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

Sunday, March 11, 2018

How Aleksandar Vucic Became Europe’s Favorite Autocrat

The EU is undermining its credibility by choosing stability over democracy in Serbia

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Serbia's President Aleksandar Vucic address a joint press conference following their talks at the Chancellery in Berlin on February 27, 2018.

No automatic alt text available.
BY -
 

A recent report from the British House of Lords laments that the European Union has chosen “stability over democratic values” in the Western Balkans and expresses “serious concern that gains made towards good governance and the rule of law are in danger of being lost as countries in the region turn to authoritarian leadership.” As ironic as it may be for an unelected institution like the House of Lords to fret over democratic values, the authors of the report have a point: most post-Yugoslav governments have become “stabilitocracies” rather than democracies — and nowhere is this dynamic more evident than in Serbia.

Since returning to government in 2012 following a 12-year spell in opposition, Aleksandar Vucic has methodically climbed Serbia’s political ladder, rising from defense minister to prime minister before finally ascending to the presidency last spring. President Vucic is a reformed ultranationalist who served as Slobodan Milosevic’s minister of information in the final days of the Yugoslav wars, a role that involved fining journalists who criticized the regime and banning unfriendly TV networks. In recent years, he has presided over a period of alarming democratic backsliding. His ruling center-right Serbian Progressive Party enjoys a complete stranglehold on Serbia’s government, judiciary, and security services, and he has neutered the local media to such an extent that only a handful of outlets have dared to publicize the substantial allegations of corruption, cronyism, and voter intimidation that have plagued his time in office.

Over the last six years, Vucic has established what could best be described as a soft autocracy: On the surface, Serbia is still a democratic society with nominally free elections and a political opposition, where dissenting voices are able to criticize the ruling party without fear of mysteriously disappearing in the night. But Vucic’s control over Serbia’s centers of power is so complete and the democratic process is so skewed in his favor that dissent poses no threat to his rule. His political opponents are free to run against him, but they have few means to make their voices heard. The country’s institutions are so totally controlled by Vucic’s allies that there is nothing to stop him from subverting democratic norms.

This is most evident in the media. Vucic has managed to strangle the press by taking control of its main income stream: advertising. Most of the country’s advertising agencies are owned by a handful of media tycoons loyal to Vucic, who, rather than basing publicity budgets on market factors, buy advertising space from TV stations and newspapers that give the president favorable coverage and withhold funds from those that criticize him. Media outlets have another incentive to toe a pro-government line: RTV Pink, the country’s biggest private broadcaster, received at least 7 million euros in government loans between 2014 and 2016. According to Dubravka Valic Nedeljković, a professor of media studies at the University of Novi Sad, when Vucic ran for president in 2017, Pink returned the favor by devoting 267 times more coverage to his campaign than to all of his opponents combined. Although few newspapers or TV stations function as outright government mouthpieces, most avoid asking any difficult questions.

Those who try to hold leaders accountable often find their bank accounts blocked by the tax authorities while they’re placed under investigation for alleged financial irregularities. Danas, a prominent independent newspaper, has lost so many advertisers that its daily edition now fits on 24 pages instead of the usual 32, despite offering the cheapest advertising space on the market. Individual journalists who have been too stinging in their criticisms of the president have been taken in for questioning by the BIA, Serbia’s national intelligence agency, on charges as outlandish as blackmail and sex trafficking.

In an interview with Radio Free Europe in October 2017, the president of the European Federation of Journalists, Mogens Blicher Bjerregard, singled out Serbia as the nation with the worst violations of media freedom in the Balkans. Yet EU officials such as Johannes Hahn, the European commissioner for European neighborhood policy and enlargement, have been more than happy to look the other way as Vucic tramples on the “European values” that they purportedly hold so dear. Austria’s new chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, once gushingly described him as “an anchor of stability,” while German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently told Vucic that “we are impressed by how successful Serbia is on its way to reform.” Their silence regarding his antidemocratic behavior is deafening.

As long as Serbia remains outside the European Union, Brussels is able to dissociate itself from Vucic’s antics. Unlike Viktor Orban’s illiberal democracy in Hungary, Serbia’s soft autocracy isn’t a stain on the European brand.Vucic may be a poor representative for the European project, but he is a reliable enabler who allows Brussels to move closer to its geostrategic goals in the Balkans.

Indeed, Vucic offers stability in a volatile region and has successfully overseen a series of International Monetary Fund austerity measures to reduce Serbia’s debt and budget deficit by cutting public sector wages and pensions, which are part of a much wider restructuring of the Serbian economy aimed at meeting EU enlargement criteria. For all his democratic failings, Vucic is a relative moderate by Serbian political standards, and his domination of national politics ensures that unrepentant ethnic chauvinists like Vojislav Seselj, Milosevic’s former deputy prime minister who spent 11 years on trial at The Hague fighting charges of crimes against humanity, remain marginalized. He’s been hitting all the right notes on Kosovo and recently declared that “we must live and work together successfully.” Normalizing relations between Serbia and Kosovo, which would set the ground for an eventual recognition of its independence, is arguably the EU’s top priority in the Balkans.

EU officials are also wary of exerting too much pressure on Vucic lest he look east instead. The Serbian president maintains close ties to the Kremlin, and some of his local critics have accused him of leveraging that relationship against Brussels. Vucic is adamant that, unlike neighboring Montenegro, Serbia will never join NATO, and he refused to follow the lead of Western powers in imposing sanctions on Russia. This is because pro-Russian sentiment runs high in Serbia: The two countries are connected by their shared Orthodox Christian faith and Slavic heritage. “Serbia won’t be changing its policy … and will not impose sanctions on Russia,” Vucic said after a recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. In June 2017, just a day after Montenegro’s accession to NATO, Serbian troops took part in a joint military exercise with Russia and Belarus near the Polish border, and the Serbian military later that year received a donation of six fighter jets from Moscow, which also promised 30 tanks and 30 armored vehicles.

