Pakistan’s JF-17 fighter jets offer Why Sri Lanka abandoned the deal

By Sulochana Ramiah Mohan- 2016-01-17

Congratulatory messages on several social networking sites flowed in big numbers from Pakistanis around the world saying kudos to their Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on his first 'sale' of 8 JF-17 thunder jets to Sri Lanka, but within a few days, it came down with a thud when Sri Lanka said, "Sorry we call it a day with the deal."

Several Pakistani media also quoted that the deal for JF-17s will be inked during Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's three-day visit to Colombo that took place two weeks ago.

The sudden pullout from the deal upset Pakistanis and point blankly they said it was another vicious move by the Indians.
A deal struck with the Chinese came under criticism during the Rajapaksa regime because they banked on 'more than the share' and today Sri Lanka is 'rolling her eyes' unable to decide on the deal of the century – the mega Port City Project due to India's strong opposition based on their analysis that China 'lacks transparency' and Sri Lanka is 'unaware of it.'
Pakistan, a friend for all seasons, wanted to come stronger than before and struck the best of all deals besides the usual textile, rubber, tea, rice and dhal deals - to sell 8 Thunder fighter jets: Chinese machines assembled in Pakistan.The test in Sri Lanka 'failed' to impress them.

The powerful government of India has been instrumental in Sri Lanka's development and politically involved too due to the cultural link that topped the Indo-Lanka agendas.
Pakistan Premier Nawaz Sherif was all in praise of the government like Premier of India Narendra Modi did while he was here last year, yet, the great receptions and attention paid to Premier Sharif was 'far too less' when compared.
Premier Modi addressed the Sri Lankan Parliament a privilege many others never enjoyed. There was a speculation that even Premier Sharif had asked for similar presence in the Sri Lankan Parliament but it was 'refused.'

sigh of relief
They are considered as minute issues for Sri Lanka. The blow to Pakistan when Sri Lanka cancelled the deal to buy 8 fighter jets was a 'sigh of relief' for India.
Sri Lanka is trapped as usual in the deplorable subtle fights between the regional giants.
Brigadier (Retired) Rahul K. Bhonsle, Indian Army military veteran with 30 years active field experience in counter militancy and terrorism operations and who is at present the Director of Sasia Security-Risks.com, a South Asian security risk and knowledge management consultancy focusing on South Asia says, in his understanding, the deal was called off.

He says, this time, more than the Chinese, it is the Pakistani involvement in the deal that has triggered concerns. He viewed that India cannot have a Pakistani combat aircraft with the Sri Lankan Air Force, that 'spells an alliance' of sorts. "Now that the situation in Sri Lanka has changed there is no necessity, according to India, for Sri Lanka to sustain a military technical partnership with Pakistan. So India has put its foot down on the deal," he said.
He also viewed that Sri Lanka may not be going in for any fighter jets right now. "The requirement is not there and it was only Pakistani hard-sell that was attempting to provide to Colombo at low cost but the deal is now off," he remarked.

economic capability
"Of course there is no requirement or economic capability to buy them. However, the push from the SLAF may be one reason for continued procurements so that capabilities remains live, he said, when he was informed that Sri Lanka's Defence Ministry is preparing to 'call' for expression of interest in purchasing fighter jets and still not struck the deal with Pakistan. This was told to Ceylon Today prior to Premier Sharif's visit to Sri Lanka.
Of course, the Defence Ministry endorsed that Premier Sharif will endorse the deal of purchasing the JF-17 which confirms that the deal has been 'called off.'

However, head of the JF-17 sales and marketing team, Air Commodore Khalid Mahmood last June 2015 confirmed that an Aisan country has agreed to buy their Sino-Pak Thunder jets. Khalid even refused to name the country but stated that deliveries will begin in 2017.
Pakistan diplomatic circle views that India blowing hot and cold with Sri Lanka at every step it takes in developing the country, has its own deals when other countries approach Sri Lanka.
The push for India's Teja fighter jets to be purchased by Sri Lanka has been there for a while but is that what is upsetting India?
Brigadier Bhonsle said. "That is a speculation and India has yet to produce it in enough numbers for its Air Force. It will be 10 years before it can practically export one to Sri Lanka."

The Pakistani think tanks who are ex-military officials, military experts and diplomats also mailed the writer saying that the "Deal is on because Beijing is footing the bill for the fighter jets and the matter has kept as secret as Indians cannot absorb it. They also reveal that India has threatened Sri Lanka that US$ 400M aid would be stopped in case they buy the jets and China will either give a soft loan to Sri Lanka or a guarantee to Pakistan in order to facilitate the sale of the eight jets.
Pakistan has always helped Sri Lanka militarily during the war. Pakistan even assisted the Sri Lankan security forces in their operations against the LTTE even before the Rajapaksas came to power. But why should Sri Lanka reject them now?
The Indian diplomatic circle says that if Chinese jets that are assembled in Pakistan are in Sri Lanka, the Chinese would 'perhaps' come to provide technical assistance which is 'double trouble.'

