The wife of Australian businessman Brian Shaddick, the third witness in the alleged financial fraud case filed against the two accused, including Pivithuru Hela Urumaya (PHU) leader MP Udaya Gammanpila yesterday informed the Colombo High Court that she had never put her signature executing a Power of Attorney to Gammanpila, for the selling of shares belonging to the Digital Nominees Company.
Witness Janet Elizabeth Shaddick, (69), was present before Colombo High Court A.A.R. Heiyanthuduwa in connection with an indictment filed against MP Udaya Gammanpila and Sydney Jayasinghe for allegedly misappropriating Rs.21 million following their alleged fraudulent share transaction that took place in 2000. In replying to a question raised by Deputy Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris regarding a power of attorney, the witness said her signature had been allegedly used.
“I was shocked to see this document because there are a number of forged things. Whoever put the signature was not known to me. It looks like this Power of Attorney was given by us for Gammanpila’s benefit. It is a silly act. I have not given such authority to Gammanpila,’ Mrs. Shaddick said.
Meanwhile, after perusing the document in question, the witness said the handwriting in the document that looks like it was written by Gammanpila. When asked as to how she came to such a conclusion, the witness said she was familiar with Gammanpila’s handwriting since he had earlier sent a fax message with his handwriting.
‘Sydney Jayasinghe and Gammanpila were employees of our company. I was enthusiastic to learn about Buddhism. I wanted to ask Sydney Jayasinghe about the wife of The Buddha. He said he was a Christian and asked that this question be referred to Gammanpila.
“Udaya Gammanpila was an office boy of our company. He was employed under the recommendation of Sydney Jayasinghe. Gammanpila had sent me a fax message in his handwriting regarding the wife of The Buddha. So, I can recognize his handwriting which were written in block capital letters,” the witness said.
Meanwhile, the witness further said she was informed by his husband that Udaya Gammanpila and another person named Jagath had told him that there is a conspiracy to assassinate him by the youngest son of Sydney Jayasinghe. Thereafter, he did not come back to Sri Lanka until 2015,” the witness further added.
The witness was cross examined by Defence Counsel Nalinda Indatissa.
Further trial was fixed for today (25).
The Attorney General (AG) alleged that MP Udaya Gammanpila has cheated Rs.20 million and misappropriated another Rs. 21 million along with Sydney Jayasinghe, the second accused when selling shares of Digital Nominees to a businessman called Dhammika Perera.
The AG further charged that the alleged business transaction had taken place using a fraudulent Power of Attorney to sell shares belonging to Australian businessman Brian Shadick.
The AG has listed 20 persons as the witnesses in the case and named 16 documents as production items of the case. MP Gammanpila was arrested in this regard on June 18, 2016.
Deputy Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris with Senior State Counsel Nayana Seneviratne appeared for the Attorney General.
President’s Counsel Jayantha Weerasinghe with Shavindra Fernando and Senior Counsel Nalinda Indatissa appeared for the accused.
According to a further report (B report) filed into the magisterial inquiry over the Bond scam by the prosecution today, it was revealed that UPFA Parliamentarian Dayasiri Jayasekara had received a cheque of Rs.1 million from Walt & Row Associates-a Perpetual Treasuries Ltd related group company in 2015.
According to a statement given by a police officer to the CID, who was attached to Mr. Jayasekara’s security in 2015, it was revealed that, on June 13, 2015 Mr. Jayasekara had asked his security officer, Amila Kumara Herath, to encash a cash cheque (Bearing number 566635) which was issued by Walt & Row Associates (under the current account number 0073900773)
According to the statement of Mr. Herath, he then had encashed the cheque from a Kurunegala Bank and subsequently the Money ‘in cash’ was handed over to Mr. Jayasekara.
Due to the suspicious nature in which Perpetual Treasuries Ltd had transacted with its group companies (W.M. & Mendis and Walt & Row Associates) to encash cheques which had been ultimately lasted with third parties, the prosecution also obtained a court order to the Chief Executive Officer of Walt & Row Associates to provide details about cheque transactions relating to such nature.
A Parliamentarian received ‘cash cheque’ from PTL related company: ASG Kodagoda
Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda today said a cash cheque of ‘Walt and Row Associates’ - a group company of Perpetual Treasuries Ltd- amounting to Rs. 1 million, had been encashed by a security officer of a Parliamentarian.
The name of the Parliamentarian which was stated in the B report was not revealed in open courts by the Prosecution.
This was revealed according to a statement given by a police officer to the CID recently, who was attached to the security of the so called Politician.
Elaborating on the suspicious nature in which Perpetual Treasuries Ltd had transacted with its group companies (W.M. & Mendis and Walt & Row Associates) to encash cheques which had been ultimately lasted as money to third parties, ASG Kodagoda revealed another encashment of a cash cheque in similar manner.
ASG Kodagoda said that the investigation had accidentally revealed another similar cheque encashment where an employee of a professional services providing company (Certis Lanka) was interviewed by the CID.
This cheque was also amounting to Rs. 1 million belonging to W.M. & Mendis- a PTL related group company.
It was explained that on behalf of W.M. & Mendis this person had encashed the cheque from a reputed Bank and subsequently the money in cash had been handed over to a third party at the car park of the Bank premises.
The name of this third party was also not revealed in open proceedings by the ASG.
At the onset of the inquiry, ASG Kodagoda also sought necessary court orders in relation to certain details of the secondary market transactions of PTL.