Serbia’s efforts to play both sides haven’t gone down well in Washington. Texas Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson wrote a letter to U.S. Vice President Mike Pence urging him not to meet with Vucic when he visited the United States in mid-2017, and Hoyt Brian Yee, who recently resigned as U.S. deputy assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs, told Serbian officials late last year that a country “cannot sit on two chairs at the same time, especially if they are that far apart.” Yee also expressed fears that a Russian-run humanitarian center near the southern Serbian city of Nis might double as an espionage base, a charge that the Russians have dismissed as absurd.

Vucic’s overtures toward Moscow are mostly rhetorical — designed to throw a bit of a red meat to the Russophiles in his party and the broader electorate. For all of his grandstanding, Serbia’s army still took part in 13 drills with NATO or its member states in 2017, seven of which were with the United States, and some experts argue that the country is a NATO member in all but name. Ties with NATO is a subject that the Serbian government is desperate to avoid: Resentment toward the military alliance is still widespread in Serbia, which was subjected to a three-month-long bombing campaign by NATO forces in 1999.

When Putin pressed Vucic to grant diplomatic status to Russian staff at the aforementioned humanitarian center, he responded with calculated aloofness, dragging his feet and ignoring the more ardent pro-Kremlin voices in his Cabinet until the matter faded. The EU buys nearly 10 times as many Serbian exports as Russia does, and Dimitar Bechev, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, tells Foreign Policy that “for all the noise about links with Moscow, Serbia’s economy and, to some degree, society is deeply integrated into the EU’s.” Vucic is well aware, Bechev argues, that “billions of EU funds benefit member states and feed clientelistic politics. He wants that, too, even if he is no exemplary democrat buying into EU values.”

Even if Serbia’s president clearly knows which side his bread is buttered on, the country still remains heavily dependent on Russia for oil and gas. The Russian energy giant Gazprom owns a majority stake in Serbia’s national oil company, and Serbia might be included in the TurkStream natural gas pipeline.

The fact that Serbia stands resolutely on the European path isn’t necessarily a problem for Moscow, though: Vucic’s pro-Russian sentiments are genuine, and having more sympathetic voices join with Orban and Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras inside the EU will likely work in the Kremlin’s favor.
 “Serbia in the EU is a gain for Russia; they don’t expect more,” Bechev tells FP. “The status quo — political links plus some economic cooperation — suits Moscow.”

The EU’s tolerance of Vucic may be politically pragmatic and an easy way of maintaining stability in the Balkans, but it’s also deeply cynical. Indeed, the EU is undermining its own moral authority. All across the continent, people are losing faith in the European project, and this dissatisfaction doesn’t only come from the populist right: British left-wingers promote the merits of a progressive Brexit, and the union’s cruel treatment of Greece during the eurozone crisis gave ammunition to its critics and tested the faith of Pan-European idealists. In Italy’s recent parliamentary election, two Euroskeptic parties, the Five Star Movement and the League, together won around 48 percent of the vote. Sluggish growth makes the bloc difficult to defend on economic grounds and, by backing corrupt authoritarians like Vucic, Brussels adds weight to the accusations that the EU and its centrist defenders no longer truly stand for anything.

After all, Europe has little right to lecture the Putins, Orbans, Erdogans, and Kaczynskis of the world on their democratic failings if it’s prepared to embrace the likes of Vucic. The growing gulf between the EU’s words and deeds can then be easily weaponized by its populist detractors who, if nothing else, at least practice what they preach.

'This could destroy China': parliament sets Xi Jinping up to rule for life

People’s Congress confirms abolition of presidential term limits, sparking fears Xi is ‘leading us back to the Mao era’

Xi Jinping set to be president for life after scrapping term limits – video report


 in Beijing-
The Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, has succeeded in abolishing presidential term limits, a momentous political coup that paves the way for him to stay in power for years to come.

Nearly 3,000 members of China’s National People’s Congress voted the highly controversial constitutional amendment through during a Sunday afternoon session at the Great Hall of the People – an imposing Mao-era theatre on the western fringe of Tiananmen Square.

Applause rippled through the auditorium as Xi cast his vote, using two hands to place a salmon-coloured ballot into a bright red box at 3.24pm. A further 2,957 ballots were cast in favour of the change while three delegates abstained and two voted against, a small hint of the outrage the move has caused in some liberal circles.

The identifies of the five dissenters is - and will almost certainly remain - a mystery.

“I can now announce that the proposals to amend the constitution of the People’s Republic of China has passed,” an announcer proclaimed, sparking a 20-second burst of applause.

Two other amendments designed to shore up Xi’s supremacy were also approved through the same vote: the addition of a political philosophy called Xi Jinping Thought to the constitution, and the creation of politically driven “supervisory commissions” tasked with investigating party members and civil servants.

The parliament’s chairman, Zhang Dejiang, told delegates it was time to get behind Xi’s push to make China great again.

“The great dream of national rejuvenation encourages us to keep striving; the great era inspires us to forge ahead,” Zhang said.

“Let us hold high the banner of socialism with Chinese characteristics, thoroughly study and apply Xi Jinping Thought ... and realise the Chinese Dream.”

Yuan Weixia, a delegate from Hubei province, said she was excited to be part of such a pivotal moment in Chinese history and had no hesitation in backing her leader.

“Xi has shown us the right direction in development and if you have found the right path why change?” she said before placing her ballot into one of 28 boxes in the Great Hall. “We need a strong leadership which can keep leading us forwards.”

“It’s what we need to keep advancing in the right direction,” agreed Mayisifu, a delegate from the Hui minority from Qinghai province.

For Xi, who is now widely considered China’s most dominant leader since Mao Zedong, Sunday’s vote represents a landmark victory in his battle for complete command of the world’s number two economy.