China's presence in Sri Lanka has been condemned to the hilt by the Indians while Indo-China relationship is also 'uncertain.'
The Security Trends South Asia: India Defence Stability Projections and Trends explain in their latest statistics:
"Cooperative federalism and centre state political relations of India is uncertain and the active and numerically balanced opposition – Positive Minus; overcoming communal and hate politics – negative; capacity building for nuclear and conventional war fighting deterrence – negative; conflict resolution Jammu and Kashmir, North East and Central Indian States affected by Naxalism – positive.

conflict de-escalation
On India's geo political/regional: conflict de-escalation with Pakistan is uncertain; boundary resolution and management of border China positive; evolving a cooperative paradigm in the Indian Ocean region – positive.
In 2015, Pakistan set a target of manufacturing 16 JF-17 fighter planes by the end of the year and they did complete the target in the stated time. As of December 2015, Pakistan has manufactures 66 Thunder jets.
India had a strong non-paper opposition to this deal for various valid reasons, say the Indian diplomatic circle.
The speculation that the Chinese could be called for technical assistance of the jets if purchased, is based on the belief that every action of the Chinese has remained dubious to them when Sri Lanka embraced them.

Chinese submarines
Chinese submarines docked in Sri Lanka raised the eyebrows of the Indians when Sri Lanka constantly maintained that they had come for 'refueling' after holding counter piracy activities in the Indian ocean region. The media reported the matter and settled with it. However, India probed on the submarines visiting Sri Lanka for three times during Rajapaksa's rule.
India never gave clear direct answers as to why the Chinese submarines should not visit Sri Lanka. But on 10 January India revealed a piece of shocking news.

US Pacific Fleet Commander, Admiral Scott Swift who was in New Delhi revealed that Chinese submarines 'cannot involve' in anti-piracy operations to begin with.
The Admiral's response to Chinese submarines used for anti-piracy operations cannot be understood, he added. He told the media in New Delhi: "It's hard for me as a maritime commander to understand how can a submarine support anti-piracy operations?"

Admitting that a rising power like China would secure its assets and resources, he noted with concern that the issue was the 'lack of transparency and intent' on the part of China.
The US Admiral met Navy Chief Admiral R. K. Dhowan, and spoke about China's attempts to carve out its own ports in various countries such as Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Djibouti (Africa). "There is lack of transparency, lack of understanding of the intent," PTI quoted as the Admiral saying.

The Indian diplomatic circle also questioned how Sri Lanka can go for JF-17 which cost nearly US$ 35M each. What is the necessity now? Is it to push Tejas on Sri Lanka?
JF-17 and Tejas to
show off
India's Tejas, the light weight fighter plane LCA which is more technologically advanced and more expensive than JF-17 and the JF-17 will perform at the Bahrain at the international air show next week, 21–23 January.
Two Tejas fighters will fly to Bahrain for the air show from 21 to 23 January. The fighters, along with three pilots, are already at an air base in Gujarat, practising their routine in sea level conditions akin to Bahrain. In mid-January, they will fly to Muscat, and then to Bahrain the Business Standard reports.

The JF-17 has also been more visible internationally. It debuted in 2010 in a static display at the Farnborough Air Show in the UK, and has flown in several air shows, most recently at Paris in July 2015.
Pakistan enjoys having Chinese fighter jets assembled on their soil. Even Premier Navaz Sharif boasted about the Sino-Pakistan trade corridor and explained how the Chinese are helping them become a trade hub. The jets are a symbol of friendship between Pakistan and China the Premiers of both countries said. During Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to Pakistan, a fleet of eight JF-17 Thunder jets escorted the special plane of the Chinese leader when it entered Pakistan's airspace.

The apparent false start for Pakistan selling Thunder jets continues with rumours that even Malaysia has rejected the offer.
The stiff opposition from India has forced Sri Lanka to drop plans, at least for now, to buy JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft from Pakistan. However, before satisfying the countries around the little island, the need of the hour is to have a new fleet of aircraft, the Defence Ministry said. We need to improve it, it said.

But India says Sri Lanka should not and cannot blindly follow countries that are trying to embrace her because for instance, China 'lacks transparency and intent' and fall prey to anyone because the results will definitely impact the region and undeniably India.

PC member questioned for alleged groping in Singapore 

2016-01-17
One of the Central Provincial Council members who had gone on a 10 day study tour to Singapore few days ago had been taken in for questioning by the Singaporean Police for allegedly groping a woman inside a lift at the hotel they had stayed during their visit, reliable sources said. 

All other PC members except for the member concerned had returned to the country early Saturday completing their tour, according to the Council sources. 

Council Chairman L.D.Nimalasiri who had accompanied the members to Singapore confirmed the incident of groping and the police taking him to the police station. However, he said the incident was accidental and not serious and the police did not take the member into custody but just took him to the police station. He also said that the member had stayed back in Singapore for a personal need. 

Council Secretary of the Central Provincial Council T.N.S. Bandara Tennakoon said that he was neither aware of such an incident nor had he an idea whether the member in question had returned to the country or not. (Kanchana Kumara Ariyadasa) 

Trustee board fakes deed for Kalutara Bodhiya!

