VIDEO: FSA engaged in Syrian government offensive in Hama Syrian FSA rebels post video showing anti-tank strike against army offensive backed by Russian air and naval strikes in Hama province Syrian rebels fire an anti-tank missile in a video uploaded to YouTube claiming to be of a strike in Hama province by the Free Syrian Army against a Syrian army tank.
Wednesday 7 October 2015-Wednesday 7 October 2015
Syrian government forces launched an offensive in Hama province on Wednesday supported by Russian air and naval bombardment of various rebel positions.
In its latest demonstration of its military capabilities, Russian naval assets fired 26 cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea striking 11 targets in Syria 1,500 kilometres away.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russian air and naval strikes "will be synchronised with the actions of the Syrian army on the ground... [which] will effectively support the offensive operation of the Syrian army".
The offensive launched in co-ordination with Russia is intended to challenge Syrian rebel positions in Hama that borders Latakia province which is under the control of the government of President Bashar al-Assad.
Although Russian sources said that these latest strikes were targeting Islamic State (IS) military positions and assets, a video, which could not be independently verified, was uploaded to YouTube by the Free Syrian Army's (FSA) 13th Division showing FSA fighters firing an anti-tank TOW missile at a convoy of armoured vehicles in Hama's countryside at Al-Masasneh, successfully striking what appears to be a Russian-made Syrian army T-62 battle tank.
The London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said that the main thrust of the Syrian government's offensive was focused on the area around the village of Latmeen, which is controlled by the Army of Conquest coalition of Syrian rebels that includes the Nusra Front. The Army of Conquest has sought to expand its area of military control into northern Hama from its positions in Idlib province in order to threaten Assad's coastal stronghold of Latakia.
In signs that the Syrian army's operation is designed to protect Latakia, a Syrian military source said that "the Syrian army in its latest operations is working on cutting off the southern parts of Idlib province from the northern parts of Hama province".
Russia began airstrikes in Syria last month after an extensive military build up in the country.
1989, I visited Latakia for the first time. I was a poor graduate student conducting research for my dissertation on U.S.-Syrian relations in the 1950s, and I’d gone to the cosmopolitan coastal city while on my way to Turkey. I stayed in a rather cheap hotel adjacent to the port, right next to a docked Soviet cruiser. One evening I did shots of vodka late into the night with some Soviet sailors at a seaside restaurant.
The next morning, my slumber was disturbed when the window in my hotel room shattered. The cause was a series of loud blasts just outside. They turned out to be explosions on the cruiser. An accident? An Israeli attack? A U.S. strike? It lasted only a few short minutes — and no one could tell me what it was. A couple days later, when I had crossed into Turkey, I found out that two Syrian helicopter gunships had attacked the cruiser, killing two Soviet sailors. But this was puzzling; the Soviet Union was Syria’s long-time superpower patron. Was it simply two crazed or incredibly incompetent Syrian pilots? Or was it a not-so-subtle message from Hafez al-Assad to Mikhail Gorbachev that Damascus did not like the direction of Syrian-Soviet relations at the time — specifically that Moscow had warmed to the West and was pressuring Damascus to make strategic peace with Israel?
To this day, no one knows the truth behind what happened. But whatever the reason, that incident, now largely forgotten, revealed in dramatic fashion the complexity of the relationship between Syria and Russia over the decades. The Russians needed Syria as an area of ingress into the heartland of the Middle East during the Cold War, while the Syrians needed Russian arms and political support to counter Israel and other U.S. allies in the region. It was a strategic patron-client state relationship that saw plenty of ups and downs. And there’s some history that’s worth remembering these days.
Russians are back in and around Latakia: They have sent to a base just outside the city some 30 fighter jets, surface-to-air anti-aircraft systems to protect them, surveillance drones, transport and attack helicopters, T-90 tanks — and troops. This is more than symbolic. Indeed, Russian fighter jets have already carried out bombing runs just north of Homs, reportedly against Syrian opposition groups who made significant gains in recent months against Syrian government forces. Vladimir Putin is making an emphatic statement to those countries who have been supporting various Syrian opposition groups that Russia is not going to let the Syrian regime collapse, so if any of these countries want to continue backing these groups, they had better up the ante and be prepared to be in it for the long haul. If not, they should do what they should have done all along, shift their efforts to ending the war by backing the Syrian government’s fight against terrorists (broadly defined by Russia as anyone fighting the Syrian regime). Moscow can then preserve its strategic interests in Syria as well as secure a central role for itself in any sort of negotiated settlement to the conflict that may ensue.