Opponents, however, call the decision to scrap the two-term limit – introduced in 1982 to prevent a repeat of the horrors of the Mao era – a calamity that risks plunging China into a new age of political turbulence and one-man dictatorship.

“This could destroy China and the Chinese people. So I cannot stay silent. I have to let them know that there are people against it, and to do so publicly,” protested Li Datong, a retired newspaper editor who became the face of liberal opposition to Xi’s power grab when he published a combative open letter attacking the move.

Li said he felt livid that with Sunday’s vote “more than 2,000 deputies were acting like puppets and leading us back to the Mao era”. “What about holding referendum? Dare they hold a referendum? Of course they don’t,” he said. “I’m sorry, when I think about this, I can’t stop getting angry, and saying bad words.”

The political commentator Cary Huang called Xi’s attempt to become China’s “de facto monarch” possibly the most controversial political development of modern Chinese history.

“History has shown that many political leaders who sought lifelong service have not managed to realise their vision,” Huang warned in Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post. “Some have been deposed … others have been assassinated by political enemies”.

“The stakes could not be any higher; renewed hostility among political rivals and the repression of political dissent puts China at risk of repeating the tragedies of the Mao era,” Huang added.
Elizabeth Economy, the author of a forthcoming book about Xi called The Third Revolution, said Xi’s bid to grab “all the levers of power” reflected his conviction that only he could put China back at the centre of global affairs.

“The greatest risk for him is that he makes himself a lightning rod. So if the Chinese economy slows significantly, or if there is some major disaster or problem, then he has basically assumed responsibility for whatever happens in the country,” said Economy, the director for Asia studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Economy said that with his relentless anti-corruption campaign and purges, Xi had created “some pretty significant pockets of discontent among powerful players”.

According to one recent count, since taking power in 2012 Xi has used an anti-corruption campaign to bring down a succession of heavyweight rivals including more than 100 generals and admirals and six top party figures who were accused of plotting a coup.

“If somehow there is a weakness to be found, I think that his enemies will circle and go in for the kill. That’s the greatest danger to him at this point,” Economy said.

For world leaders Economy said she could see at least one potential upside to Xi’s longevity which would allow them to predict more clearly “the opportunities and threats they would face when dealing with China”.

“There is no mystery as to the direction in which he wants to take the country.”

For those who opposed Xi and his crackdown on human rights and dissent it boded ill, she said. “I think it’s very bleak, the outlook politically.”

Additional reporting by Wang Xueying

Saudi Arabia Using Law Firm Tied to Trump to Lobby U.S. for Nuclear Deal

President Trump meets with Mohammed bin Salman, Deputy Crown Prince and Minister of Defense of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in the Oval Office on March 14, 2017. Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images.

By Ken Klippenstein-In TYT Investigates by TYT Investigates

The Largest Online News Show in the WorldA law firm that reportedly has advised President Trump’s real estate empire registered last month to lobby the Trump administration as part of Saudi Arabia’s bid for U.S. approval for a civilian nuclear power program, federal documents show.

King & Spalding, an international law firm headquartered in Atlanta that reportedly has worked for Trump’s real estate concerns, disclosed that Saudi Arabia was paying the firm up to $450,000 for a 30-day period. The disclosures were made in a filing with the Justice Department, as required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

The contract was registered with the DOJ on February 21. Five days later, Energy Secretary Rick Perry canceled a trip to India so he could fly to London to discuss a nuclear cooperation agreement with senior Saudi officials. Such an agreement could open the door for lucrative U.S. contracts to build the kingdom’s new power plants.

The filing does not specify the date range. It includes an email dated February 20, in which King & Spalding indicates the work for Saudi Arabia had yet to begin, and said the 30-day period was an “initial” span that could be extended in the future. The Saudis said publicly in December that they hoped to begin talks within “weeks.”

The Trump Administration’s negotiations around Saudi nuclear power have been controversial.
Unlike other countries seeking the use of U.S. nuclear technology, Saudi Arabia refuses to sign any agreement prohibiting uranium enrichment, which could be used to produce nuclear weapons.

King & Spalding and its alumni have multiple connections to the Trump Administration.

FBI Director Christopher Wray made millions there, according to disclosure forms, as a litigation partner from 2005 through the summer of 2017. Last June, civil liberties organizations including the ACLU criticized Trump’s nomination of Wray for its potential conflicts of interest.

In addition to a New York Times report that King & Spalding advised the Trump real-estate empire, the ACLU’s national political director told the Times, “Christopher Wray’s firm’s legal work for the Trump family, his history of partisan activity, as well as his history of defending Trump’s transition director during a criminal scandal makes us question his ability to lead the F.B.I. with the independence, even-handed judgment, and commitment to the rule of law that the agency deserves.”

King & Spalding’s website also says the company has advised Rosneft Oil Co., the Russian state-controlled oil company. Prior to his confirmation, Wray reportedly deleted a Russian client from his bio on King & Spalding’s website, drawing widespread criticism.

According to the King & Spalding FARA registration, the firm will “advise MEIM [Ministry of Energy, Industry, and Mineral Resources of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia] in connection with a potential bilateral agreement on cooperation with the United States concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (“123 Agreement”) and related matters concerning the development of a commercial nuclear program.”

While the Trump administration appears open to the Saudis pursuing a civilian nuclear program, many observers are critical. The idea of waiving the 123 Agreement’s “gold standard” restriction on uranium enrichment in a region as volatile as the Middle East has drawn particular attention.

Lovely Umayam, an authority on nuclear security for the Stimson Center (a nonpartisan think tank focused on international security issues), told TYT, “It’s tempting to waive the gold standard for Saudi Arabia to secure a deal that could invigorate a struggling U.S. nuclear industry, but we cannot look at this situation purely as a business transaction. If the Trump administration decides to omit the gold standard for the Saudis, I suspect that Iran will adversely react to seeing an arch-rival keep open the possibility of ‘nuclear hedging.’ Pitting Iran and Saudi Arabia against each other in terms of their nuclear capabilities could be a backward step for nonproliferation efforts in the region. Also, this could set a precedent for future 123 agreement negotiations, signaling to other countries that the United States would be willing to dilute its stance on nonproliferation if money is involved.”