Jan 17, 2016

The Kalutara Bodhi trustee board had obtained ownership of the land on which the Bodhiya is situated through a leasing agreement, but has now prepared a fake deed to claim possession for the sacred plot of land.

Not stopping at getting a fake deed, the board had organized a function on January 08 under the auspices of president Maithripala Sirisena to hand it over in order to get it legalized and publicized. All members of the board are laity, and in 1951, possession of the land, owned by the historic Gangatilake Vihara, was obtained through a leasing agreement with nine conditions, but it has never fulfilled any of those conditions, Adhikarana Sangha Nayake of Kalutara Disava, Marapana Vijitha Thera, who has inherited the ownership, has told ‘Sathhanda’ newspaper.

The newspaper has copies of the leasing agreement and the documentations of authority, which show that the land, on which the Kalutara agent of the British rule had his official quarters, had been returned to Sangha in 1937 following a long battle. Hendigalle Vipulasiri Thera, who gave leadership to that battle, was handed over the land through a documentation of authority in 1949 by the then Malwatte Vihara Mahanayake Rambukwelle Sri Dharmarakshitha Nayaka Thera. However, leading bus company owner at the time, Sir Cyril Soyza got it leased to the Kalutara Bodhi trustee board in 1951 with the help of the then UNP regime, and there had been no other legal ownership. Chief incumbent of Siri Nikethanaramaya at Kalutara South Vijitha Thera, the only cleric to be the disciple of Vipulasara Thera, is taking legal action against the Kalutara Bodhi trustee board over its fake deed.

President Obama’s final flight for legacy: the State of the Union and the Rest of the World

by Rajan Philips-January 17, 2016, 10:54 am 

Love them or hate them, Americans have made a fine virtue of the canonical observance of the rituals and trappings of constitutional democracy. Walter Bagehot called them the "dignified" aspects of a constitution, referring of course to the "matchless" but unwritten British constitution. The British introduced the ceremony of the Throne Speech in the mother of parliament and in colonial legislatures. The Americans started the tradition of the Inaugural Address by newly elected presidents and annual State of the Union Addresses by incumbent presidents. In the US, these dates are fixed like Christmas. The State of the Union address is delivered by the sitting President on the second Tuesday of every New Year. President Obama delivered his final State of the Union address on Tuesday, January 12. Next year there will be a new President, who could be Hillary Clinton, as America’s first female President. God forbid Donald Trump from becoming President. It says some of the State of the Union for a dangerous clown like Donald Trump even to emerge a serious contender for nomination as a presidential candidate.

Without mentioning names, Obama took on the clown and even went off-script to excoriate the politics that "targets people because of race or religion." "This is not a matter of political correctness", the President went on. "It’s a matter of understanding what makes us strong." He again reminded the Americans that "We the people", the three opening words of the Constitution, must include all the people regardless of gender, race, religion, or geographical origin. But Trump was not even a footnote in Obama’s speech, although the social angsts that Trump exploits were a major focus. Americans either love Obama or hate him just as the world either loves or hates America. It is a strange comeuppance for a man who came to office on flights of rhetoric promising to bring change by bridging political rivalries that he should find the country so politically divided around his own presidency. But it is a not so strange paradox that the election of an ‘African American’ – while it is officially lauded in the country and genuinely welcome by most Americans, it has also provoked the backlash of American racism that had been forced into dormancy by decades of advances in the civil rights department. The Obama presidency has given a racist twist to the Oedipus complex of the American psyche.

The greatness of Obama is that he himself has not allowed himself to become a sulking victim to the racist backlash against him. In the last year of his presidency, he is finally fighting back, taking the fight to the people over the heads of Washington politicians. And in his final State of the Union address, he laid out the markers for his place in history. His speech centred around four themes, or questions, as he rhetorically raised them: enabling equal opportunity in the economy; making technology works for and against the common good; keeping America safe without policing the world; and changing the character of politics to reflect "what’s best in us and not what’s worst." Commentators are comparing Obama’s swan song to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s State of the Union address 75 years ago, the famous Four Freedoms speech: Freedom of Speech; Freedom of Worship; Freedom from Want; and Freedom from Fear. FDR’s speech, in 1941, became the precursor to the birth of the United Nations and the Declaration of Human Rights at the end of that decade. Three of Obama’s four themes carry resonance for the economic and political challenges facing every political society in today’s world. And the theme about keeping America safe without policing the world is what it is all about today’s international relations.

Striking a note of modesty, Obama confessed that a President like Lincoln or FDR would have brought Americans closer than he has been able to in his eight years as President. But he promised to keep trying for what is left of his presidency, and he even promised to continue speaking out even after his term is over. Already, his second term is being acknowledged as the most productive second term of any president in recent history. His is no lame duck term. And his promise to continue speaking out as a former president is a welcome counterweight to the likes of Donald Trump. Obama could be a far more powerful crowd puller for the cause of reason in political discourse than a dozen of Trumps bandying the message of fear and hatred. Make no mistake, Obama is a more proud American than any Republican can be, and he can be more ruthless than any other President.