And it’s not the first time an outside power has played this strategy via Latakia. This history should give Moscow pause: In 1957, Latakia was the point of entry for about 2,000 Egyptian troops, ostensibly to protect Syria from a potential Turkish invasion. In many ways, it was the climax of a tumultuous period in post-independence Syria brought on by both Syria’s own immature political institutions as well as the interference in Syrian affairs by an array of regional and international powers looking to sway Damascus in one direction or another in the midst of two overlapping cold wars, one between Arab states, the other between global superpowers. Through bribery, propaganda, political pressure, and covert (and sometimes overt) military action, these external players attempted to manipulate a fractured Syrian polity for the sake of strategic self-interest.
The culmination of this struggle for Syria occurred during and immediately after the 1957 American-Syrian crisis. In August of that year, Syrian intelligence uncovered a covert U.S. plot to overthrow a government in Damascus that the Eisenhower administration believed was perilously close to becoming a Soviet client-state in the heart of the Middle East. This episode brought together (and out in the open) the matrix of domestic, regional, and international forces at work in Syria during the previous decade: domestic political rivalries; the growth of Arab nationalism led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser; the struggle for Syria between Iraq, Egypt, and the Saudis; the intensifying U.S.-Soviet Cold War; and an increasingly nervous Israel. The crisis improved the positioning in Syria of Washington’s putative foes in the Middle East at the time, Egypt and the Soviet Union, as the two countries inserted themselves in the Syrian mix more aggressively.
During this crisis, both Egypt and the Soviet Union claimed they were trying to “save” Syria from the pernicious activities of the West. But as events unfolded, it became clear that their objectives diverged. Egypt’s Nasser had worked long and hard to keep Syria from joining pro-West defense schemes in the region (such as the Baghdad Pact), thus preventing his country’s isolation at the hands of his regional rival at the time, Iraq. He wasn’t about to lose the assets he had cultivated in Syria to another country — even the Soviet Union, with which he had had a strategic but uneasy partnership.
In the end, Egypt “won” Syria by taking direct action while the other stakeholders engaged in diplomatic one-upmanship. Nasser’s hold on Syria was so strong that four months later, Damascus willingly came under his leadership to form a united country: the United Arab Republic (UAR). Certainly Moscow had improved its position in Syria, but Nasser’s Egypt had many more entry points into the country that gave it a distinct advantage over a relatively distant superpower. Although important to Moscow, Syria’s orientation was practically an existential issue for Cairo; its ability to intervene in Syrian affairs was matched by its motivation.
As I’ve watched the news out of Syria over the last couple of weeks, I can almost envision some old Arabist hand in Moscow (there are more than a few left) reminding Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov of the Egyptian “landing” 58 years ago. The number of Egyptian troops was woefully inadequate for the job of protecting Syria from an invasion by Turkish troops that had massed on the border. Nasser understood, though, that Soviet warnings against Turkey had already deterred the Turks. In any event, the landing was more of a political statement to beef up Egypt’s assets in Syria, secure its dominant position in the country, and outflank the Soviets and their allies in the Syrian Communist Party. Nasser had matched words with deeds.
That old Russian Arabist would have told Lavrov or Putin: “We should have done back then what Nasser did. Let’s not make the same mistake twice.” (At least that’s how I imagine it.) Seize the initiative, insert forces on the ground in Syria, beef up the Assad regime, and secure Russian strategic interests in the Middle East.
Be careful what you wish for, Russian Arabist. Nasser learned the hard way that an ownership stake in Syria can be a disaster. After he “saved” Syria, Nasser shackled his country to the Syrian matrix, which compelled him to reluctantly agree to the UAR — a union that quickly failed, taking the luster off Nasser’s glow and deepening divisions in the Arab world. In hindsight, it may have been the beginning of the end of Nasserism, the immensely popular pan-Arabist movement that gained center stage following Egypt’s survival against the British-French-Israeli tripartite invasion in the 1956 Suez Crisis, which also transformed Nasser into a regional hero. The problems Egypt experienced in Syria before and after the breakup of the UAR ultimately led to the disastrous 1967 Six-Day War.