“Overall, I think this is quite a smart power play for the Saudis—it puts the United States in an awkward position of having to choose between a lucrative opportunity (and a chance to reinforce Trump’s role as a strong advocate for U.S. businesses) or demonstrate that the U.S. will not compromise as a global champion for nonproliferation, especially in the politically volatile Middle East.”

Kingston Reif, the Arms Control Association’s director for disarmament & threat reduction policy, echoes Umayam’s concerns. Reif told TYT, “Saudi Arabia’s current interest in a nuclear program is driven much more by its security competition with Iran than its desire to diversify its energy options.”

“In the forthcoming negotiations on a possible civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia, the United States should insist on the Additional Protocol, which allows for expanded IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] access to nuclear sites and materials and Saudi Arabia has yet to sign or ratify. It should also seek the strongest assurances that Saudi Arabia will not pursue enrichment and reprocessing. Three of the past four 123 agreements that the United States has negotiated not involving a nuclear-armed state (the UAE, Taiwan, and Vietnam) have included either a legally or politically binding commitment not to enrich or reprocess. And no non-nuclear country has ever built nuclear weapons under the Additional Protocol.”

“The Trump administration has significant leverage to pursue the strongest nonproliferation conditions in a 123 agreement with Saudi Arabia but I’m concerned that the administration may not use that leverage, in part out of spite for the Iran Deal.”

Congress has also been critical of Saudi Arabia’s nuclear ambitions, perhaps most notably Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.). “It seems crazy to loosen important nonproliferation standards just to try to secure an uncertain commercial deal,” Markey said.

After news broke of Secretary Perry’s plan to travel to London to negotiate a nuclear agreement with the Saudis, Markey sent a letter to both Perry and Secretary of State Tillerson, reminding them of their “obligation to inform Congress of any effort related to a new agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation.”

Markey’s office told TYT that the Trump administration has not responded to his letter.

A State Department official with knowledge of the talks, though declining to comment on the substance of ongoing negotiations, told TYT, “The United States remains committed to minimizing the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies.  Agreements for peaceful nuclear cooperation are one tool the United States utilizes in order to advance that objective.” The official was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations.

Ken Klippenstein is a reporter whose articles have appeared in The Daily Beast, Middle East Eye, AlterNet, and other publications. He can be reached on twitter @kenklippenstein or via email: kenneth.klippenstein@gmail.com.

Follow TYT Investigates on TwitterFacebook, and YouTube to stay on top of exclusive news stories from The Young Turks.

These 3 Women Could Change the California Justice System for Good

These candidates are part of a wave of progressive district attorney hopefuls.


Geneviéve Jones-Wright, candidate for District Attorney in San Diego County
Photo Credit: Geneviéve Jones-Wright





HomeDistrict attorneys can play a major role in reducing (or amplifying) race-based incarceration in America’s largest cities. Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King announced in February that he is launching a political action committee to help elect reform-minded DA candidates and draw national attention to the issue. “No position in America, no single individual has a bigger impact on the criminal justice system—including police brutality, but the whole crisis of mass incarceration in general—than your local district attorney,” King said. “They are the gatekeepers of America’s justice system.”

In the past several years, progressive newcomers have unseated conservative old-guard incumbents in places like Caddo Parish, Louisiana, Philadelphia, Houston, Denver and Jacksonville, to great effect.
The importance of diversifying the office of district attorney cannot be overstated. Across the country, 95 percent of district attorneys are white, and only 1 percent are women of color. Justice reform experts argue that the lack of representation for communities that are overpoliced, over-arrested and over-charged is a major factor in the mass incarceration of people of color. Across the U.S., grassroots efforts are underway to reshape the justice system by choosing new progressive leaders who reflect the communities they serve.

Women of color recently elected to the DA's office have already made huge strides in ending mass incarceration in their cities. “Aramis Ayala, the state’s attorney in Orlando, has implemented policies that reduced the number of children tried in adult court,” said Jessica Brand, legal director of the Fair Punishment Project. “Kim Foxx, Cook County’s first African-American female prosecutor, has implemented major changes to her county’s bail practices.”

2018 could bring a handful of progressive black women to the DA's office in California alone. Here are three of the most promising candidates.

1. Diana Becton
 
Credit: Diana Becton

Former judge Diana Becton made history in the Bay Area last fall when she became the first African American and the first female DA in Contra Costa County, California, just north of San Francisco.

Becton was appointed to the position as interim after her predecessor was ousted for illegally spending $66,000 in campaign finance money on personal expenses. She has since launched her campaign to hold the position permanently. In January, one of her rivals pulled out of the race and threw his support behind Becton.

As interim DA, Becton has show dedication to progressive goals like reforming the broken bail system, deprioritizing low-level offenses, and pursuing alternatives to juvenile lockup. “Mass incarceration is expensive, and has proven ineffective for achieving the most important goal, which is public safety,” she has said.

2. Geneviéve Jones-Wright

 
Credit: Geneviéve Jones-Wright

Report Advertisement
In San Diego County, in Southern California, Geneviéve Jones-Wright runs to outseat current DA Summer Stephan, whose politics the San Diego Free Press has said “enable a broken police culture placing the police first, not the victims, the defendants or justice.” The city has recently seen a rapid growth in its homeless population, many of whom have been targeted by police. In one highly publicized case, a police officer lied under oath about his reasons for arresting a homeless man last summer. Stephan’s critics say she has been reluctant to remove such officers.

Progressives in San Diego see Jones-Wright's candidacy as a significant departure from the city’s current system of back-door dealing. She told the Times of San Diego that her supporters are, “People who see the need for a criminal justice system that is informed by scientific research into the human condition, people who understand that mass incarceration is as expensive as it is inhumane."