The most powerful nation

"The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It is not even close," he almost yelled halfway through his speech, and ended it rousingly that "the State of the Union is strong." His target were the Republicans and their constant carping that he is not being strong enough and strategic enough against the ISIS insurrection in the Middle East and its long arm reaches into Western cities. Obama’s central point is that a state, especially a mature state like the US, should not adopt the methods and tactics of terrorism to defeat terrorism. The state must not deviate from its own laws and commitments to all its citizens regardless of their differences. And the United States of America must not isolate and denigrate its Muslim citizens, as Donald Trump has been doing, as a response to a bunch of political weirdos proclaiming a new Caliphate in the old Levant.

But Obama’s argument, while unexceptionable in America’s domestic context, is not entirely defensible when measured against America’s record overseas. Even before he became President, he famously differentiated himself from his predecessor that he is not against all wars, but that he will not fight dumb wars. True to his word, President Obama has disengaged America from the two dumb wars started by his predecessor. And ISIS is direct fallout from the first of those two wars. Even Tony Blair, George Bush’s co-conspirator, has conceded that. For his part, President Obama has been shying away from sending ground troops while executing aerial bombardment against ISIS resources and drone attacks to kill specific targets in far flung locations. To many of his disillusioned detractors on the Left, Obama has become the ‘drone President.’ At home, as a belated reward for the Left’s early expectations, President Obama is promising to close down by executive order in his final year, the notorious Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba set up by Donald Rumsfeld in 2002.

It is fair to say that President Obama has also tried hard to resolve international issues through diplomacy. To his domestic critics, President Obama is not fighting enough wars; while overseas, there is no change in the perception of American meddling in everyone’s business. The nuclear agreement with Iran is a huge diplomatic achievement, but its future benefits will be significantly limited without the US revisiting its relationship with Saudi Arabia and with Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu. Neither is likely to change in the near future. Obama’s successors, Hillary Clinton included, will try to stem if not reverse, but will hardly advance his diplomatic initiatives.

His greatest gratification is on the economy. On Obama’s watch, America has pulled itself up from the Great Recession where it was left by President Bush. The American economy is strong and its unemployment and deficit levels are down, compared to scare stories elsewhere. And the global scene is a different story. Economic historians are comparing the current global commodity price crashes to the Great Depression of the 1930s, with the difference that plummeting oil prices are the cause now, while grains were the main trigger then. The current crisis could be worse than the financial crisis of the last decade, but may not be as bad the Dirty Thirties. Obama had nothing to say about the global crisis, but drew attention to the social stresses and uncertainties arising from the impacts that technology is having on production processes and human roles in them. But he committed America to a "moon shot", to finding a cure for cancer, akin to landing the first man on moon.

His biggest disappointment in the self-assessment of his presidency is the cutthroat bitterness of political rivalries. It is far worse than it was eight years ago when he became President, chastising the fighting habits of the Clintons and promising to recast the country not as a Democratic America, or a Republican America, but as the United States of America. In his final speech, rather than preaching platitudes, he challenged the American voters to elect a Congress that can work cooperatively in spite of political differences. The twin evils of electoral gerrymandering and big money frustrate the democratic processes everywhere, but not as grotesquely as in the United States of America. Obama challenged the American people to put an end to politicians picking their voters by redrawing electoral boundaries, and protect the people’s right to elect their representatives freely and fairly.

 

Settler stabbed to death inside West Bank home: Israeli army 

File photo shows Israeli soldiers (AFP)

Sunday 17 January 2016

A Palestinian broke into an Israeli settlement in the southern West Bank on Sunday and stabbed a woman to death in her home, the Israeli army said, the first such incident in a months-long wave of violence.

"A terrorist murdered a civilian in her home in the community of Otniel," south of Hebron, a military statement said.

"The attacker broke into the house and stabbed the victim to death. Forces are in pursuit of the terrorist."

Palestinians in neighbouring villages said a manhunt was under way, with army helicopters in the sky and heavy movement of military vehicles.

Further details were unclear on the stabbing, the latest in more than three months of such attacks, but the first in the current wave of violence to occur inside a settlement home.

Hours earlier, Israeli border guards arrested a Palestinian woman at the entrance to the Kiryat Arbaa settlement in Hebron, reportedly after finding a knife in her bag, Maan News Agency reported.

 

Sunday's killing brought the death toll since last October to 24 Israelis and 155 Palestinians.

 

Many of the slain Palestinians were allegedly attackers, while others were shot dead by Israeli forces during protests and clashes.

 

There are about 550,000 Israelis living in Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, in contravention of international law. 

 

Hebron - where several hundred Jewish settlers, heavily guarded by the Israeli military, live in the city among about 200,000 Palestinians - has been a flashpoint in the recent wave of Palestinian knife, gun and car-ramming attacks.