After the 1957 debacle in Syria, the United States could do little but watch events unfold, acquiescing to the realities of the situation and the limits of U.S. power. Indeed, following the Iraqi revolution in July 1958 that swept aside the pro-Western monarchy, the three most important Arab countries (Egypt, Syria, and Iraq) appeared to be aligned with Moscow. But in Washington, one could almost sense a sigh of relief. The Eisenhower administration had waded into the minefield of Middle East politics and got burned. Even as they faced criticism at home for appearing to allow Soviet influence in the Middle East to expand, Eisenhower administration officials seemed only too happy to let the Soviets try to dig out of the hole they had created for themselves. It’s almost as if they dared the Kremlin to maintain productive relations with three Arab countries increasingly in competition with one another in the so-called Arab Cold War.
Perhaps Putin’s intervention in Syria will result in something akin to Egypt’s Pyrrhic victory in 1957 or to the Soviet Union’s sudden expansion of influence in the late 1950s that was accompanied by an exponential increase in foreign-policy headaches. Fifty years from now, historians may identify Russia’s 2015 push in Syria as the beginning of the end of Putinism, just as the 1957 landing was the beginning of the end of Nasserism.
Some see the Obama administration’s reluctance to be more assertive in Syria as a strategic necessity born out of war weariness and a lack of attractive options. Others see it as part of an overall strategic retreat from the region, creating a political vacuum that has allowed a host of mischievous stakeholders into the arena, which could potentially lead to an even greater catastrophe than the one that already exists. With the Russia-Syria relationship nearing age 60, it remains as complex as ever. One wonders if there might be another poor graduate student somewhere down the line who will watch yet another mind-bending incident that shows just how combustible it can be.
Shocking mental trauma, sexual abuse and kidnapping are just some of the horrors inflicted on the Yazidi population of Iraq by ISIS militants. A British charity today launches an appeal to help them.
A Channel 4 Dispatches film 'Escape from ISIS' drew yet more attention to the plight of Yazidi women, and young girls, captured by ISIS and subjected to horrific violence and psychological damage.
British charity the AMAR International Charitable Foundation is today launching an appeal to raise £500,000 to help provide women subjected to violence, sexual abuse and mental trauma.
The money will provide counselling and psychological treatment to help them get on with their girls.
There are around 5,000 Yazidi women and girls who are have been kidnapping, then bought and sold like livestock in the Islamic State, according to their accounts as well as the accounts on non-Yazidis who have witnessed first hand the abuse, and escaped the Islamic State to tell of the crimes. Some of the girls are raped and tortured everyday.
"He burnt me with cigarettes on my shoulders, my stomach and my legs," 22 year-old Noor told the charity AMAR.
"I didn't even have the strength to speak after that, so he raped me. I couldn't stop thinking about my mum. I was in so much pain. I felt numb," she said.
There is a shortage of psychiatrists to help these who suffered under ISIS's brutal violence and well-documented war-crimes. The appeal for funding it is hoped will deliver long-term support, and provide training to GPs.
Edward Watts, who made the Channel 4 film 'Escape from ISIS', said: "Experienced psychologists working in Iraq told me they have never witnessed trauma cases of such severity on such a scale. And yet, you can literally count the number of psychologists available to help the victims on the fingers of one hand. They urgently need more support."
Relatives of Mohammad Akhlaq mourn after he was killed by a mob on Monday night, at his residence in Dadri town, in Uttar Pradesh, September 29, 2015
Demonstrators shout slogans as they carry placards during a protest against the killing of Mohammed Akhlaq, in Mumbai, India, October 6, 2015.
Oct 7, 2015
The murder of a Muslim man over rumours he consumed beef has fuelled a fierce debate over India's rising intolerance towards religious minorities, with President Pranab Mukherjee on Wednesday calling for a tradition of tolerance to be defended.
Since Mohammed Akhlaq was beaten to death in his home in Uttar Pradesh last week, politicians from Prime Minister Narendra Modi's party, ministers among them, have made statements seemingly in defence of the Hindu mob that killed him.
Cows are considered holy by many, but not all, Hindus, who form a majority of India's population of 1.2 billion, and beef is eaten by some of the country's minority Muslims and Christians, as well as many lower-caste Hindus.
