.

The posturing took place mainly in front of reporters. Missing were the furious back-and-forth negotiations that preceded the 16-day shutdown in 2013, when Republican leaders sought to force a rollback of the Affordable Care Act and met several times with President Obama to seek an accommodation.

Shortly after 6 p.m., Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.) looked at his watch and vented frustration.

“Government shuts down in what, five hours and 40 minutes? And there’s no solution? I don’t know whether Senator Schumer is just determined to take it down,” he said. “Obviously, we don’t want to shut the government down, either, but they seem to be determined to do so.”

Visibly, only Graham shuttled back and forth between the Republican and Democratic leadership offices, shopping a proposal to replace the four-week funding extension passed by the House with a slightly shorter one.

As the 10 p.m. vote approached, Cornyn declared: “No deal.”

Schumer rejected a proposal that would have extended funding by three weeks, to Feb. 8, instead of four. Schumer floated a 10-day extension, which would have set another deadline just before Trump delivered his State of the Union address on Jan. 30. Shortly after midnight, McConnell closed the vote and declared an impasse.

The Trump administration worked up plans to keep national parks and monuments open despite a shutdown as a way to blunt public anger, and while the military would not cease to operate, troops would not be paid unless Congress specifically authorizes it.

In a sign of the preparations on Capitol Hill, congressional staffers received formal notice Friday morning that they may be furloughed starting at midnight. Individual lawmakers will have to determine which aides must report for work during the impasse.

Trump postponed a scheduled trip to his Florida resort, where he had scheduled a pricey fundraiser to mark his first anniversary in office. Ryan faced the cancellation of an official trip to Iraq, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and other lawmakers revisited plans to travel to Switzerland for the World Economic Forum.

The latter trip drove Democratic attacks earlier in the day, especially after McCarthy floated plans in the morning to send House members home for a planned week-long recess.

“They want to spend next week hobnobbing with their elitist friends instead of honoring their responsibilities to the American people,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) said of Republicans.

Earlier in the night, around 150 protesters gathered outside the Capitol to hear Democrats promise not to back any spending deal that did not grant legal status to DACA recipients.

“This is a movement,” said Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.). “We’re going to have some good days, and we’re going to have some bad days. And like every movement that has allowed our country to progress, we are going to have to fight.”

Sean Sullivan and John Wagner contributed to this report.

U.S. Government Faces Critical ‘Brain Drain’ of Sanctions Experts

Departure of top sanctions official prompts new concerns.

The State Department headquarters in Washington on Sept. 12, 2012. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
The State Department headquarters in Washington on Sept. 12, 2012. (Alex Wong/Getty Images) 

No automatic alt text available.
BY , , 
 | 
In his first year in office, President Donald Trump has repeatedly promoted international sanctions as a powerful tool to compel countries such as Iran and North Korea to yield to Washington’s demands.

But the Trump administration has been gradually sidelining diplomats and other civil servants responsible for advocating and negotiating such penalties with foreign governments, a development that has sapped morale at the State Department and prompted a flight of critical sanctions experts from the U.S. diplomatic corps — a trend that could hamstring the administration’s ability to effectively craft sanctions in the future.

Even as the White House pins its hopes on sanctions as a means of coercing its adversaries, the administration has demonstrated little interest in expanding funding or manpower for civilian agencies such as the Treasury Department, which are charged with enforcing the ambitious policies.

In the latest departure, the State Department’s most experienced U.N.-based sanctions expert stepped down Friday, sending more than a decade of expertise out the door and contributing to a bout of brain drain that is diminishing the role of American diplomats in shaping Washington’s sanctions policy, according to several current and former U.S. officials.

The exit of Joshua Black — a veteran civil servant who served as America’s chief sanctions and counterterrorism expert at the United Nations for much of the past decade — comes at a time when the State Department’s career foreign service and civil service officers have already been sidelined in internal government debates on how to calibrate international sanctions against U.S. adversaries from Iran to North Korea.

For years, Black led a team responsible for negotiations sanctions against Iran, North Korea, Libya, Yemen, and Sudan, as well as terrorist groups including al Qaeda and the Islamic State. More recently, Black served as the director for multilateral affairs in the National Security Council before returning to New York. Black’s team is “immensely important” and “essential to the department for coordinating sanctions in the [United Nations],” one State Department official told Foreign Policy.