He explained that it was not only about how PTL operated in the Primary Market but also how it dealt within the bond related secondary market.
It was explained that every primary dealer like PTL had to maintain records about their secondary market dealings in both physical nature (as paper works) and in the scriptless computer system contemporaneously with the Central Bank's computer system (RTGS).
This computer system that primary dealers operate in relation with secondary market deals is installed and maintained generally by a company called Lanka Finance Services Bureau.
In view of identifying whether PTL had fed its secondary transactions properly into the CBSL scriptless system via its computer system provided by LFSB, Fort Magistrate Lanka Jayaratne directed LFSB to provide all details relating to secondary market transactions of PTL including ‘SWIFT messages’ from January 2015 to February 2018.
The Magistrate also directed Geoffrey Aloysius who was the second share holder of PTL to provide all the physical documents that it maintained during all bond transactions to the prosecution. (By Shehan Chamika Silva)
The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) Parliamentarian Bimal Rathnayake on 23 May alleged that the Government was planning on destroying hundreds of acres of forest reserves in order to set up solar power plants.
He even cited a part of a petition he had received from a group of environmentalists which claimed that the Government had permitted four companies including Iris Eco Power Lanka (Private) Limited and Anorchi Lanka Limited to clear forest land Buruthankanda, Tissapura to build solar power plants.
Other areas where forest covers are to be cleared include Divulpelassa, Walsapugala as well.
However, this allegation was denied by State Minister of Power and Renewable Energy Ajith P. Perera who claimed that the four companies mentioned were not given licences to operate in Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka is currently going through a phase of power struggle of different forms. There is the political version, and then there is electricity.
Keeping politics aside, Sri Lanka’s energy consumption has been on the rise especially over the past few years.
On one hand, Sri Lanka expanded its network to rural areas, especially the war affected areas in the North, resulting in a considerable increase in power consumption. On the other hand, the rapid construction of commercial hubs in the city has also resulted in an increase in electricity demand.
The Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) has its own problems that need to be addressed by the authorities concerned.
The CEB and the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) are at loggerheads over the long-term power generation plan.
The tiff has resulted in the CEB continuing to engage in a work-to-rule campaign until the matter is resolved.
In the middle of all these issues, Sri Lanka has been compelled to come up with a durable plan for a long-term power supply.
Solar power is a practical solution as almost all parts of Sri Lanka receive sunlight throughout the year.
But, if Rathnayake’s allegations are true,then the Government will have to rethink its strategies pertaining to power generation.
Having solar power generation farms is not the issue here. We cannot afford to cut down forest lands for obvious reasons.
Sri Lanka is already facing the wrath of nature and changes in climate, and cutting down more trees would only harm the environment.
Trees help to keep the earth cool and also to retain ground water. Colombo has become a concrete jungle and is unlivable without air conditioners. People yearn to find a tree when the sun is scorching upon us. The same fate should not befall other parts of the country.
The Government needs to look at implementing such moves without harming the environment. Sri Lanka has enough and more lands that could be utilized for such a project. All we need is sunlight, and Sri Lanka has that in abundance. Sri Lanka needs a sustainable power generation plan if it was to cope with the increasing demand.
But, these plans should not be implemented at the risk of our environment being destroyed.
Waste disposal and waste management is another problem that Sri Lanka is constantly faced with. The issue might seem to be under control at the moment. But it is only a matter of time when authorities struggle to find a suitable dumping site.
Some countries have started waste-to-energy projects where they use garbage to generate power. Even Sri Lanka was seriously looking at it as an option as both, garbage and electricity generation, are major problems in the country.
It is time that Sri Lanka revisited some of these options in order to implement a long-term, durable, cost-effective, and eco-friendly power generation system.
The Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate is also preparing to send files to the International Criminal Court and some European courts in regards to Israel’s targeting of journalists in Gaza, especially the killing of Murtaja and Abu Hussein.
“The occupation directly targets journalists because it finds that the truth is bitter,” photojournalist Ibrahim Zanoun told The Electronic Intifada. Israeli snipers shot Zanoun in the arm while he was covering the march.
“Those who carry cameras with long-focus lenses are especially targeted,” said photojournalist Abdulrahman al-Kahlout, who was shot in the foot with live ammunition. “So that what’s happening on the ground remains hidden.”
Israel has killed more than 100 Palestinians since the beginning of the marches and injured thousands more.
Both Israel and the Palestinian Authority are undermining democracy. Only a new generation can bring real change.
Palestinian suuporters of activist Issa Amro, who was released on bail by a Palestinian court earlier on September 10, 2017 following his prior arrest on September 4, take part in a protest in the West Bank city of Hebron.
When the Trump administration decided to relocate the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, a critical juncture in the Palestinian people’s struggle for freedom, the Palestinian Authority leadership failed to respond in any meaningful way. It also failed to prevent the murder of civilians in Gaza and instead continued its punitive policies toward the 2 million besieged Palestinians living in the strip — including by withholding public servants’ salaries.
After waiting for 22 years since its last meeting, the Palestinian National Council convened recently in Ramallah to choose the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its chairman. The four-day meeting that took place between April 30 and May 3 was a painful reminder of how Palestinian democracy is being undermined by Palestinian leaders.
The meeting ended with the announcement of a new Palestinian leadership based on patronage and narrow factional politics. The so-called elections missed the most crucial element in any functioning political system: the people, who were dismissed, marginalized, and silenced in a dreadful illustration of the growing disconnect between the political elites and those they govern. Though this is not a particularly new phenomenon, the level of the leadership’s arrogance was astonishing.