India is the world's largest exporter of beef and its fifth biggest consumer, but Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government wants a nationwide ban on cow slaughter and the beef trade, which is run mostly by Muslims.
Akhlaq's murder has brought to the fore tension over whether India should drop its pluralistic ideals and adopt a Hindu-first identity.
In a rare televised speech from the presidential palace, Mukherjee addressed an event attended by Home Minister Rajnath Singh, who has previously spoken in favour of a nationwide ban on cattle slaughter. On Tuesday, Singh called for calm.
"Throughout the years, this civilisation celebrated diversity, promoted and advocated tolerance," said Mukherjee, a constitutional figurehead with a largely ceremonial role. "We cannot allow the core values of our civilisation to be wasted."
Modi has been criticized for not publicly commenting on the controversy, but seven days after the murder, the home ministry said perpetrators of violence would be punished.
Author Nayantara Sehgal, the niece of the first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, on Tuesday returned a 1986 prize she had received from India's national academy of letters, to protest against what she called the rising dominance and intolerance of Hindu nationalism.
Former foreign secretary Shyam Saran also weighed in, with an article saying the lynching and other incidents were worrying signs that the "idea of India" was diminishing.
This week, in Delhi and the southern state of Kerala, where beef is widely eaten, groups of young people held beef-eating "picnics" to protest against the imposition of food prohibitions.
Modi's government has clamped down on the illegal trade of cattle with Muslim-majority neighbour Bangladesh, and two states ruled by his party have tightened laws to protect cows.
(Reporting by Frank Jack Daniel and Rupam Jain Nair; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)
Nanos National Ballot tracking released Oct. 6, 2015
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
The latest nightly tracking by Nanos Research for CTV News and The Globe and Mail shows the Liberals and the Conservatives are the top choices for Canadians, while the proportion of Canadians who would consider voting for the NDP has dropped nine points over the past month.
Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s opposition leader, has said she plans to lead the country if her party triumphs in forthcoming parliamentary elections despite a ban on her serving as president, forewarning a fierce post-poll battle with the country’s entrenched military rulers.
Her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), is expected to win the polls, but Aung San Suu Kyi, who received the Nobel peace prize in 1991, is barred from the presidency due to a constitutional provision that excludes those with foreign children from the office.
Her late husband was British and she has two British sons and the clause was specifically aimed at denying her the post.
“If the NLD wins the elections and we form a government, I am going to be the leader of that government whether or not I am the president. Why not?” she said in an interview with prominent Indian journalist Karan Thapar to be broadcast by the India Today TV network on wednesday. “Do you have to be president in order to lead a country?”
Aung San Suu Kyi said “the constitution will have to change to allow civilian authorities to have the necessary democratic authority over the armed forces” – a direct challenge to the powerful military. “I am sure they won’t like it. I don’t expect them to like it,” she said. “But I do believe there are many members of the army who want what is best for the country and if we can agree with one another what would be best for the country then we can come to the arrangement.”
The 8 November election is for seats in both houses of parliament for five-year terms. About 30 million people are eligible to vote, and 90 parties are contesting it. The military, however, is guaranteed a quarter of the seats under the constitution it drafted.
A president will not be chosen until early 2016 after elected MPs have nominated two candidates. MPs appointed by the military nominate a third candidate, and then all parliamentarians vote to determine who becomes president.
As a quarter of seats in parliament are reserved for the army, the NLD will have to win 67% of the vote for a majority.
It is unclear if during that transition period the parliament would be able to amend the constitution to allow her to be nominated as president or to change the system of government. Parliament failed in June to amend the clause.
“You wait and see and hope I win the elections 100% to see what I have in my mind,” she said.
The hour-long interview with Thapar was the first Aung San Suu Kyi has given since August. That it was granted to an Indian network is an indication of how important the emerging south Asian power is to her and the senior leadership of the NLD, even though Delhi failed to support her and other pro-democracy campaigners.
Formerly known as Burma, Myanmar emerged from international pariah status when a semi-civilian government took power four years ago following decades of military rule.
However, the ruling Union Solidarity and Development party is in effect a political extension of the military and the NLD and activists have criticised widespread economic reforms pushed through while, despite some releases, many political prisoners remain in jail and the media is strictly controlled.