The U.S. Mission to the United Nations declined to comment on why Black was stepping down. But several current and former U.S. officials said Black — who declined to comment for this story — had grown disillusioned serving an administration that was contemptuous of multilateral institutions and that was tearing down a landmark nuclear deal he had personally participated in building.

In a farewell note to colleagues, which was obtained by FP, Black recalled that the two most meaningful days in his life were February 17, 2008, when Kosovo declared its independence on the back of an American military intervention, and “July 14, 2015, when against all human odds, we clinched the Iran nuclear deal. These were life changing experiences. We made the world safer. America at its best.”

“To state the obvious: we are living through tough times for our country,” Black wrote. “Americans are so divided. Appeals are being made to our baser instincts, not our better angels. Our foreign counterparts are concerned, wondering if the United States will lead the world in confronting the greatest challenges.”

But he said his career with the State Department has “filled me with optimism about the future of this country and the fate of the American experiment. Our nation has gone through worse — yet we always rise to the challenge….I am confident that we’re going to get through this rough patch.”

Despite his differences with the Trump administration, Black wished his former boss, Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and her staff “the best of luck.”

“As I leave government, I will be cheering most loudly for the success of Ambassador Nikki Haley and her talented team,” he wrote. “Ambassador Haley is the representative of the country I love — she deserves out support.”

But he saved his warmest words for his fellow foreign policy colleagues.

“It’s been said that there is nothing wrong with American that cannot be cured by what’s right with America,” he wrote.  “When I think of what’s right with this country, I will think of the extraordinary women and men of the U.S. Department of State and other foreign policy agencies. You are patriots and professionals. You — your skill, your commitment, your heart — will renew the American promise.”

Black’s resignation coincides with a shift in the way Washington approaches sanctions, current and former officials say. The White House has been bypassing the State Department’s seasoned veterans while tasking the U.S. military and intelligence establishment to step up their role in uncovering violations, particularly in Iran and North Korea, those officials say.

The Korea Mission Center, which was set up last year by the CIA to monitor North Korean nuclear and missile activities, has stepped up its surveillance of sanctions violations, according to one U.S. official familiar with the matter. That effort — combined with Trump’s threats to annihilate the reclusive country in defense of America’s allies — has yielded progress in prodding China to join forces with the United States in implementing far-reaching economic sanctions at the United Nations.

Meanwhile, Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has vigorously pressed U.S. intelligence agencies to collect and declassify evidence that Iran has supplied advanced military equipment, including short-range ballistic missiles, to the Houthis in Yemen. The findings — which have been shared with U.N. investigators — have helped strengthen the U.S. case for sanctions against Tehran.

But senior U.N. Security Council diplomats say the United States is unlikely to translate those findings into a new round of U.N. sanctions against Tehran. “I’ve got to tell you, negotiations with China and Russia and getting them on board with sanctions is not an easy task,” a State Department official said.

Richard Nephew, a former State Department official who served as the lead sanctions expert on the negotiating team for the Iran nuclear deal, called Black’s departure a major setback.

“This, to me, is just yet another person who knows what they’re doing who’s not going to be there anymore,” Nephew told FP. “He has deep relationships with the other delegations in New York.”

Susan Rice and Samantha Power, two former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, decried Black’s resignation on Twitter as a blow to America’s sanctions policy.  “Josh Black is a pro’s pro,” Rice tweeted in response to FP‘s report on his resignation. “His departure is a massive loss that will cripple our ability to negotiate tough sanctions at the UN. No one person in the USG knows more than Josh about multilateral sanctions.”

Nephew, now a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, said Black’s departure was part of a wider decline and exodus of seasoned professionals at the State Department, where morale has plummeted as the Trump administration has marginalized the role of diplomacy.

During the first year of the Trump administration, the department’s senior ranks were “being depleted at a dizzying speed,” Ambassador Barbara Stephenson, the president of the American Foreign Service Association, wrote in a letter published in the organization’s December publication. Ranks of career ambassadors, the State Department equivalent of four-star generals, dropped from five to two; the three-star-equivalent rank, career ministers, dropped from 33 to 19; and the rank of two-star generals dropped from 431 to 369, according to Stephenson.