In addition to the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territory, Palestinians suffer from the absence of legitimate leadership and the lack of accountable and inclusive political structures and democratic, effective, and transparent governance. All of this prevents Palestinians from confronting the multiple levels of oppression and repression they face. Reversing this sad state of affairs is an unattainable objective in the existing Palestinian political system. Yet it is a prerequisite if upcoming generations of Palestinians are to have brighter prospects.
If they hope to reinvent the current political system, the Palestinian people and a new generation of leaders must expose the current political elites as they continue to divide, disempower, and marginalize the population. This process of reinvention goes beyond the question of dissolving the Palestinian Authority (PA), the Fatah-Hamas binary, and the frameworks dictated by the Oslo Accords 25 years ago. It will require greater political representation, a more inclusive approach to national planning, and the imagination to transcend the antiquated ideas and blinkered worldview that currently dominate the Palestinian leadership’s political thinking.
The current Palestinian leadership is neither willing nor interested in the people’s grievances because they threaten PA rule in the West Bank (and Hamas rule in Gaza). The leadership thus continues with its authoritarian ways, seeking to suppress any voices that put its legitimacy at stake or challenge its monopoly on governance.
Over the last decade, numerous local and international human rights organizations have documented the excessive use of force by the Palestinian security forces to suppress protesters. There have also been politically driven detentions, limits on freedom of speech and political participation and mobilization, as well as surveillance, acts of torture, and grave human rights violations in response to political activism in the streets or on social media.
The recent demonstrations at the Gaza border and the clashes in Jerusalem in the summer of 2017 must be understood in this context. Frustration over the status quo and the lack of future prospects and dire living conditions led to the confrontation at the Gaza Strip military fence, explicit Israeli settlement policies intended to bolster the Jewish population in East Jerusalem led to the clashes there, and repression by both Israel and the PA led to resistance in the West Bank. Palestinian collective action today is an expression of resistance to the violence of the Israeli occupier but also to the Palestinian leadership.
It is therefore not surprising that tensions escalated after the April 30 PLO meeting. Though many Palestinians — due to the PLO’s historical role in bringing the Palestinian struggle to the global stage — continue to romanticize the organization as the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people everywhere,” Palestinians also saw live on TV, as one youth from Gaza says, “the extent that this body and its institutions are rotten.” He adds, “When the last hope evaporates … you lead an uprising to be heard, to be seen, to be recognized.”
For the younger generation, the reaction to frustration has been to organize and mobilize
. As another youth activist from Gaza insists, “We saw that in the summer of 2017 in Jerusalem, and now we see it in Gaza. Even if these cycles of confrontation don’t last … only the people — not the political leadership — will change the imbalances of power between the colonizers and colonized.”
A third Gaza youth activist angrily argues, “It is us, the people, the future generation, the young — and not Hamas — who are protesting.” The struggle, in her view, is one of “popular resistance against all forms of control and domination, be it Palestinian or Israeli or Egyptian or any other.…We have had enough of the top-down model that only creates dictators and VIP elite who cause us harm.”
It is clear that there is a new entry point for leaders in the making: local, bottom-up activism that generates leaders attached to their social circles and linked to the daily struggles of the people rather than an aloof and distant elite in their fancy offices in Ramallah.
The protests in Gaza are the product of this grassroots anger. Israel has sought to misrepresent Hamas’s involvement in the border demonstrations in order to criminalize and discredit the protests. Although Hamas is not the organizer of the march, it is directly and indirectly involved as it is one of the main actors governing Gaza. It is vital to recognize that Hamas is an integral part of the Palestinian political scene regardless of the harm that it (as well as Fatah) causes to the Palestinian quest for freedom and regardless of its strategies, visions, or ideological principles. Hamas has simply done what any other political party would do — instrumentalize these protests for political gain.
The marches in Gaza are fundamentally about the undeniable, internationally recognized rights of the Palestinian people as a whole. Many political actors other than Hamas have participated in these marches, which shows that there is a nonfactional new generation of leaders — a lesson that Fatah and Hamas would do well to learn.
Although the marches may soon end, the international community has learned one lesson: that the grievances of ordinary Palestinians should be taken seriously. This is not only because of the tragic death toll but also because international actors understand that a genuinely bottom-up Palestinian social movement could destabilize and threaten the status quo — a status quo that the majority of actors are happy with.
If a future generation of Palestinian leaders is ever going to win influence, they can’t simply criticize and curse that status quo. They must be proactive and envision a specific future and operationalize that vision through concrete and attainable actions. Changing politics requires playing politics, and changing the existing rules of the game requires playing the game.
This will be a complex and messy process, but future Palestinian leaders will only become visible if they form new political factions, enter youth-led lists in elections, establish a culture of accountability, and create a youth-led shadow government that engages in a nationwide debate on the priorities of the Palestinian people.
“You have something in this world, so stand for it,” the Palestinian writer and political activist Ghassan Kanafani, who was assassinated by Israel’s Mossad intelligence service, once said. The Palestinians in Gaza, Haifa, Jerusalem, and elsewhere are doing precisely this: standing up for justice, freedom, dignity, and self-determination as fundamental values. The forces that fight these values — most often under the pretext of security — must be held accountable until they support peace and justice. Only then can we talk about a prosperous and peaceful Palestinian future.