“They have been cracking down on the press since about a year ago, and there are a few journals and news weeklies that are bravely carrying on the fight but a lot of our media are learning to self-censor to a certain extent,” Aung San Suu Kyi said on Wednesday.
The politician also expressed concerns about the electoral roll and the political sympathies of the election commissioner, the senior official overseeing the poll.
The army regime have a history of tough action when their power is threatened. A landslide victory by the NLD in the 1990 general elections was ignored by the junta. Aung San Suu Kyi, now 70, spent 15 years since then under house arrest.
In August, the military dismissed parliament speaker Shwe Mann, a rare member of the establishment who was also an ally of Aung San Suu Kyi, from his post.
Aung San Suu Kyi, known locally as “the Lady”, has asked the world to keep its eye on the country after the elections.
She rejected recent criticism that she has not been sufficiently outspoken against sectarian violence in her country, particularly attacks on the Rohingya Muslim minority in the west of the country.
She said she was restricted by laws against mixing religion and politics but expressed concern about rising religious intolerance in Myanmar.
There has also been criticism of her dominance of the pro-democracy movement in her country, and doubts over her ability to make compromises or deals some say are necessary in day to day politics as a leader.
“I have always been a pragmatic politician,” she said. “I have always said I don’t like to be called an icon, because icons do nothing except sit on the wall. And I have had to work very hard.”
No one likes to think about the end, even if everyone knows it’s coming. We prefer to prepare for more joyful milestones: birthdays and marriages, graduations and employment. These all factor into our measures of well-being — our quality of life.
We’re repeatedly told to plan for retirement, yet we rarely talk about what will happen at the end of that slow sunset. As a result, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, we neglect to think about “dying better.”
In its second Quality of Death Index, published Tuesday, the Economist ranks the quality of palliative care in 80 countries. As it did in 2010, the United Kingdom comes out on top. The U.S. ranks ninth.
The report distinguishes between end-of-life care and palliative care, which is defined by the World Health Organization as limited not only to care in the final stages of a terminal illness, but also includes early assessments, psychological attention and support systems.
Commissioned by the Lien Foundation, a Singaporean philanthropic organization, the index looks at indicators across five categories: palliative and health-care environment, human resources, affordability of care, quality of care and community engagement.
By and large, the greatest predictor of how a country fares on these measures is wealth. The list’s top 20 is dominated by wealthy Western and Asian-Pacific countries. Australia and New Zealand are just behind the U.K. in second and third, while Taiwan and Singapore are sixth and 12th.
Though America’s score of 80.8 (out of 100) is respectable, it’s far below the 93.9 garnered by its mates across the pond. The report cites comprehensive national policies, the extensive integration of palliative care into its National Health Service and a strong hospice movement for the U.K.’s superior showing.
In America, the Medicare program for individuals aged 65 and over plays a large role in its high rank. But affordability remains a key issue.
“The financing systems in the U.S. have created significant problems,” saysJames Tulsky, an expert on psychosocial oncology and palliative care in Boston. “So one of the recommendations of the report is to break down barriers between medical and social funding.”
Across the markers of Quality of Death, the U.S. scores poorest on affordability of care, ranking 18th.
The Economist Intelligence Unit credits the Affordable Care Act with helping deliver sweeping changes throughout the U.S. health-care system, though the private sector has also developed ways of delivering on the increased demand for palliative services.
The action from the private sector has a drawback, however. “The obvious disadvantage is that private sector is beholden to shareholders to provide quarterly returns,” says Diane Meier, director of the Center to Advance Palliative Care at Mount Sinai Hospital’s medical school, in the report. “So the worry is that important needed care that is expensive might not be offered.”
The index’s surprise successes are Mongolia and Panama — 28th and 30th overall — two poorer countries that ranked above ostensibly more advanced places like South Africa and Brazil.
Mongolia owes its impressive record to a single doctor, Odontuya Davaasuren, who is leading the push for a national palliative care program.
Before she helped establish the Mongolian Palliative Care Society in 2000, the report notes, the country had no hospices or palliative care teaching programs, and used just two pounds of morphine a year.
“No one talked about it,” Davaasuren tells The Economist. Now, there are ten palliative care facilities in Mongolia’s capital alone.
In a statement for the International Palliative Care Leadership Development Initiative two years ago, the doctor recalled the cruel passing of a ten-year-old Mongolian girl from leukemia. With limited painkillers, her disease made it so she could not move, sleep or smile; “she suffered from severe pain until her death.”