“Anytime you’re losing that kind of expertise, you’re already in trouble. When you put that in the broader context of the loss of operational capacity and influence at the State Department, you’re in serious trouble,” Nephew said.

A State Department spokesperson denied that its employees were being sidelined and rejected the charge that there was an exodus of sanctions expertise. “There are hundreds of people across this department who work on sanctions,” the spokesperson added. “It touches every policy priority in every region of the world, and we have State Department experts in those regions working every day.”

For instance, the North Korea expert at the United Nations, David Lee, had already been managing the U.S. mission to the United Nations’ sanctions policy on Pyongyang for more than two years, according to diplomatic sources. His team helped secure the adoption last year of two of the toughest sanctions resolutions ever imposed on the Hermit Kingdom. Other regional experts have been running sanctions policy from the Democratic Republic of Congo to Yemen.

Yet last year, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson scrapped the department’s sanctions coordination office, reassigning some officials with deep expertise to other tasks. One official, Andrea Mihailescu, has been reassigned to processing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests despite having nearly a decade of experience working on North Korea and Iran sanctions. (Mihailescu declined to comment for this story.)

“Ever since the sanctions coordinator office was shut down, there’s been a brain drain at the State Department,” one State Department official said.

The State Department rebuffed suggestions that the office’s closure signaled a decline of expertise. “The department is aligning expert resources as needed for the secretary’s top department policies, including the clearance of the backlog of FOIA requests,” the State Department spokesperson said in response.

Daniel Fried, the former head of the sanctions office, retired from the State Department in February 2017. His departure left Foggy Bottom without a dedicated high-level official with the seniority to corral the interagency effort and coordinate sanctions rollouts with allies, which in some cases can require months of diplomatic negotiations and bargaining. (Fried was an ambassador to Poland and the longest-serving foreign service officer at State Department at the time of his retirement.)

The task now falls to the Policy Planning Staff, overseen by Brian Hook, one of Tillerson’s closest aides and confidantes. Three officials say David Tessler, Hook’s deputy and a highly regarded sanctions expert, is now in charge of coordinating sanctions, but they expressed concern that the office lacks the bandwidth and staff to coordinate such measures properly.

The involvement of the Policy Planning Staff in sanctions comes as the division has emerged as a powerhouse under Tillerson. Officials describe it as a “miniature department” within the department, where Tillerson concentrates the bulk of his policymaking at the expense of other bureaus.

The Policy Planning Staff seem to be “trying to rely on the experts, but there’s no Daniel Fried to have that heft,” one State Department official said. The officials in that office are “starting from scratch.”

In an interview with FP, Fried credited the Trump administration with smoothly administering sanctions so far but warned that the State Department faced a leadership vacuum in this area — whether administered through a formal office or not. “I don’t care about the organizational boxes, but you have to have a go-to person of rank in charge. And that person of rank must have their own staff,” he said.

Lawmakers are also raising similar concerns, demanding the administration back up its sanctions policies with sufficient resources. The Senate Banking Committee in November passed an amendment to a North Korea sanctions bill that would require the administration to brief Congress on the funding needed to support its sanctions programs.

The proposed budget for fiscal year 2018 would cut the number of employees in the Treasury Department’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence from 421 to 386 and scale back funding from $123 million to $116 million, former government officials said.

It’s not just the State Department that is facing a shortfall when it comes to resources to administer sanctions. Former Treasury officials told FP that the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the arm of the department that oversees sanctions enforcement, is already stretched thin with its current workload and needs more resources — not less — as it struggles to keep up with the faster pace.

“You could double the budget, and everyone would still be incredibly busy,” said one former Treasury official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The sanctions team at Treasury is “exceedingly competent but running on full steam, and it can only do that for so long.”

With both Treasury and State facing a loss of expertise, officials worry that the loss of Black at the U.S. mission in New York comes at a particularly bad time, just as Washington is trying to ratchet up pressure on Iran and North Korea at the United Nations. Black’s departure, Nephew said, is “as close as it gets to a single source failure.”

This story has been updated.