They guard mines, train the bodyguards of African presidents and provide security support to UN operations. And increasingly, behind every foreign soldier in the Sahel today, you will find a private military contractor.
Unable to set up permanent bases in Africa, the US army's African command, Africom, is headquartered in Germany and is now reliant on private companies for a range of services - intelligence, transport, logistics, medical evacuation, and sometimes more combat-focused missions.
The 4 October 2017 ambush of an American special forces group in Niger hints at how close those relationships are. Nine soldiers, including four American Green Berets, were killed in the attack by more than 100 fighters aligned to the Islamic State (IS) group.
A Pentagon investigation report into the attack says eight American special forces operators, two other American soldiers and a "intelligence contractor", whose identity and nationality were not revealed, were present.
Drone images showed wounded soldiers being rescued by a Bell 214 civilian helicopter, which belongs to the private company Erickson.
Another private military transport company, Berry Aviation, was put on alert according to researcher and author Joseph Trevithick.
On its website, Berry Aviation makes no secret of its commitment in Africa alongside the US army for freight and passenger transport, parachuting and combat medical evacuations.
In short, it was enough for one mission to go wrong to reveal the names of three private military companies.
A plane used by Berry Aviation in Africa (supplied)
For Africom alone, 21 American firms advertise themselves as military service providers in North Africa and the Sahel.
But US firms are not the only one present - dozens of other companies, including from France, the UK, Russia and Ukraine, operate in the area. Their missions range from cooking to armed intervention.
Russia moves into Africa
The Russian private military company, Wagner Group, is gaining a foothold in Africa.
On 24 March, the company took possession of former president Jean-Bedel Bokassa's house in the Central African Republic and transformed it into a centre to train thousands of soldiers for the reconstituted national army.
The appearance of Russian instructors had been preceded in 2017 by arms deliveries from Moscow, which caused upheavals at the UN. France and the US said Russia was violating an international arms embargo applied after the 2013 violence responsible for hundreds of deaths in Central Africa. The UN however signed off on the shipments.
The Russian contractor Wagner Group protects gold, diamond and uranium mines on behalf of Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir (AFP)
Wagner's men are reported to already be operating in Sudan, protecting gold, diamond and uranium mines on behalf of President Omar al-Bashir.
According to Igor Strelkov, a Russian army veteran currently sanctioned by the EU for his leading role in the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine, Wagner was "preparing a mission to South Sudan, and now a search for Soviet-era specialists and translators has begun".
From Libya to Ivory Coast
Other Russian military companies operate in Libya. According to the Russian blog BMPD, the Russian military company RSB sent a demining team to the Benghazi area. Russian private agents also trained soldiers of the Libyan general Khalifa Haftar at the Egyptian base of Sidi Barrani near the Libyan border, according to the Russian blog.
Ukrainian companies also operate in the Sahel. In Mali, Ukrainian helicopters provided airborne medical evacuation support to the UN mission to Mali, UNMISMA, for two years. They are also active in Sudan, Congo and Ivory Coast.
The private military company Omega Consulting Group opened a subsidiary in Burkina Faso and sent several men to the country. Recently, the company recruited French-speaking "operators" with solid combat experience.
Andrei Kekbalo, the head of the company, said in an interview with BBC Ukraine that the salaries offered by his company ranged from $2,000 to $5,000 a month, depending on the danger of the missions.
For positions in Burkina Faso, Omega Consulting Group requires experienced profiles. Experience in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Africa is rewarded with $14,000 a month.
Today, guerrilla warfare in the Sahel region has become a real business for many actors who sometimes act in total obscurity and on the margins of international legality.
North African countries worry increasingly about this trend while they watching the security situation completely escape their control.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday called off a historic summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un scheduled for next month, citing Pyongyang’s “open hostility,” and warned that the U.S. military was ready in the event of any reckless acts by North Korea.
Trump wrote a letter to Kim to announce his abrupt withdrawal from what would have been a first-ever meeting between a serving U.S. president and a North Korean leader in Singapore on June 12.
“Sadly, based on the tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in your most recent statement, I feel it would be inappropriate, at this time, to have this long-planned meeting,” Trump wrote. “Please let this letter serve to represent that the Singapore summit, for the good of both parties, but to the detriment of the world, will not take place.”
Earlier on Thursday, North Korea had repeated its threat to pull out of the summit, which was intended to address concerns about its nuclear weapons program, and warned it was prepared for a nuclear showdown with Washington if necessary.
A White House official said a North Korean official’s condemnation of U.S. Vice President Mike Pence as a “political dummy” was “the last straw” that led to cancelling the summit.
A second White House official said a major factor in Trump walking away was the possibility of a nuclear conflict raised by a North Korean official if diplomacy failed.
“The North Koreans literally threatened nuclear war in the statement released last night,” she said. “No summit could be successful under these circumstances.”
In a statement at the White House, Trump said he remained open to dialogue but had spoken to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and warned North Korea against any “reckless act.”
“We are more ready than we have ever been before,” Trump said.
He said U.S. allies South Korea and Japan also were ready to shoulder much of the financial burden “if an unfortunate situation is forced upon us” by North Korea.
“WE’LL SEE”
“While many things can happen and a great opportunity lies ahead potentially, I believe that this is a tremendous setback for North Korea and indeed a setback for the world.”
Asked if cancellation of the summit increased the risk of war, Trump replied: “We’ll see what happens.”