“We cannot incarcerate our way out of crime,” Jones-Wright says on her campaign website. “We must reduce incarceration and reallocate the resources spent on our prisons to our schools, treatment, and victim services.”

3. Pamela Price
 
Credit: Pamela Price

Pamela Price, a career civil rights attorney in Oakland's Alameda County, is challenging current district attorney Nancy O’Malley. A self-described survivor of foster care, Price is a Yale and Berkeley Law graduate with a record of advocating on behalf of communities of color and women. In 2002, she successfully argued a racial discrimination case against Amtrak before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Her 10-Point Platform includes progressive stances like opposition to the death penalty, support of immigrant communities facing persecution by ICE, and ending stop-and-frisk practices.

Price supports eliminating the cash bail system, which she says “criminalizes poverty and disproportionately hurts communities of color.” If elected DA, she says she would expand alternatives to prosecution and access to probation programs, rather than incarceration for low-level crimes. She has also vowed to “implement policies to break the school-to-prison pipeline and will end the practice of prosecuting children as adults,” her campaign website says. As the Oakland Post explains, Price believes a young person who vandalizes a bus should have an opportunity to clean buses rather than go to jail. “My thing is put a kid to work,” she told the outlet.

Sovereignty In Cyberspace — What Are The Boundaries?

The common thread which runs through the fabric of judicial thinking in this regard is that parties who avail themselves of technology in order to do business in a distant place should not then be able to escape that place’s legal jurisdiction.
 by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne-
Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from cyberspace, the new home of Mind…John Perry Barlow
( March 11, 2018, Montreal, Sri Lanka Guardian) I was struck by the above quote, contained in the obituary of The Economist of February 24th of John Perry Barlow whom the Economist described as “Internet Utopian”.  The Economist went on: “He saw what other people had not yet seen, that this was a new space – one to which he quickly applied an existing term, cyberspace, and his own metaphor, the electronic frontier”.
This got me thinking: who has sovereignty over cyberspace?  In the sense of airspace and outer space, as well as the sea, sovereignty can be reasonably determined.  In the context of air space, The Chicago Convention says that every State has sovereignty over the air space above its land and territorial waters.  Of course, to what extent air space applies vertically above that land and water has not been determined, arguably because States do not want to constrain themselves on the control they could have above their land and water.  As to sovereignty over the sea, The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) says it extends to 12 nautical miles beyond the State’s land boundaries.  The Jury is out on at what point outer space starts, again on the assumption that air space ends at the threshold height when the Atmosphere ends (speculatively about 100 kilometres above ground).
But what about cyberspace which transcends State boundaries? Could a State, in which a person buys an item from E-Bay, claim sovereignty over the transaction and therefore apply its jurisdiction to the contract?  What about the country in which the server was?    Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg in his article: Legal Implications of Territorial Sovereignty in Cyberspace states: “The principle of territorial sovereignty applies to cyberspace and it protects the cyber infrastructure located within a State’s territory. States are prohibited to interfere with the cyber infrastructure located in the territory of another State. This certainly holds true if the conduct is attributable and if it inflicts (severe) damage on the integrity or functionality of foreign cyber infrastructure. Moreover, States have the obligation not to allow knowingly their territory to be used for acts that violate the territorial sovereignty of another State…”
This is all well and good for interference with cyberspace infrastructure and where tangible territorial sovereignty principles as described above, can be applied. Author Michael Hanlon envisions the consequences of a cyber attack: “at first, it would be no more than a nuisance. No burning skyscrapers, no underground explosions, just a million electronic irritations up and down the land. Thousands of government web pages suddenly vanish… the disruption continues: thousands of popular websites, from eBay to YouTube, start malfunctioning or are replaced by malicious parodies. Tens of millions of pounds are wiped off the share price of companies like Amazon as fears grow that the whole Internet credit card payment network is now vulnerable and insecure… eventually, reports start to flood in that hundreds of thousands of personal bank accounts have been raided overnight”.
James D. Zirin, writing to the Washington Times said: “It is an irony of the digital age that technology has aided the security forces in detecting and thwarting terrorist operations and has helped terrorists do their evil”.
In taking action against cyber crimes, then US President Bill Clinton, in a 1999 speech to the National Academy of Sciences said: “open borders and revolutions in technology have spread the message and the gifts of freedom, but have also given new opportunities to freedom’s enemies… we must be ready… ready if our adversaries try to use computers to disable power grids, banking, communications and transportation networks, police, fire, and health services—or military assets”.
What about the consequences of the use of cyberspace as mentioned above regarding contracts?    If an arms deal goes through cyber space where the buyer transacted on his computer from his hotel room in Montreal where the server was in Minnesota, and the seller was in Amsterdam?   Cyber contracts are commonly called “click‑wrap” agreements and are formed over the Internet in their entirety. The essence of a “click‑wrap” agreement is that when an offeree visits the web site of a person who has advertised his goods for sale at a given price and agrees to buy those goods, indicating his assent to be bound by the terms of the offeror — or person who offers to sell goods on the Internet — a contract is concluded. There is no paper exchange, nor is there the need for the signature of either parties to the contract.
Arguably, one of the key indicators that cyber contracts should be construed as possessing special characteristics in the context of performance the need to resolve issues of jurisdiction.  Given the worldwide web and its global application, the most compelling question in this regard would pertain to the trans-boundary applicability of an Internet contract.  If an offer originated from a computer based in the vendor’s office in Virginia, or as in the case of an e-ticket sale, an invitation to treat is issued in Virginia and is responded to by the buyer in Paris, the question at issue would be whether the seller “pushed “his message to Paris or whether the buyer “pulled” the message from Virginia.  In such an instance could the vendor claim that it is unjust to apply French law merely because a computer in Paris “pulled “or received his message?  In the 1996 case of United States v. Thomas, concerning criminal liability of the defendant for having posted pornographic pictures on his computer, the defendant claimed that he had not “pushed “pornographic pictures into Tennessee from his server in Los Angeles and therefore should not be subjected to Tennessee’s laws. The defendant Thomas claimed that rather, it was the other way around and that a computer in Tennessee “pulled “the pornographic pictures.  The Thomas case clearly brought to bear the compelling need for courts to determine whether a buyer or recipient of a message “drags” a message and therefore whether the jurisdiction in which that recipient is placed is appropriate for a dispute to be adjudicated on.
In determining jurisdiction in an e-commerce case, the most fundamental issue that arises for consideration is whether any jurisdiction in which either the buyer or seller transacted the business concerned can rule the entire internet.  In the case ofMinnesota v. Granite Gate ResortsInc. The court of Appeal of Minnesota ruled that the laws of Minnesota were applicable to an online gambling business located in Las Vegas that operated through a server in Belize. The Minnesota case is somewhat consistent with some cases and at the same time distinguishable from other decisions in various jurisdictions of the United States and Canada (such as those discussed below) which are inclined to follow the approach that every jurisdiction cannot impose its advertising, gambling and consumer protection laws to the entire internet.
The most convenient analogy to an e-transaction comes from the two jurisdictions of Canada and the United States.  Would an offeror in Canada, who offers $500 over the Internet for a round trip between Toronto and Miami, be able to enforce an auction agreement against a United States airline at its home base in Florida?  In a case decided in 1952 in Canada where the plaintiff brought a case to the Ontario High Court against an American radio broadcasting station which was broadcasting from across the border, allegedly libellous statements which could be heard over the air waves in Canada, the defendant radio station brought up a motion of dismissal, alleging that the Ontario Court in Canada had no jurisdiction to hear a case against a party to the action which was an enterprise based in the United States.  The Court disagreed and held: “A person may utter all the defamatory words he wishes without incurring any civil liability unless they are heard and understood by a third person.  I think it a “startling proposition” to say that one may, while standing south of the border or cruising in an aeroplane south of the border, through the medium of modern sound amplification, utter defamatory matter which is heard in a Province in Canada north of the border, and not be said to have published a slander in the Province in which it is heard and understood”.
The principle of universal application of jurisdiction has been invoked in other instances, where courts have accepted jurisdiction on the basis of sales made to customers through the defendant’s web site, or based on soliciting donations, or based on subscribers signed up by the defendant for services delivered over the Internet, or for having follow‑on contacts, negotiations, and other dealings in addition to, and often as a result of the initial Internet‑based communication.  The common thread which runs through the fabric of judicial thinking in this regard is that parties who avail themselves of technology in order to do business in a distant place should not then be able to escape that place’s legal jurisdiction.