Bangladesh: Democracy and good governance are interconnected

The democratisation process is work-in-progress, contemporary intellectual engrossment has been to manifest gravely on how the dominating political statuses can promote the growth of good governance and sustainable development.

by Anwar A. Khan-
“Sustainable development is the pathway to the future we want for all. It
offers a framework to generate economic growth, achieve social justice,
exercise environmental stewardship and strengthen governance.” – Ban Ki-moon
( January 19, 2018, Dhaka, Sri Lanka Guardian) Good governance is characterised by democratisation, maintenance of law and order, accountability and transparence, responsiveness on the part of the government, due process, the rule of law competence separation and devolution of powers, respect for human rights. Other components of good governance are a free press and a free civil society environment, competition for power and the existence of a formidable opposition and respect for human rights. Good governance is the systematic application of government resources to enhance the living standard of a given society. One of the basic tenets of creating Bangladesh in 1971 from the arrant clasped Pakistani swayers is to ground democracy and good governance in the country. Bangladesh should make excogitation of its own but cosmically admitted approach path to democracy, make a bona fides crusade to exercise authority over wellspring and to have curricula of fermentation in a functioning effective forge, and strain for the ontogenesis of a finesse of democracy between the rulers and the ruled. . . . Perchance ameliorated exercising authority should take hold before democracy. We are liberalising, but it will take time, and one must be machinated to hang in for an unyielding lug.
Democracy, good governance and development are greatly gibed by the solid political transmutations that have been bechancing in Bangladesh. In countries like us, where the democratisation cognitive operation is work-in-progress, the noetic engrossment has been to excogitate a severe or serious degree on how the dominant allele of political atmospheric condition can buoy surrogate efficacious borecole and sustainable maturation. It distinctions that the currently happening crusades on the democracy-good governance-development nexus are an outcome of the liberalised political natural world that countenances duologue and meshing. However, the news of unpleasant, unfortunate or sad events is that after more than four decades of democratisation, the political leadership in the country is yet to clamshell with the development gainsay. It argues that the democratisation process has endured to the extent that the goal of good governance is not too far-fetched. Against the backdrop of subsisting reform policies, it may be said that the good governance melodic theme should be carefully weighed as work-in-progress. This work in progress must necessarily effloresce into an approximation of the forming a whole or aggregate hop field of Bangladesh’s people. To this point, the societal democratic pick – one that can set in motion a democratisation process that places special importance or significance on the people’s combat-ready participation in the development of cognitive operation.
The democratisation process is work-in-progress, contemporary intellectual engrossment has been to manifest gravely on how the dominating political statuses can promote the growth of good governance and sustainable development. These ruminations are meant to provide a wealth of information and absolutely essential to interrogate the democratisation process. Thus, contemporaneous argumentations on good governance and development became far-flung and extremely sharp or strongly felt following the kick-off of democratisation process in the Third World. In other words, the on-going exploits on this time-honoured articulate in many fields of societal development is extraordinarily excellent, beautiful or creative by the substantial political shifts that have taken place to a distinctly greater extent or degree than is common in Bangladesh.

The major reasons for hapless governance and bad politics are the personalised nature of rule, the failure of the state to advance and protect human rights, the tendency of fine gentleman individuals to withdraw from politics, and the extreme centralisation of power in the hands of few people.