U.S. stocks were down in afternoon trading but were well off the session lows hit after Trump cancelled the summit and threatened to impose tariffs on auto imports.
Trump said the United States would continue its “maximum pressure” campaign of sanctions to press North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons.
“North Korea has opportunity to end decades of poverty and oppression by following the path of denuclearisation, and joining the community of nations,” he said.
Last month Trump had praised the authoritarian Kim as “very honourable” while preparing for the summit but the outlook for the meeting suffered a setback this month after North Korea angrily rejected the notion that it would agree to unilateral nuclear disarmament as the United States has demanded.
Trump cancelled the summit just a few hours after North Korea followed through on a pledge to blow up tunnels at its main nuclear test site, which Pyongyang said was proof of its commitment to end nuclear testing.
A small group of international media selected by North Korea witnessed the demolition of tunnels at the Punggye-ri site on Thursday.
The apparent destruction of what North Korea said was its only nuclear test site had been widely welcomed as a positive, if largely symbolic, step. Kim has declared his nuclear force complete, amid speculation the site was obsolete anyway.
The Pentagon said it was too early to give an assessment of the action at Punggye-ri but the site could be put back into service or re-established elsewhere.
MOON PERPLEXED
South Korean President Moon Jae-in, whose government had helped set up the summit, said he was “perplexed” by the cancellation and urged Trump and Kim to talk directly to each other.
Moon had met with Trump at the White House on Tuesday and urged him not to let a rare opportunity for a meeting with reclusive North Korea slip away.
The reference to Pence that offended the White House came in a statement released by North Korean media and citing Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui. She had called Pence a “political dummy” for comparing North Korea - a “nuclear weapons state” - to Libya, where Muammar Gaddafi gave up his unfinished nuclear development programme, only to be later killed by NATO-backed fighters.
“Whether the U.S. will meet us at a meeting room or encounter us at nuclear-to-nuclear showdown is entirely dependent upon the decision and behaviour of the United States,” Choe said.
U.S. national security adviser John Bolton first advocated a Libya as a model of North Korea’s disarmament. That incensed North Korea, which said the reason it had its nuclear arms was to ensure it did not end up like Libya and Gaddafi.
Trump had raised expectations for a successful summit after North Korea released three Americans this month, which Trump in his latter called “a beautiful gesture” by Kim
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a roundtable on immigration and the gang MS-13 at the Morrelly Homeland Security Center in Bethpage, New York, U.S., May 23, 2018. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
While Trump’s letter left the door open for talks with Kim, chances for a quick rescheduling appear remote and cancellation of the meeting will renew fears of a return to conflict on the Korean peninsula.
Trump’s letter also referred to the possibility of war.
“You talk about your nuclear capabilities, but ours are so massive and powerful that I pray to God that they will never have to be used,” he said.
North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons has been a source of tension on the Korean peninsula for decades, as well as antagonism with Washington, but escalated into fears of war last year after North Korea said it had tested an H-bomb and developed a missile capable of hitting the United States.
The rhetoric reached new heights under Trump as he mocked Kim as “little rocket man” and in address at the United Nations threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea if necessary. Kim had called Trump mentally deranged and threatened to “tame” him with fire.
NO RESPONSE
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who travelled to North Korea twice to prepare the summit, meeting Kim both times, said Pyongyang had not responded in recent days to queries about the meeting.
Cancellation of the summit denies Trump what supporters hoped could have been the biggest diplomatic achievement of his presidency, and one worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.
It comes at a time when Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal has drawn criticism internationally, his moving of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem has fuelled violence on the Israel-Gaza border and he is on the defensive over an investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Senator Bob Menendez, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said he had not had a sense that the administration had engaged in the detailed preparations necessary for a successful summit with Kim. He also suggested that rhetoric from top administration officials might not have been appropriate ahead of the meeting.
Slideshow (5 Images)
Robert Einhorn, a non-proliferation expert at the Brookings Institution, said it seemed Trump had realized he was not going to be able to get an assurance from Kim of North Korea’s willingness to give up its nuclear weapons.
“He was, I think, reluctant to go to Singapore and come up short,” he said.
“This probably was the best choice he could make - much better than having a meeting that would deepen the divisions, lead to angry recriminations and set back any prospect for getting back on track.”
Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard in Beijing; Joyce Lee and Hyonhee Shin in Seoul; Jeff Mason, Lesley Wroughton, Doina Chiacu, Patricia Zengerle, Justin Mitchell and Arshad Mohammed in Washington; and Michelle Nichols at the United Nations; Writing by David Brunnstrom and Matt Spetalnick Editing by Robert Birsel and Bill Trott
President Trump (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
By Greg SargentMay 24 at 10:14 AM THE MORNING PLUM:
This morning, “Fox and Friends” aired an interview with President Trump, in which he hailed the National Football League’s decision to herd African American players prone to kneeling during the national anthem into locker rooms, sparing NFL audiences the uncomfortable spectacle of accomplished black athletes protesting systemic racism and police brutality.
Trump said: “I don’t think people should be staying in locker rooms. But still, it’s good. You have to stand, proudly, for the National Anthem. Or you shouldn’t be playing. You shouldn’t be there. Maybe you shouldn’t be in the country.”
Only hours earlier, PBS aired the perfect complement to Trump’s command for unthinking nationalistic fervor — and let’s not confuse this with patriotism, which, as George Orwell told us, is “devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life” that the true patriot has “no wish to force on other people” — in the form of an interview with former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr.