 

Israeli forces have often responded to alleged attacks or attempted attacks by shooting Palestinian suspects dead. Amnesty International has condemned what it has called unnecessary use of force by Israeli soldiers in responding to alleged attacks.

 

Amnesty has documented "incidents in which Palestinians were shot dead by Israeli forces when they posed no imminent threat to life, in what appear to have been extrajudicial executions," the group said in late October, at the end of the first month of increased tensions.

 

The Israeli government has come under internal pressure over the continued stabbings, and Sunday's killing was likely to further boost tensions.

 

Most of the stabbings have occurred in public places, including checkpoints, junctions and entrances to Jerusalem's Old City. They have rarely been fatal.

 

Many of the Palestinian attackers have been young people, including teenagers. A number of them have attempted attacks with kitchen knives in what some analysts have described as virtual suicide missions.

 

Some analysts say the attacks have been in part driven by frustration with a lack of progress in peace efforts, Israel's continuing occupation of the West Bank and their own fractured Palestinian leadership.

 

While attacks have become less frequent in recent weeks, they have continued, defying increased Israeli security measures.

 

International efforts to end the violence have failed. 

 

US Secretary of State John Kerry warned in November after holding separate talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas that the conflict was at a "pivotal point" and could worsen beyond repair unless both sides make rapid compromises.

Iran sanctions lifted after UN nuclear watchdog's finding; Tehran, Washington agree to prisoner swap

The US and the EU have lifted crippling sanctions against Iran following the UN nuclear watchdog's finding that Tehran had curbed its nuclear program as promised.

PHOTO: The lifting of sanctions will see Iran emerge from years of economic isolation. (Reuters: Kevin Lamarque)

The main points in the nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers aimed at curbing Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

In a dramatic move scheduled to coincide with the scrapping of the sanctions, Tehran also announced the release of five Americans including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian as part of a prisoner swap with the United States.

Together, the lifting of sanctions and the prisoner deal considerably reduce the hostility between Tehran and Washington that has shaped the Middle East since Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1979.

Iran Sanctions Lifted After UN Nuclear Watchdog's Finding Tehran, Washington Agree to Prisoner Swap by Thavam Ratna

The Last Newspaper in Burundi

Media houses have been shuttered, journalists attacked, and critics of the government murdered. But one broadsheet is still covering the African country's descent into chaos.


BY TY MCCORMICK-JANUARY 15, 2016

BUJUMBURA, Burundi — Christophe Nkezabahizi toiled for years at Radio Télévision Nationale du Burundi (RTNB), the mouthpiece of a regime that would eventually kill him along with his entire family.

After suspected rebels attacked two policemen with grenades, officers went on a killing spree in Nkezabahizi’s neighborhood. They ordered the 58-year-old cameraman out into the street and shot him execution-style in front of his wife, two children, and nephew. Nkezabahizi’s wife, Alice, who had been among the first women to drive a lorry in Burundi, was then forced onto her knees, along with her two children, one of whom had a developmental disability, and the nephew, who was training to become a psychologist.

The officers killed them all, a bullet each to the back of their heads.

The story of the massacre in Ngagara, a neighborhood in the capital known for its opposition to the government, where a total of 10 people were killed on Oct. 13, 2015, was one of a growing number of atrocities that might never have been exposed if it weren’t for the last independent media outlet still publishing in Burundi. Even as the government has grown increasingly heavy-handed, shuttering TV and radio stations not run by the state and exiling or murdering its critics, the respected newsweekly Iwacu has continued to shine a light on the almost daily killings gripping this tiny Central African nation.

“Here there is no freedom for independent media. We are the only ones; the others are under the thumb of the government,” Léandre Sikuyavuga, Iwacu’s editor in chief, said recently. “Our responsibility is now very big, since we are trying to fill the gap, trying to speak for those [media outlets that] were burned down.”

Burundi was plunged into a virtual domestic media blackout after a failed coup attempt last May. The plotters announced their takeover on African Public Radio, one of the most important independent radio stations in Burundi, prompting supporters of the government to bomb its downtown headquarters after the putsch unraveled. At least four other radio or television stations were damaged or destroyed in the mayhem, and several that had carried news of the coup were ordered to close by authorities. Since then, attacks on journalists have become commonplace, and at least 100 have fled to neighboring countries, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Inside Burundi, only the state-run RTNB, which doesn’t stray from the government’s messaging, is still broadcasting.

“It’s incredibly challenging for journalists now in Burundi, and of course many are simply not able to operate,” said Rachel Nicholson, a researcher focusing on Burundi at Amnesty International. “The clampdown on the media is creating a worrying news vacuum and denies Burundians the free access to information that they have a right to.”