Dentists keep dying of this lung disease. The CDC can’t figure out why.


 
Seven of the patients were dead, and two more were dying of a rare chronic, progressive lung disease that can be treated but not cured.

It’s estimated that about 200,000 people in the United States have Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) at any one time.

But the common denominator of a small group of patients at a Virginia clinic over a 15-year period is worrying the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Eight were dentists; a ninth was a dental technician.

The dental professionals were 23 times more likely to have IPF than the rest of the population, the CDC said in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, released Friday. Something in their workplace environment may have been poisoning them, investigators said, although they don’t know what.

IPF causes scarring of the lungs, according to the report. It can be slowed, but nothing can remove the scar tissue. Over time, the lungs have difficulty getting oxygen to vital organs like the heart and brain.
In April 2016, a Virginia dentist who had just been diagnosed with IPF and was undergoing treatment at a specialty clinic called the CDC with a warning: Several other dental professionals had sought treatment at the same facility.

Investigators dug deeper, poring over nearly 900 records of IPF patients at that clinic over a 21-year period and found the nine patients with the common work history.

The median survival age of IPF after diagnosis is three to five years. But first, patients experience shortness of breath, a dry, chronic cough, weight loss, joint and muscle pain and clubbed fingers or toes.

Dentists and people who work in their offices are exposed to a specific set of hazards, particularly silica, polyvinyl siloxane, alginate and other toxic substances that can be inhaled when they’re polishing dental appliances or preparing amalgams.

Older dentists usually fare worse, both because of increased opportunities for exposure and because they may have practiced at a time when safety standards weren’t as stringent.

“We do work with materials and with human bioproducts that are potentially damaging to our bodies if we inhale them,” Paul Casamassimo, chief policy officer of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry’s Pediatric Oral Health Research and Policy Center, told CNN.

A 2016 clinical trial tested a device designed to recondition lungs outside of the body to increase the numbers of donor organs available for transplants. 
For example, the dentist who alerted the CDC never smoked “but reported not wearing a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-certified respirator during dental activities throughout his 40-year dental practice,” the CDC said. During the past 20 years, he started wearing a surgical mask, which still may have been inadequate.

“More work has to be done before we can make any conclusions about the risk dentists or other dental personnel have,” Randall J. Nett, lead author of the study and medical officer with the U.S. Public Health Service, told CNN.
A 2016 clinical trial tested a device designed to recondition lungs outside of the body to increase the numbers of donor organs available for transplants. 
Even though CDC investigators have not figured out what, specifically, caused IPF in the patients, the study’s release may still do some good.

Before, workers exposed to dust from wood and metal have been warned to take precautions to prevent IPF, but this is the first time the CDC has warned that dentists and the people who work in their offices are vulnerable.

And IPF may not have a cure, but there are protective measures: namely proper ventilation and wearing a respirator during certain procedures.