Davaasuren has assured that such cases are now increasingly rare. “Learning palliative care, doing palliative care, I feed my heart and brain,” she said. “I believe that my life has been used well.”
The full list of rankings is on page 15 of the report.
Innovation is not only about discovery, risk and problem solving. It is also about evolving to meet the new challenges we face as a global community.
Chronic illnesses - such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes - now account for 38 million worldwide deaths each year according to the World Health Organisation. They are placing enormous financial strains on healthcare systems. For example, the American Diabetes Association estimates the total costs of diagnosed diabetes cases in the US increased from $174 billion in 2007 to $245 billion in 2012.
Over recent years Philips has been evolving into a digital health and well-being company, empowering people to live healthier lives across what we call the health continuum: from Healthy Living to Disease Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment and Home Care.
At IFA this week Philips launched a range of digital health tools to enable consumers to take greater control of their personal health. They comprise three elements: a cloud-based platform where health data is compiled and analysed and where our apps live - we call this the Philips HealthSuite Digital Platform; professional, Bluetooth-enabled measurement devices; and, personalized, professional coaching.
Two recent trends have altered the way healthcare is delivered today. Increasingly, healthcare is moving away from hospitals and into our homes and daily lives. At the same time new technologies allow healthcare expertise to be delivered in a meaningful, personalised way. People are more empowered to take control of their personal health. We can make more informed decisions about our health through devices which capture data that would have previously only been known by doctors and nurses.
Our goal as a company is to improve the lives of 3 billion people a year by 2025 and create healthier societies through a more connected form of healthcare across the entire health continuum. We look across the health continuum because when it comes to health, it’s the only way you can see the complex challenges. Consumer and healthcare worlds are colliding, and so do our solutions.
The health measurement devices we launched at IFA which gather information for Philips personal health programs are all Bluetooth enabled, automatically transferring data to the HealthSuite Digital Platform.
The programs are at the center of our strategy to drive innovation in health technology. Two devices support professional blood pressure monitoring, but our range also includes body mass analysis, temperature measurement and the ongoing measurement of a wide range of health biometrics (including heart rate, activity, and sleep patterns) via what will be a medical health watch. The programs will empower individuals: to measure vital signs to understand how lifestyle choices affect their body; to set goals and monitor their progress.
Also on show at IFA was the latest addition to the Hue family, the Philips Hue Lightstrip Plus, which can be controlled from your smart device and provides more light, shades of white and vibrant colored light.
For Healthy Living we introduced the latest Philips Smart Air Purifier, designed especially to remove fine dust, house mites and allergens. In Diagnosis, we have the world’s first App-Based mobile Ultrasound product of its kind; and in Home Care, we have an advanced connected solution for people who suffer from sleep apnea, a condition that affects millions of people. You can find out more about these products and many others here.
This is just the beginning. To address the big challenges we face today we need a more holistic approach to healthcare, across the health continuum, drawing on all of our expertise as the gap between the consumer and healthcare worlds narrows further. There is much more to come, but at IFA this year we are opening up a new and exciting chapter in healthcare solutions.
Pieter Nota
Executive Vice President Royal Philips
Born in the Netherlands, Pieter Nota joined Philips in 2010. He started his career at Unilever in 1990, where he held several senior management positions before becoming Marketing Director in 2005.
The residence of a well-known lawyer and rights activist Father Yogeswaran was visited by persons claiming to be from the “Police Media Unit” in Trincomalee on Monday.
Father Yogeswaran who is currently still abroad after speaking on panels at the United Nations Human Rights Council last month is a co-ordinator of the Trincomalee branch of the Tamil Civil Society and anti-disappearances activist.
The “Police Media unit” is thought to be a proxy surveillance unit for Sri Lanka’s intelligence service. Last month, Tamil activists organising campaigns calling for an international accountability process to deal with the findings of the OISl report were also approached by personnel from the “Police Media Unit.”
Father Yogeswaran was well received at the UNHRC and spoke on Tamil sentiment in Sri Lanka at a range of side events organised by Amnesty International and the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR).
Speaking at an Amnesty International event at the UNHRC last month Father Yogeswaran said,
“We talk about transition but there is still no transition in the North-East. There is still military presence and surveillance.”