Iwacu suspended publication for a week after receiving a series of anonymous threats in the wake of the coup. But otherwise the broadsheet has published throughout Burundi’s 8-month-old crisis, chronicling the gruesome aftermath of President Pierre Nkurunziza’s decision to defy protests and seek a controversial third term in office. With coverage in the international media sporadic and mostly relegated to the back pages,Iwacu has produced the definitive first draft of an increasingly dark period in Burundian history — from the government’s brutal crackdown on demonstrators in May to the subsequent (and ongoing) spate of extrajudicial killings to the recent hardening of the protest movement into an armed rebellion

It has done so against a backdrop of remarkable hostility toward the press. Journalists at other media outlets have been arrested and tortured; one had a grenade flung through her window. At Iwacu, reporters say one of their colleagues fled the country after receiving death threats. Another multimedia journalist who asked not to be named said authorities confiscated his cameras and destroyed some of his footage. Others said they had received menacing phone calls or had been warned by security services not to dig too deeply into government abuses.

Christian Bigirimana, the lead reporter on the investigation into the RTNB cameraman’s death, recalled how a government soldier confronted him back in November. “He approached me back home in my neighborhood and said, ‘You work at Iwacu, and you are messing things up,’” said Bigirimana. “It wasn’t physical, but I could feel from his body language that he was threatening me.”

Burundi does not have a long history with independent media. The first private radio stations were set up during the country’s 1993-2005 civil war, in which an estimated 300,000 people were killed. Like in neighboring Rwanda, where radio played an ignominious role in inciting ethnic slaughter, Burundians were also called to kill their neighbors over the airwaves — in particular by Radio Rutomarangingo, based in neighboring Zaire, now Democratic Republic of the Congo. But more recently the radio has been used as a tool for reconciliation, and in the mid- to late 1990s a host of media start-ups were launched with the aim of promoting tolerance and understanding.

Founded by exiles in Belgium after the assassination of Burundi’s first democratically elected president, Melchior Ndadaye, in 1993, Iwacu was part of this first entree into independent media. But published only abroad, the paper served mainly to keep the diaspora abreast of events in Burundi. (Iwacu means “at home” in the Kirundi language.) It began publishing inside the country in 2008 and quickly became the most widely circulated newspaper.

Still, in a country where a significant portion of the population is illiterate, print media has never been able to compete with the airwaves. An estimated 85 percent of Burundi’s 10 million inhabitants tune into the radio, many listening on their mobile phones. By comparison, Iwacu runs off a modest 6,000 copies of every issue — 3,000 in French and 3,000 in Kirundi. This relatively low profile, along with the professionalism of Iwacu journalists, helps to explain why the paper has been allowed to keep publishing, even as the government clamps down on radio and television stations that represent a greater threat.
But as the government grows more paranoid about international intervention — both the United States and European Union have sanctioned individual Burundian officials and the African Union has threatened to send peacekeepers — journalists worry the government could move to silenceIwacu as well.

The most troubling sign that the newsweekly is now in the government’s crosshairs came in November, when Iwacu’s founder and director of operations, Antoine Kaburahe, was picked up for questioning by prosecutors. He was released and later traveled to Belgium, but the government has since sought his extradition on charges stemming from the failed coup attempt. Phone records showing he was in contact with the ringleaders, the government claims, are proof that he was in on the plot.

Responding to questions over email from Belgium, Kaburahe said he wasn’t “even remotely linked to the coup” and that it should not be considered suspicious for a journalist to have been in contact with the plotters.

“We were trying to understand what was happening.… Journalists are there to inform,” he wrote. Kaburahe lamented what he called a “terrible regression of freedom of expression” in Burundi, where “those in power are becoming very nervous and tolerate little criticism.”

A spokesman for the Burundian presidency did not respond to multiple requests for comment, but in the past the government has said it is investigating the role played by independent media outlets during the attempted coup. Only once these outlets are cleared of any wrongdoing will they be allowed back on air. “We must first wait for the public prosecutor to finish his investigation, to identify the losses, and to catch the perpetrators so [they can] be punished according to the law,” presidential spokesman Willy Nyamitwe told the website African Arguments last May.

But more than seven months later the investigation has not been concluded, and none of the media outlets have been allowed to reopen. Only at Iwacu are the presses still running.

One morning in early December, a packed newsroom at the paper’s office in the leafy neighborhood of Rohero was hurtling toward its Thursday print deadline (the paper hits newsstands on Friday). Editors inspected page proofs and shouted last-minute queries to reporters typing madly on their laptops. On the white board above the wooden conference table was a rough mock-up of the issue: An item on “Consultations Between Burundi and the EU” was slated to run next to an article on the “Everyday Lives of the Youth,” a catch-all term for members of the opposition.

But the article everyone was talking about was to run under the headline “5 Executions in Mutakura.” It was the paper’s latest effort to expose the government’s relentless campaign of extrajudicial killings.

“This is why we do this,” said one of the reporters who worked on the investigation. “That’s why it’s worth it.”

Photo credit: Ty McCormick/Foreign Policy

Leading Yemeni journalist who worked for international media killed in air strike

Almigdad Mojali, who had also worked for the Telegraph, was one of only a handful of Yemeni journalists working with international news organisations

Almigdad Mojali (inset) was one of a handful of Yemeni journalists working with international news organisations to report on the country's ten month war Photo: Reuters

By Louisa Loveluck-17 Jan 2016

A leading Yemeni journalist was killed by an air strike on Sunday as he left a village where up to 21 civilians had been killed days earlier.