Saturday, March 10, 2018

HR defenders, politicians and Tamil Diaspora lobbying extensively in Geneva on Lanka UNHRC hints trouble for Sri Lanka


By Sulochana Ramiah Mohan-2018-03-11


Things are looking pretty grim suddenly for the incumbent 'rainbow' government, three years and two months after it came to power on a promise to honour international community's call to implement the co-sponsored UN Resolution 30/1, especially as it appears to be at a crossroads due to political infighting, crisis of leadership, and the recent spate of communal violence that shook the nation.

GOVT. CANNOT DEVIATE FROM THAT MANDATE FOR ANY REASON – SAMAPTHAN


Sri Lanka Brief
10/03/2018
In a meeting with the visiting UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Mr Jeffrey Feltman, R. Sampanthan, leader of the TNA has stressed that the present Government must continue to implement the mandate received by it, and that cannot deviate from that mandate for any reason. Expressing his views Mr Sampanthan said, that this Government cannot fail to proceed with the Constitution making process.
Press release by the TNA follows:
The Tamil National Alliance led by Hon. R Sampanthan along with Hon Mavai Senathirajah, Hon. Selvam Adaikkalanathan Hon Sitharthan and Hon Sumanthiran met with the visiting UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Mr Jeffrey Feltman, today (09th March 2018) at the office of the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.
Mr Sampanthan apprised the Under-Secretary-General of the current political situation in Sri Lanka especially the situation after the recently concluded Local Government elections. Mr Sampanthan stressed that the present Government must continue to implement the mandate received by it, and that cannot deviate from that mandate for any reason. Expressing his views Mr Sampanthan said, that this Government cannot fail to proceed with the Constitution making process. If it abandons the process it would only means that the state is unable to comply with the resolution unanimously adopted by the Sri Lankan Parliament for the enactment of a constitution for Sri Lanka as one single undivided indivisible country. Mr Sampanthan urged the Under-Secretary-General that the international community must play a constructive role in this matter.
Speaking about the UNHRC resolution, Mr Sampanthan stressed that the resolution must be implemented fully. He further requested closer engagement of the international community in this regard to hold the Government of Sri Lanka accountable for its own commitments. He further said, undue delay in adhering to the resolution has made people lose confidence in the Government and its structures. He urged that the international community must ensure that commitments are fulfilled without undue delay, and submitted that the International community has an obligation towards the Tamil people in achieving a lasting solution to the national question.
The UN Under-Secretary-General informed the TNA delegation that he has raised concerns with the President with regard to some of these matters. He further noted, that he will brief the High Commissioner of the UNHRC on his return about the concerns raised by the TNA members. He also thanked Mr Sampanthan and the TNA delegation for their continuous support and assured that the UN’s commitment to work closely with Sri Lanka will continue to remain the same.
Press Release issued by TNA.

UN Under-Secretary General briefed on reconciliation process



sunday-leader-mastheadSaturday, March 10, 2018

Visiting UN Under-Secretary General (USG) for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman had talks in Colombo today with the Government.

He met President Maithripala Sirisena, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence Kapila Waidyaratne.

During the discussion with the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, matters relating to the national reconciliation process including land release was taken up for discussion.

The Under- Secretary General was briefed on the progress of the reconciliation process and its current status. Feltman was pleased with the actions taken in this regard, the Defence Ministry said.

The Director (Asia and Pacific) DPA, Ms. Mari Yamashita, Reconciliation and Development Advisor, UN Sri Lanka, Ms. Gita Sabharwal and Secretary to USG, DPA, Ms. Mary Sack accompanied the Under-Secretary General during his visit to the Ministry.

Senior Ministry and tri forces officers were also present at the discussion.

A Hellish Year: Misogyny in the Public Service Sector

Featured image courtesy IPLeaders.in

CASSANDRA FAYE- 
The post itself was perfect at a glance – everything I could have imagined and more, and even stood up against my questioning nature. Regardless of the name of the position and the office, I wasn’t about to settle into a role where I would be exploited.

And so, full of hope, I embarked on a yearlong journey that I can only describe as hell in retrospect.
In the name of self-preservation, I have decided not to name this organisation, as it would leave me wide open to a lawsuit. Suffice it to say that it was in the higher echelons of the Public Service sector. My first clue when I walked in should have been the fact that I felt like I was walking into a boy’s club. I was the only female. There were plenty of women in the organisation in its entirety, but they were encountered while catching the lift, or only if they needed to contact my immediate Supervisor — let’s call him Mr. D.  No matter I thought. I am after-all, a strong independent woman, capable of holding my own in a male-dominated department.

My professional priority has always been ensuring that I deliver quality work, and I assumed that if I did so, I would be accepted as a vital part in the organisational culture.

It’s important to understand the organisation I was going into and the mindsets that prevailed.

My department and one other had a flexible dress code. The rest of the departments saw the ladies clad in sarees. However (and I checked and double checked) I wasn’t required to wrap myself up in 6 yards. I wore shirts — never sleeveless — paired with knee-length skirts and trousers (like the other department I just mentioned). This seemed to attract a lot of attention from the saree-clad ladies, proving once more that women truly are your own worst critics. And this was never more evident than in that organisation.

This wasn’t my first tussle in the arena of dress codes. I have gone head to head with a female supervisor at a banking institution who constantly put me down because, “Cassandra, your skirt is far too short”. Being conditioned to take these comments from men is one thing. But to be put down in front of an entire department by another woman was another. This is when I realised that women need to stop being judgmental of one another if we want to achieve true equality.

Misogyny and gender roles have been so internalised that women accept it as the norm and thereby enable harassment (in all its forms). Evidently wearing skirts and pants and acknowledging that I have limbs didn’t sit well. It was blasphemy that I should expose my calves, while the midriff and belly-button were fair game. There was no logic. All these unabashed stares and pointed whispers shouldn’t have bothered me, but they did.

Going into this job, the gentleman who interviewed me (Not Mr. D), stated outright that he believed I had a task ahead of me in fitting into that organisational culture. I was warned that my liberal beliefs on issues such as Gender equity and LGBTIQ rights would seem alien to the rest. I was even told that I should change my views to suit the organization. But again, I was ready to take up a challenge. What better way to address gender disparity and challenge societal mindsets firmly wedged in archaic notions, than to engage in a meaningful dialogue with people?