“As a private citizen, it’s what I would call my informed opinion that, given the massive effort the Russians made, and the number of citizens that they touched, and the variety and multi-dimensional aspects of what they did to influence opinion … and given the fact that it turned on less than 80,000 votes in three states, to me it exceeds logic and credulity that they didn’t affect the election. And it’s my belief they actually turned it.”
Clapper noted that the intelligence community’s formal 2017 assessment of Russian interference was not charged with assessing its impact. But this is exactly the point. It wasn’t the place of the intel community to place its imprimatur on this debate one way or the other. But now that Clapper is free to offer his own view, he believes Russia did swing the election — and he knows a lot more about the specifics of what Russia did than we do.
Opinion | If President Trump fires the bane of his legal troubles, he could spark a legal and constitutional crisis.(Adriana Usero/The Washington Post)
Last night, Rachel Maddow called on us to treat this as a “bombshell.” As Maddow put it, “the director of national intelligence for the last seven years” has concluded “that the current president of the United States was only installed in office because of a successful Russian intelligence operation,” raising obvious questions about his legitimacy.
We probably will never know whether Russia’s interference — whose tip we only glimpsed in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s indictment of 13 Russian nationals for their sabotage plot — was sufficient to swing the election. The result had many causes. But allow me to point out that journalists regularly suggest, on an even flimsier basis, that this or that Hillary Clinton failing caused the outcome. Yet even asking whether Russian interference — or, say, James B. Comey’s 11th-hour intervention — might have been sufficient to swing a relative handful of votes is regularly greeted with knee-slapping ridicule, even though, as Brian Beutler has noted, every journalist knows that it is absolutely plausible.
But this Clapper claim has relevance well beyond whether Russian interference was decisive. It places the ongoing efforts by Trump and his allies to frustrate an accounting of what happened in a whole new light.
The key point is this. Even if you put aside whatever the Trump campaign did or didn’t do to conspire with Russian sabotage, what’s left is this obvious fact: Trump and his GOP allies don’t want to know the full story of what Russia’s operation entailed in and of itself, because it doesn’t concern them in the least, and indeed they are engaged in an active effort to keep that story suppressed.
It keeps getting lost in the discussion, but one of the charges of both Mueller’s investigation and the probes run out of Congress has been to determine the full truth about the Russian effort separate and irrespectiveof whether there was any Trump campaign collusion with it. Trump himself has regularly dismissed the whole thing as a hoax. The GOP-run House Intelligence Committee probe laughably airbrushed Russia’s goal of helping Trump win out of its final conclusion, putting it at odds with both the intelligence community and Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans.
And this isn’t the only way in which Trump’s Republican allies are actively working to prevent the full truth from coming out. Their push for the release of highly sensitive Justice Department documents on the FBI informant that Trump and his allies have railed about — who contacted Trump campaign officials after the FBI established questionable contacts involving Russian hopes of corrupting the election — represents direct collaboration between Trump and Republicans to subvert Mueller’s investigation. This pressure resulted in an extraordinary capitulation by DOJ, in which officials agreed to make info they believe to be compromising available only to Republicans (though now Democrats will get a briefing as well).
Why we have congressional oversight of intelligence
In this context, note this additional comment from Clapper to PBS. He referenced the importance of what he called “enlightened” congressional oversight of the intelligence community. The members of oversight committees, Clapper said, “have a special burden,” because in conducting this oversight with special access to secret information, “the members of those committees have to represent our citizens, to make sure what the intelligence community is doing is legal, ethical, and moral.”
Whatever you think of Clapper, he is pinpointing the core difficulty here. We want congressional oversight of our intelligence services, so the public can have confidence that their awesome powers are not being abused. But there comes a point at which legitimate oversight gets weaponized and perverted into its opposite — a bad-faith political effort to subvert legitimate law enforcement activity and prevent accountability and justice. In this case, what’s being subverted is an effort to determine the full extent of outside sabotage of an American presidential election, something that may have altered its outcome.
Whether Clapper is right in claiming that the outcome was indeed altered will probably forever remain an open question. But his assertion does highlight the fact that Trump and his GOP allies are actively trying to prevent that full story from coming out — and aren’t troubled in the least by the possibility that he might be right.
Previously there had been a meeting scheduled for Republicans only. That meeting will still happen, but at least now Democrats will have their own look at the intel, so they’ll be able to offer a rebuttal if and when Republicans dishonestly leak about what they’ve been shown.
Trump has told confidants in recent days that the revelation of an informant was potential evidence that the upper echelon of federal law enforcement has conspired against him, according to three people familiar with his recent conversations but not authorized to discuss them publicly. Trump told one ally this week that he wanted “to brand” the informant a “spy,” believing the more nefarious term would resonate more in the media and with the public.
Never mind the damage Trump’s campaign against law enforcement could do; this is all about branding.
* NORTH KOREA SUMMIT IN DOUBT: North Korea is now threatening to pull out of the summit, after Vice President Pence doubled down on the insistence on total denuclearization. Anna Fifield comments:
The punchy statement comes a day after Trump suggested there was a “substantial chance” that he would postpone or cancel the summit, scheduled to be held in Singapore on June 12, if North Korea did not meet “certain conditions,” without elaborating on what those conditions were.
This morning on “Fox and Friends,” Trump floated the idea that North Korea might be permitted to denuclearize in phases, though this would have to be “rapid.” He’s totally got this.