Almigdad Mojali was one of a handful of Yemeni journalists working with international news organisations, including the Telegraph, to report on the country’s ten month war.

Friends said his car was struck by an air strike as it travelled to from Jarif, an eastern village where bombing raids killed 21 civilians days earlier. It is understood that he was travelling with a photographer.

Mojali’s work for The Telegraph focused on the cost of war, documenting Saudi-led air strikes and Houthi ground attacks, as well as the number of child soldiers who had been sucked into the conflict’s vortex. More than 5,600 people are reported to have been killed in Yemen’s conflict to date, and over 26,000 more have been injured.

Men walk on rubble at the Chamber of Trade and Industry headquarters, after it was hit by a Saudi-led air strike in Sanaa

Mr Mojalli was married with a young son. A friend and journalist colleague, Rawan Shaif, said Mr Mojalli's brother had asked him to investigate the circumstances of his death.

"His family asked that I go photograph and write about what happened," she said. "But I'm not even sure of what's happening - it's all a giant blur."

Saudi Arabia and a coalition of Sunni Arab states are trying to halt the progress of Iran-backed militia, known as the Houthis, who seized control of the capital in January, sending the elected president into exile.

The military operation is meant to be targeting Houthi fighting positions. But air strikes have hit schools, wedding parties, mosques and hospitals. In some cases, British-funded aid projects have also been destroyed.

Houthis gather for the celebration of Moulid Al-Nabi, the birth of Islam's Prophet Muhammad, in Sanaa last month

In a briefing with the Telegraph last week, the Saudi foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, confirmed that British military advisers are in control rooms assisting the Saudi-led coalition with its targeting.

As Yemen’s humanitarian crisis burgeons, Doctors Without Borders said on Sunday that it had delivered medical supplies to areas in the south-western city of Taiz. The area has been blockaded by the Houthis for months, forcing doctors to choose which patients lived and died as medical supplies ran dangerously low.

Doctors Without Borders said two trucks "full of essential medical supplies" entered the south-western city in the first such operation in five months.

The Houthis and the Saudi-led military coalition have both been accused of war crimes throughout the conflict.

How Can A State Be Held Accountable?

An interesting concept in State accountability is a relatively recent shift from the top-down approach of State accountability – where States brought actions against individuals or other legal persons – to the bottom-up approach where individuals could bring an action against a State seeking its accountability.

by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne

( January 16, 2016, Montreal, Sri Lanka Guardian) In an earlier article in this journal I proposed that while 2015 could be considered the year of State responsibility, 2016 should follow inevitably as the year of State accountability. In this article I address the basic principles of State accountability.

First, a word on State responsibility. The United Nations General Assembly, in its Resolution 56/83 , adopted as its Annex the International Law Commission’s Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts which recognizes that every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State and that there is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action or omission is attributable to the State under international law and constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.

Accountability is the natural progression of responsibility. However, holding States accountable for a breach of responsibility is a difficult task in the face of the dichotomy between State sovereignty and the perceived impotence of international law as a punitive mechanism. This reason has so far precluded State accountability from being accepted as jus cogens – which is Latin for a peremptory norm of international law. The word “accountability” has not been used often as has been the word “responsibility” for State actions . However, there is a distinct link between accountability and the prevention of States from shirking accountability that flows from responsibility. In UN General Assembly Resolution 64/10 of 2010 which dealt with the Report on the Gaza Conflict between Israel and Palestine, one Whereas clause stresses “the need to ensure accountability for all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in order to prevent impunity, ensure justice, deter further violations and promote peace” and inter alia the Resolution calls upon the Government of Israel to take all appropriate steps, within a period of three months, to undertake investigations that are independent, credible and in conformity with international standards into the serious violations of international humanitarian and international human rights law reported by the Fact- Finding Mission, towards ensuring accountability and justice .

In the Reparation for Injuries Case of 1949 the International Court of Justice ascribed to the United Nations the same legal status of an international personality under international law as that of a State, and affirmed that the Organization had the legal right to seek reparation from a State for injuries caused to one of its staff members while on mission in that State.

In the Corfu Channel case (also of 1949) the view of the Court was that the legal possibility of imposing liability upon a State wherever an official could be linked to that State encourages a State to be more cautious of its responsibility in controlling those responsible for carrying out tasks for which the State could be ultimately held responsible. In the same context, the responsibility of placing mines was attributed to Albania in the Corfu Channel case since the court attributed to Albania the responsibility, since Albania was known to have knowledge of the placement of mines although it did not know who exactly carried out the act.