Although the major objectives of these transformations are orchestrated at sending away the cosmos and grapheme of political leadership, there is also the evenly of great significance attendant objective lens of reconstituting the system of political leadership such that can savoir-faire the human problem. The human discommode itself finds expression in the many development gainsays that have made it growingly unmanageable for individual and group self-actualisation. This democratisation process hugs a whole lot of social alteration including but not limited to democratisation of governance institutions, capacity building and institutional refilling, rearing and braving out human relationship between the state, civil society and the organised private sector, promoting democratic good governance and interrogating the democratisation process in order to establish a reciprocally reinforcing link between good governance and sustainable development.
In democratising societies, the abstract vehicle that colligates the elements of social change delineated above is democratic practices which the political leadership must disperse widely across the institutional landscape of governance. Thus, democratised governance institutions would mean building institutions and rules that are not just efficient but also fair, and that are developed through a democratic process in which all people have a genuine political vocalisation. Foremost among these institutions are; independent but dependable electoral system to superintend democratic transition, and the institutionalisation of an enduring legislative system to provide the legal framework for democratic good governance.
The major reasons for hapless governance and bad politics are the personalised nature of rule, the failure of the state to advance and protect human rights, the tendency of fine gentleman individuals to withdraw from politics, and the extreme centralisation of power in the hands of few people. It may be pointed out also that democracy in our country has been badly hindered by many other ills which need to be addressed. Indeed more economic liberalisation, empowering ordinary producers, may well be an aid to political democracy.
It is necessary to point out that the concepts of democracy and governance are interrelated. Good governance entails the efficient and effective reciprocity between rulers and the ruled, with it incumbent upon government to be responsive. . . . It also entails the need for a broad consensus on values and procedures, the participation in the selection of ruling elites, and the accountability of leadership to the electorate. . . . Both concepts are related to processes in society within the context of reciprocity. In most countries, the small number of individuals with power has managed to erode any semblance of accountability, legitimacy, democracy, and justice, which has been a basis of considerable disappointment to the planners, economists and policy makers who want governments to introduce a reasonable and collective attack on poverty, disease, illiteracy, and other challenges to development. In the greater weighing, certain desperately needed elements of good governance should be identified, including popular participation in governance, accountability and transparency, the elimination of corruption, the protection of freedom of information and human rights, and the decentralisation and devolution of power.
Bangladesh’s people acknowledge that development must be revamped by a truly democratic approach based on the true spirits achieved by our glorious Liberation War in 1971 and employing the energy and devotion of its people who can make development sustainable. We affirm that nations cannot be built without the popular support and full participation of the people nor can the economic crisis be resolved and the human and economic conditions improved without the full and effective contribution, creativity, and popular enthusiasm of the vast majority of the people. After all, it is to the people that the very benefits of development should and must accrue. We are convinced that neither can Bangladesh’s incessant economic crisis be overcome, nor can a bright future for it and its people see the light of day unless the structures, pattern, and political context of the process of socioeconomic development are appropriately altered.

Democracy must be built through open societies that share information. When there is information, there is enlightenment. When there is debate, there are solutions.

The significance of ordinary people having power is important in any society moving toward democracy. When one examines existing democratic societies, one realises that they have succeeded primarily because they have involved people to help make it work. . . . Also, they have empowered those engaged in democratic projects. In short, they have succeeded by giving voice to those who have been voiceless. Poor governance adversely affects the efficient use of economic and social resources for development in a country like us. The misuse or diversion of assistance and domestic funds by corrupt officials, which was tolerated during the military regimes for more than 15 years which has still been remaining in force or being carried on without letup to receive support in the international system and this dingy status has to be subbed by a newfangled special importance or significance on good governance.
Governance is the way in which governments exercise power for the management and distribution of a country’s social and economic resources. It is the process by which a state’s affairs are managed effectively in the areas of public accountability, fiscal responsibility, administrative and the political responsibility, responsiveness, and transparency, all of which must show the interest of the governed and the leaders.
If the cumulative effects are non-attainment of good governance, the country experiences bad governance evident by poor service delivery and non- implementation of public policies. Consequently, the country is engulfed into socio-economic vices of bad governance including injustice, political and bureaucratic corruption, poverty, unemployment and ethno-religious crisis, The yearnings and aspirations of people in Bangladesh are also similar to that of other countries who already on the boat of democracy and good governance.
Democracy must be built through open societies that share information. When there is information, there is enlightenment. When there is debate, there are solutions. When there is no sharing of power, no rule of law, no accountability, there is abuse, corruption, subjugation and indignation. Bill Moyers said, “Democracy works when people claim it as their own.” And Rebecca MacKinnon has aptly written, “Governance is a way of organizing, amplifying, and constraining power.”
-The End –

Survivors of UAE torture detail abuse ahead of UN human rights review


The UN has rebuked the UAE over its human rights records ahead the UN Human Rights Council's meeting in Geneva on Monday

Former prisoners accused the UAE of electrocution, rape, and sleep deprivation while they were imprisoned (AFP)