Commenting on the Tamil vote to bring in Sirisena at January’s presidential elections Father Yogeswaran said, “The victim community suffered for years before the war through systemic discrimination, they didn’t randomly pick up arms. Despite the systemic discrimination, the minority community brought positive change for the whole island. Yet still for the minority community nothing has changed. This is why there was a rise in protests in North-East over last months.
On the need for genuine reparation, Father Yogeswaran added,
“Sri Lanka must prepare to undo discriminatory changes that it has made in the North and East. Reversing colonisations of Tamil areas will have to be considered. This will be important in reparation discussions on transitional justice.”
In Sri Lanka from the inception of the system of governance, the principle of separation powers were in existence and the three branches namely the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, preformed their duties in harmony except for few instances of turbulent situations. Chief Justice Neville Samrakoon had differences with His Excellency J.R. Jayawardena who appointed him from the unofficial Bar to be the Chief Justice. He was an outspoken, honourable and fearless judge who went through a turbulent period with the Executive.
by Sarath Wijesinghe
Independence of Judiciary
( October 6, 2015, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Independence of Judiciary concerns the entire judicial system as, when the judges are not independent, not quality and not living up to the expectations, the administration of justice will collapse. Judges are charged with the ultimate decisions over life, freedoms, rights, duties, and property of citizens. The 6th United Nations Congress called upon the Committee to create guidelines relating to the independence of judges and selection of professional training and status of judges and prosecutors.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, submitted the following remarks for the congressional record regarding the importance of accountability in Sri Lanka.
“I rise to address the situation in Sri Lanka, a country that has endured a brutal civil war and is working to address the difficult issues of accountability and reconciliation.
“Following the historic elections in January and August, Sri Lanka has a remarkable opportunity to economically integrate with the west and build security ties. This relationship has great potential that we all hope can be realized. But before we move forward on greater economic and security cooperation, Sri Lanka must finally resolve long standing issues of accountability that have plagued the country since the end of the war and engage in a credible and legitimate effort to reconcile amongst all communities in the country: Sinhalese and Tamil, Muslim, Christian, Hindu and Buddhist.
“Efforts by the last government to deal with war crimes allegations were a sham, according to the UN, according to the U.S. government, according to the victims and according to the current government in Colombo. Justice has been mostly nonexistent for scores across the country. Many Tamils do not trust the central government to administer a genuine and credible domestic mechanism to provide real accountability for crimes committed during the war. Many Sinhala mothers want to know what happened to their sons who served in the military. Many combatants and civilians remain unaccounted for, necessitating a comprehensive effort to identify all missing persons.
“On October 1, the UN Human Rights Council passed Resolution 25/1 which is focused on accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. This resolution is not perfect, but if fully implemented, it provides the most promising path forward since the end of the war. The resolution leaves open the possibility for international judges and prosecutors in Sri Lanka’s judicial mechanism to promote accountability. The current government has made clear that the international role will be limited to providing technical assistance and advice. As the U.S. works with Sri Lanka to implement the resolution, I urge our diplomats to push for the most robust international role in the accountability process. I also urge the Sri Lankan government to continue to act in good faith to ensure that any accountability mechanism is seen as fair and just by all its citizens.
“The U.S. led an effort to pass a 2014 UN Human Rights Council resolution which mandated a report on war crimes allegations in Sri Lanka. Earlier this month, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights released its report which documented “a horrific level of violations and abuses” committed between 2002 and 2011. Among the violations committed by Sri Lankan government forces, the separatist Tamil Tigers (LTTE) and pro-government para-militaries included in the 261 page report include enforced disappearances extrajudicial killings, torture, denial of humanitarian assistance, sexual violence, indiscriminate shelling, and the recruitment of child soldiers.
“The report also recommended a series of measures that Sri Lanka should take to address these issues. For example the report recommends that the Government of Sri Lanka integrate international judges and prosecutors with an independent Sri Lankan investigative and prosecuting body to try those accusing of war crimes, implement security sector reform, return land occupied by the military, strengthen witness protection programs, and establish a national reparations policy in consultation with victims and families.
“Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera spoke a few weeks ago at the 30th Session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. His own very welcome recognition of the depth of the institutional challenges and of past failures is more than enough reason to insist on outside involvement, particularly in investigations and witness protection.