President Trump on Thursday canceled a planned summit next month with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, citing “tremendous anger and open hostility” from the rogue nation in a letter explaining his abrupt decision. “I feel it is inappropriate, at this time, to have this long-planned meeting,” Trump said to Kim in a letter released by the White House on Thursday morning.
So no Nobel, then?
* LOTS AND LOTS OF WOMEN ARE RUNNING: CNN tallies it up:
In 1970, there was just one female Senate candidate. Today, there are 49 to 54 women running, depending on whether and which third-party candidates you include. There are 394 women running for the House and 56 in governor’s races (including third-party candidates), as of May 23.
Also: Thirty-two women are running for Senate as Democrats vs. 22 who are running as Republicans. Whatever happens this fall, this has to be seen as a good development. Thanks, Trump!
The Trump-Stone relationship could be a treasure trove for federal investigators. The men met during Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign and have maintained a professional partnership over the last four decades. Stone has represented Trump as a lobbyist for his gambling, airline, and hotel businesses. He has counseled Trump on four potential White House runs.
As one person who knows both men put it, “Stone knows everything.” Mueller is already scrutinizing Stone’s relationship with Julian Assange amid WikiLeaks’ release of the hacked emails.
Trump has had only one solo news conference, compared with 34 for George H.W. Bush, 18 for Bill Clinton, 13 for Obama, nine for Reagan and five for George W. Bush.
As Kessler drily notes, pressers “are helpful for presidents, because it forces them to confront possible contradictions in their policies.” Which, of course, is exactly why he doesn’t hold them.
This is a testing time for the country as a whole, but the moment presents a particular challenge to the Christian churches. Trump, after all, won a substantial majority of the vote among white Christians. The battle within Christianity … is at least in part between those who would use faith as a means of excluding others on the basis of nation, culture and, too often, race, and those who see it as an appeal to conscience, a prod to social decency — and, yes, as an invitation to love.
One has to wonder if there is anything Trump could do that would cost him substantial support among white evangelicals Christians.
The general expectation of the public is that the new party will be able to provided political stability to the country that was badly needed for economic development.
by Dr. S. Chandrasekharan-
( May 22, 2018, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) On 17th of May, the Chiefs of UML and Maoists Centre, Nepal announced the merger of their two parties and the formation of a new party- called Communist Party of Nepal. The day also marked the 25th anniversary of late Madan Bhandari of UML who died in a car accident though many still believe that he died under suspicious circumstances.
This formal announcement of a merger came after intense negotiations for two hours at Baluwatar between Oli the UML chief and Dahal- the head of the Maoist Centre the previous day.
The following decisions appear to have been taken and it is said that both the chiefs gave in on some issues to allow the merger. Compromises had to be made and it was done. Dahal did not insist on a fifty-fifty proportion of office bearers while Oli agreed to accept the benefits of People’s War as an ideological line. The details as known from the press are as follows.
The new party will be headed by both Oli and Dahal as Co. Chairmen of the party.
The Sun will be symbol of the new party. ( Sun was the symbol of UML)
There is an informal understanding that the prime ministership will be rotated between the two and Oli will step down after three years to make way for Dahal.
There will be a nine-member Secretariat with Bishnu Paudel as General Secretary and Narayan Kaji Shrestha as the Spokesman. This will include the three senior leaders of UML- Madhav Nepal, Jhalanath Khanal and Bamdev Gautham as well as other members- Ishwor Pokhrel of UML and Ram Bahadur Thapa of Maoist Centre.
There will be a standing Committee of 45 members to be divided between UML and MC in the proportion of 26 to 19.
Similarly there will be a Central Committee of 441 members with UML having 241 members and the MC 200 members
The ideological frame work will include the positive aspects of People’s multi party democracy and that of the People’s Chandrasekharan of the 21st century of the Maoists. The final document is supposed to include the political achievements of the people’s war that ushered secularism and federalism as well as the philosophy of Marxism and Leninism (whatever it means!)
The structural arrangements of the party will remain till the regular convention that will be held within one year from the formation of the party.
Dahal likened the merger of the two parties as that of the molecules of hydrogen and oxygen getting fused to form water and the implication is that water cannot once again be broken into oxygen and hydrogen molecules! He claimed that the “new force” will provide for stability, development and prosperity of the people.
The new party will have 174 MPs out of 275 in the Lower house and 39 out of 59 in the upper house. This does not include three members the government can nominate to the upper house.
While the new party will have a significant and comfortable majority to go along with their agenda they will still be short of two thirds majority to make any constitutional amendments. For this, the help of one of the Terain Groups will be necessary and it is heard that Upendra Yadav of SSFN is only too eager to join if he is given the post of Deputy Prime Ministership! That innocent lives were unnecessarily lost in the Terai during the agitation thanks to the Madhesi leaders has been forgotten!
Though there are smaller and insignificant leftist parties, the merger of the two main stream parties is historic and fulfills the dream of late Pushpalal- 69 years after the party was established in the same name in the country. This agreement comes almost 8 months after the initial agreement when the two parties jointly contested the elections.
The general expectation of the public is that the new party will be able to provided political stability to the country that was badly needed for economic development.