The work itself was dreary, dull and far from what was described to me. And try as I would to make suggestions which would not only streamline the work process, but also make it more efficient and inclusive, time-and-time again these were listened to and instantly dismissed. Professional growth was non-existent, as were ownership and credit where it was due.
My frustration and job satisfaction were closing in on zero.

However, there were far more pressing factors to contend with. And that’s what this story is about.
I can safely say that the percentage of organisational work I performed in relation to the personal requests made by Mr. D were 30% to 70%. Mr. D was a man who liked to flaunt his non-existent power and scare people into submission. He would yell at people in Sinhala filth that would reduce many people, myself included, to tears.

On the topic of the many the personal requests of Mr. D, one sticks in my memory more vividly than all the rest.

On 2 occasions, he had me print out visa documentation, not just for him, but his family as well, obtain the supporting documentation, and fill them out for him. On one occasion, along with one of the men of the department, he had me come into his office and fill out his forms for him. And he kept saying, “මොà¶½ේ à¶´ාà·€්à¶ ්à¶ ි කරලා form à¶‘à¶š fill කරන්à¶±. à·„ැà¶¶ැයි sex කරලා à¶­ියෙනවා à¶šියළා à¶…à·„ාà·…ා නම් yes ගහන්à¶±”. (Translation: Use your brain and fill the form out. But if they’ve asked if I’ve had sex, definitely say yes.”) This was then followed by raucous laughter. And despite my obvious embarrassment, he went on to say, “මොකද à¶šියන්à¶±ේ? ඇත්à¶­ à¶±ේද?” (Why? It’s true, right?) I couldn’t finish filling out that form and get out soon enough.

In addition to this, Mr. D spent over 50% of his time at work on his phone. During these, I would hear him share crude jokes about women with people on the other line (“Don’t make a woman’s eyes wet. Only make her p**** wet”.). Then he would ask me what I thought. My opinions were deemed as madness.

But I persisted. I was determined not to be defeated. But what followed, made every single situation above pale by comparison because they went beyond the norm. That moment for me was a combination of a few incidents occurring in quick succession.
  1. When Mr. D said “Here’s some money for you” and threw a coin at me from across the room that hit my nose, causing my eyes to well up. To say that I was flabbergasted to the point where I couldn’t even react would be an understatement. Even more so when he just laughed at my expression and strutted out.
  2. I mentioned how I would wear knee-length skirts and pants coupled with shirts. I stopped wearing skirts early into my posting when Mr. D said, “Your legs look very nice in that skirt.” On yet another occasion Mr. D said (regarding a shirt I was wearing), “ඔයා මෙà·„ෙම à¶…à¶±්දිà¶±්à¶± à·„ොà¶³ à¶±ෑ. à·„ොඳට body à¶‘à¶š à¶´ේà¶±්à¶± tight à¶‘à¶šà¶§ à¶…à¶±්දිà¶±්à¶± à¶•à¶±ේ” (Translation: “You shouldn’t dress like this. You should wear tight clothes so that your body can be seen well.”) This was done whilst gesturing to my chest.
Shortly after my arrival from a vacation, Mr. D came up behind me and started playing with my hair, followed by, “මොà¶šො මෙà¶ ්à¶ à¶» à¶šැà¶­ à·€ෙà¶½ා à¶­ියෙà¶±්à¶±ේ? à¶šà¶½ු à·€ෙà¶½ා, මහත් à·€ෙà¶½ා. à¶…à¶´à¶»ාදේ à¶…à¶´ේ department à¶‘à¶š ලස්සන කරන්à¶± à¶­ියාà¶œෙà¶± à·„ිà¶§à¶´ු à¶šෙà¶½්à¶½”  (Translation: Why have you got so ugly — dark and fat now. What a shame. We kept you around to make our department pretty).
A few weeks after this, I was filling out yet another visa form for him when he came up behind me once more, this time squeezing my arms and asking me how I was.

To those saying I’m overreacting, that it’s like this everywhere, and that I should be more patient and stop being so sensitive and reacting to everything (all of which was said to me) please direct your attention towards Article 12 (2) of the Sri Lankan Constitution:

“No citizen shall be discriminated against on the grounds of race, religion, language, caste, sex, political opinion, place of birth or any one of such grounds”.

As for the men of the organisation; they were complicit. From passing their own lewd comments, to attempting to touch my arms or hair, to asking me if I was a homosexual when I started posting messages and images in support of the LGBTIQ community in Sri Lanka.

Mr. D made my skin crawl, but I stuck to my guns. I wanted to engage in a dialogue with my colleagues. But try as I would to present both sides of the conversation to them, all they wanted to do was laugh at me and make crude jokes. They even gave me a pen-drive with porn on it once, but I chalked that up to an honest mistake. Up to date, I’m not sure.

I left after 11 months. In that time, Mr. D not only refused to give interviews to any male applicants to replace my post, but when a girl came in for a trial, she wasn’t called back because, in his words, “she is too ugly.”

These are all based on personal experiencesfrom a personal perspectiveIn no way am I saying that these situations are true of everyone, but they are true for me. And if you don’t believe that the issues I address are a systemic problem, I urge you to take a long look at yourself and wonder if maybe you’re part of problem as well.

Perhaps, in the grander scale of things, what I faced might be minor, but that does not make them any less valid. And I look forward, and continually work towards the day where none of us, irrespective of our race, religion or gender will ever have to say the words Me Too. Where we don’t have our experiences belittled and chalked up to “boys will be boys” or “that’s just how it is”. And if we stand in solidarity and maintain an open dialogue, maybe that day is truly on the horizon.

Editor’s Note: Also read “Change is not Courage in a Boy’s Club”