“Foreign Minister Samaraweera appears genuinely committed to reconciliation. He recently announced the government’s support for a Commission for Truth, Justice, Reconciliation and Non-recurrence to help victims understand what happened and help them attain justice. He emphasized the government’s commitment to an Office on Missing Persons based on the principle of the families’ right to know what happened to their loved ones. He announced the establishment of an Office for Reparations for victims. Most notably he acknowledged that any judicial mechanism for accountability will need to be designed through a wide process of consultations involving all stakeholders to include support from the international community.
“Sri Lanka, and its supporters in the international community, expect action, not more promises, on each of these fronts.
“The political will expressed by the government for a democratic future based on human rights and rule of law is something that should be acknowledged and welcomed by the U.S., international community and all Sri Lankans. We have an obligation to support and foster this vision. As a friend, we also have an obligation to identify shortcomings as they arise throughout the process.
“Moving forward, the U.S. can take several concrete measures to support Sri Lanka’s accountability process through the challenging days ahead.
“First, the U.S. should work to ensure that the commitments in the current UNHRC resolution are fully implemented. Following the passage of the resolution, the U.S. should push for the most robust international role in the accountability process, to include international judges and prosecutors.
“Second, the United States can support efforts to ensure witness protection inside of Sri Lanka. This could include the establishment of special security force for witness protection, developed in close coordination with leaders in the Tamil community.
“Third, the U.S. military should urge its counterparts in the Sri Lankan armed forces to play a constructive role in the accountability process. I understand that there are many in the Sri Lankan military who seek to clear the military’s name so that the institution can move forward. They should deliver on that commitment.
“Fourth, the U.S. should continue and expand programs that strengthen civil society voices in Sri Lanka. The country now has a parliament which is more disposed towards incorporating civil society into the policy making process. These advocates will be critical moving forward on this as well as broader reconciliation efforts.
“Finally, the U.S. should make clear that any accountability process must include addressing violations committed by all sides in the conflict: LTTE, the Sri Lankan military and pro-government para-military groups.
“The goal of accountability is not revenge. The goal is to conduct a process where all sides are provided a measure of justice that leads to durable reconciliation and a marked departure from armed conflict. The previous government’s policies were a dangerous cocktail that were slowly sliding Sri Lanka back into ethnic and religious strife. Today, Sri Lanka’s leaders have an important opportunity to move beyond this divisive past. They say they want it and they have a plan on paper. Now is the time to act. And I am prepared to support the efforts of President Sirisena, Prime Minister Wickramasinghe, Opposition Leader Sampanthan, and all Sri Lankans towards that end.
“The High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein said the credibility of the UN Human Rights Council is on the line in Sri Lanka. I agree and would say that the same goes for the United States. Our country has an important responsibility to finish the work of diplomats in recent years and promote the strongest accountability mechanism in Sri Lanka. Our credibility on human rights issues around the world is at stake and will be watched closely by human rights defenders and violators alike.”
Syrian rebels fire an anti-tank missile in a video uploaded to YouTube claiming to be of a strike in Hama province by the Free Syrian Army against a Syrian army tank. 
Wednesday 7 October 2015-Wednesday 7 October 2015
In BY OCTOBER 6, 2015
WEDNESDAY 07 OCTOBER 2015
Demonstrators shout slogans as they carry placards during a protest against the killing of Mohammed Akhlaq, in Mumbai, India, October 6, 2015.
Nanos National Ballot tracking released Oct. 6, 2015
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi talks to supporters in Kachin State. Photograph: Nyein Chan Naing/EPA
6 October
This is just the beginning. To address the big challenges we face today we need a more holistic approach to healthcare, across the health continuum, drawing on all of our expertise as the gap between the consumer and healthcare worlds narrows further. There is much more to come, but at IFA this year we are opening up a new and exciting chapter in healthcare solutions.
06 October 2015
In Sri Lanka from the inception of the system of governance, the principle of separation powers were in existence and the three branches namely the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, preformed their duties in harmony except for few instances of turbulent situations. Chief Justice Neville Samrakoon had differences with His Excellency J.R. Jayawardena who appointed him from the unofficial Bar to be the Chief Justice. He was an outspoken, honourable and fearless judge who went through a turbulent period with the Executive.
Tuesday, October 6, 2015-