The reaction of the Nepali Congress was surprisingly sober and it said that the merger will strengthen democracy. The party is yet to come to terms with the debacle they had and the rise of the powerful leftist alliance which people expect to rule for the next five years. Deuba who should have quit after the debacle continues to call the shots. The Koirala clan is still alive and clicking and courted by the embassies. Ramachandra Paudel who has lost his relevance still believes that he has a great following wants to be heard on all issues! The younger crowd led by Gagan Thapa continues to be marginalised. Gagan who made a fine speech in the Parliament on the day Oli took over should have been nominated to call on Indian PM but was not and he continues to be ignored. Arjun Narsing KC who believes that the Party will have to unite to meet the challenge failed in his efforts to get the leaders together. The Nepali Congress needs to revamp itself against a formidable opponent in the new Communist Parfty of Nepal. But it is yet to show the urgency or the need!
On the new communist party itself, it is difficult to say how it will move along though it is the wish of all those interested in Nepal’s stability that the new party succeeds. Nepal needs it. The problem is that the decisions on the merger have been handed over from the top to the cadres at the grass roots level and may not be acceptable. The convention which is scheduled to be had within one year will throw up more complications and discontentment as many of the leaders of the present may not have the same status or power.
It is to the credit of Oli that he went out of the way to ensure that Indian PM’s visit was a success. Nepal needs the support of both India and China for its economic development and this is being understood in Nepal by all sections of people. This is a good sign!
Oxford University published its latest admission statistics this week.
In a country where seven out the last 10 Prime Ministers went to Oxford, the question of who gets to attend our elite universities is obviously massively important.
The headline figure showed that 1.9 per cent of UK students admitted to Oxford in 2017 were black.
Black people made up around 3 per cent of the UK population in 2011, according to the latest census.
Mr Lammy called the university a “bastion of entrenched wealthy, upper-class, white, southern privilege” and called for “systemic change”.
Oxford denies any discrimination in its selection process but has announced an increase in places on spring and summer schools designed to encourage more applications from under-privileged schoolchildren.
Oxford’s director of undergraduate admissions, Samina Khan, said: “We are not getting the right number of black people with the talent to apply to us and that is why we are pushing very hard on our outreach activity.”
FactCheck looked at this issue last year, but let’s check out the latest stats and see if we can figure out what’s going on at Oxford.
How many black pupils apply?
Oxford can only deal with pupils who apply in the first place. In 2017, 396 UK-domiciled black people (including African, Caribbean and “other”) applied for an undergraduate place at the university out of 12,583.
That’s about 3 per cent of all applications – roughly in line with the percentage of black people who live in the UK.
But as a raw number, it’s very small. And then Oxford only offers places to a fraction of those applicants – 65 people in 2017.
And then only some of those students who get offers will only take up a place. Last year the number was just 48.
So low admissions means the final number of black students who actually attend Oxford is always likely to be very small, even if you leave aside any question of bias or prejudice.
Scatter these black students among the the 30-odd Oxford colleges that take undergraduates, and it becomes easier to see colleges might have tiny numbers – or even none at all in some years – without this necessarily being evidence of racism.
How many get offers?
This is the bit the university has the most control over, and it’s where we would expect to find evidence of systemic bias.
On the face of it, black students do appear to get a raw deal at the offers stage: only about 16 per cent of black applicants receive an offer, compared to 26 per cent of white applicants. But there’s a complicating factor…
Black students are choosing the most competitive courses
You’re less likely to get an offer if you apply for an over-subscribed subject, where competition for places is higher. And black students are much more likely to apply for the most popular courses than for niche subjects with less competition.
Oxford says that between 2015 and 2017, 41 per cent of applications from black pupils were for Medicine and Law, compared to about 12 per cent for white students.
To really see whether black students are being discriminated against, you need to allow for the courses people apply for.
And you need to allow for their predicted grades, to make sure we are making a fair comparison between pupils of similar academic attainment.
Oxford is more likely to offer a place to black candidates, once you allow for course and grades
Ucas is the agency that runs the university applications process.
Its analysis shows that a black applicant to Oxford is very slightly more(0.5 per cent) likely to receive an offer than the average applicant who applies for the same course and has the same predicted grades. (Here – page 12)
But if black pupils are more likely to get offers, why do they end up being under-represented at the university?
Black students are more likely to miss their grades
Ucas has also noted a long-term trend of black pupils being more likely than others to miss their predicted A-level grades: This may explain why, from 2015 to 2017, black applicants to Oxford were less likely than people from other ethnic groups to take up a place after getting an offer.
We can’t say for sure that missing grades is the biggest factor here, but common sense suggests that people who apply to Oxford want to go there, and tend to take up places if they can.
Factor actual achievement at A-level into the equation, and there’s less evidence of inequality at Oxford.
In 2017 1.9 per cent of Oxford students were black. A similar proportion of UK pupils who got three As at A-level were black in the latest year we know about (1.8 per cent in 2015).
Oxford is not the whitest university
Readers who have been taking an interest in this story on social media have asked us how Oxford compares to other UK universities for racial diversity.
Unfortunately the latest stats are for 2016, not 2017, and there are slight differences in the numbers put out by Oxford that we haven’t been able to get to the bottom of.
But the HESA figures cover the whole UK higher education sector, and make for interesting reading.
Oxford is certainly down at the lower end of the scale, with 1.2 per cent black students in 2016, when the UK average was 7.2 per cent.
Three members of the 24-strong Russell Group of elite universities had a smaller proportion of black undergraduates: Queens in Belfast, Edinburgh and Glasgow.
But if you include all ethnic minority students, nine Russell Group universities have fewer non-white students than Oxford. (And it’s interesting to note that Cambridge is fairly close to the national average.)