Amandla Thomas-Johnson's picture
Amandla Thomas-Johnson-Saturday 20 January 2018

Foreign nationals who have alleged they were tortured in the United Arab Emirates have said that their countries could have done more to help them, with one former detainee claiming that Britain is letting trade deals trump torture.
United States citizen Naji Hamdan and ex-Leeds United football club director David Haigh spoke at a panel at the Geneva Press Club in Switzerland on Friday alongside Qatari medical doctor Mahmood Al-Jaidah and Palestinian refugee Khaled Mohamed Ahmed, who also say they were tortured in the UAE.
Harrowing instances of rape, electrocution and sleep deprivation were described in minute detail by the four men who came together for the first time, days before the UAE’s human rights record is expected to be heavily scrutinised at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on Monday. 
The UN has rebuked the UAE over its human rights records, citing vague "anti-terror" crimes that attract the death penalty, the tightening of censorship and the detention of human rights activists in a report released on Wednesday.
Hamdan was arrested at his Abu Dhabi home in 2008 by agents of the secret intelligence services and held in an unknown location, where he was detained in a freezing underground room and severely beaten by officers of the intelligence services.
According to Hamdan, the interrogations took place over 89 days and would sometimes last for up to 13 hours at a time, most commonly taking place while he was strapped to an electric chair, which despite not being switched on was so uncomfortable his body would become numb in minutes.
If he failed to answer questions satisfactorily, he would repeatedly receive blows to the head, causing him to pass out, he told the audience. 
Read more ►
Interrogators threatened him with reprisals against his wife if he did not conform to the allegations of terrorism made against him, forcing him to sign documents which contained false, incriminating information.
His torturers had induced such fear, he said, that: "If they brought me a dead body, I would have signed that I killed it."
Hamdan said he received little support from the US government except for the visits of the US counsel. "The US government position was null," he said.
Lawyers working for the American Civil Liberties Union have claimed that he was tortured by proxy, at the behest of US authorities.
Naji Hamdan (L) with Mahmood Al-Jaidah, survivors of torture in the UAE
British citizen David Haigh, then the managing director of English football club Leeds United, said that he had travelled from the UK to Dubai in 2014 to resolve a business dispute with the Dubai-based owners of the club, when he was approached by a police officer and taken into detention.
"I had no idea that what should have been a straightforward business deal would soon destroy my life," he said.
"I thought I was going to Dubai to meet the UAE owners and resolve the dispute with them. I was imprisoned as part of a premeditated trap."
Haigh said he was told by his captors "we kill Brits here," and was electrocuted and raped, abuses so severe he was hospitalised for seven months after his release.
Haigh who has since taken up legal action against the UAE, including making complaints against it with the Metropolitan Police in London. said that his case and those of others including Briton Ahmed Zaidan, who is still being held by the UAE, were not being taken seriously because of trade priorities.
"As a Briton, I expect more from my country and as a human, I expect more from the international community. What happened to me has been reported the English Courts, the UAE, the United Nations, the UK Foreign Office."
"Where then is the public condemnation from the UAE, UK, from the US, and from those other stakeholders? Why is it that even corporates and law firms believe it acceptable to misuse the horrors of the UAE legal and prison system as nothing more than a corporate jail?"
"It's very much trade over torture."
David Haigh at the Geneva press club in Switzerland on 19 January (MEE/Amandla Thomas-Johnson)
On Monday, the UAE will undergo a universal periodic review (UPR), a United Nations procedure whereby member nations will call the UAE to account for its human rights record.
The UN has already flagged the UAE's mistreatment of detainees as a sticking point ahead of the review, and the UAE is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Torture. But activists have told MEE that the UAE could benefit from the presence of Egypt, a close ally, as a member of the troika - a group of three countries that will compile a report of recommendations stemming from the session.
Speaking at the conference, Toby Cadman, an international human rights barrister, said he hoped that states present at the UPR will make recommendations to "fundamentally overhaul their human rights system".
"Monday will hopefully be the start of a new horizon where a culture of impunity, arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances are promptly brought to an end."
But Cadman, who represents Haigh, warned that states were disregarding human rights violations in the interests of trade.
"The British government has a number of trade agreements with the United Arab Emirates. With Brexit [the UK's departure from the European Union] on the horizon, developing trade with those states seems to be more important than calling for reform."