When, on 4 December 2001, Israeli military forces attacked Gaza International airport, destroyed air navigation facilities and bombarded runways and taxiways until the airport became unserviceable, the Palestinian Authority claimed that the destroyed airport and air navigation facilities were used for the transportation of civilian passengers, search and rescue operations in case of emergencies, transportation of rescue material, including medical equipment, medicines and survival kits for safeguarding human lives. When the dispute was brought before the Council of the International Civil aviation Organization (ICAO), it adopted a resolution strongly urging Israel to take the necessary measures to restore Gaza International Airport so as to allow its reopening as soon as possible, presumably under the notion that Israel was accountable and therefore had to make reparation to Palestine. Later, when the issue was addressed by The International Court of Justice, the Court concluded that Israel was accountable to individuals as well, who suffered injury or damage as a result of the Israeli attack

An interesting concept in State accountability is a relatively recent shift from the top-down approach of State accountability – where States brought actions against individuals or other legal persons – to the bottom-up approach where individuals could bring an action against a State seeking its accountability. In an interesting case where the responsibility of the United Nations was brought into question, it was held by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that “the United Nations Security Council [(SC)] had neither effective control nor ultimate authority and control over the acts and omissions of troops within the Multi-National Force and that the applicant’s detention was not, therefore, attributable to the United Nations”, but the internment of the applicant was attributable to the United Kingdom as it was British troops that had committed the wrongful act in Iraq. The court ascribed responsibility to the United Kingdom. When there is involvement by both a State or States and an international Organization (comprised of member states) such as NATO, courts are inclined to ascribe joint and several liability to both . This approach to liability is based on the theory of authority and control where the forces perpetrating an act of military nature are under the control of both the international organization and the State concerned.

The right of individuals to hold States accountable for injuries or damage suffered is also supported by the International Law Commission. In Article 33 (2). of its Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), 2001, the Commission explicitly recognizes State accountability for actions detrimental to social interests. So has the United Nations Compensation Commission which was established in 1991 to go into claims of those who suffered from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The claims that the Commission handled amounted to more than 2.6 million and compensation sought under these claims was about $352 billion. Similarly another Commission – the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission-which was established in 2000 to compensate entities and individuals who claimed that they had suffered from violations of international humanitarian law – addressed issues of State accountability and reparation. The Iran-US Claims Tribunal is another example where an individual successfully argued that Iran was liable for the acts of intimidation and harassment he suffered under the hands of Iranian citizens which prompted the former to leave Iran, which resulted in significant property loss . However, this decision lost its force when, in a subsequent case the Tribunal required evidence of directives of the Iranian authorities – the Revolutionary Guard- that caused such intimidation to individuals .

There is a paradigm shift from the interests of the State, which were considered paramount two decades ago, to the interests of the people. The supremacy of State sovereignty now lies in State responsibility and international cooperation aimed at ensuring the safety and security as well as the general welfare of the people, rather than State prerogative. As the then Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan said in 1999: “State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined – not least by the forces of globalization and international cooperation. States are now widely understood to be instruments at the services of their peoples and not vice versa”

Aung San Suu Kyi: 'children waste time on computer games'

Myanmar pro-democracy leader says libraries are rare in schools and children read less due to increasing technology
Aung San Suu Kyi: ‘Our education system is about learning by heart and answering questions, limiting critical thinking and reading books.’ Photograph: Soe Zeya Tun/Reuters

Agence France-Presse in Yangon-Sunday 17 January 2016

Aung San Suu Kyi, who was forced to spend years of solitude under house arrest, has hit out at young people “wasting time” on computer games and social networking.

The veteran opposition politician, whose party will soon take power afterwinning a landmark election in Myanmar last November, made the comments in a letter to organisers of a literary festival at the weekend in Yangon. “Our lifestyles are changing nowadays as technology improves,” she wrote to the Nobel-Myanmar literary festival posted online on Saturday. “Now our children waste a lot of their time on computer games, internet games and social networks. Children read less because the use of technology has increased.”

Aung San Suu Kyi is widely adored in Myanmar for her years of steely opposition to decades of brutal and corrupt junta rule. In November, her National League for Democracy trounced the military-backed governing party and will soon form a new administration, though the army will still wield significant power under the junta-written constitution.

The NLD’s electoral success owes much to capturing the youth vote in a country where just over half of the population is under 27. But Aung San Suu Kyi, 70, who was an academic before she became a politician, has never professed to be at the forefront of technology. For the best part of two decades, she had little more than a dusty library of books and the radio to keep her company during long periods of house arrest, before her release in 2010 and the country’s slow transition towards a quasi-democracy.

Just a few years ago, access to the internet was limited and monitored while a mobile phone would cost thousands of pounds. Now Myanmar has as many smartphones and social media accounts as most of its neighbouring countries.

In her letter, Aung San Suu Kyi hit out at education standards, citing underfunding as well as a tendency towards rote learning rather than critical analysis. “We rarely have libraries in our schools and we have no more time to read books when we are in class,” she said. “Our education system is about learning by heart and answering questions, limiting critical thinking and reading books.”

Under junta rule, education and healthcare spending was chronically neglected as the military lavished what little income the impoverished nation had on itself and its allies within the business elite.

Expectations are sky high that Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD will begin to reverse that trend. But the military still retains control of key security ministries, a de facto veto in parliament and huge economic clout through army-owned conglomerates.

Aung San Suu Kyi is banned from becoming president under the military-drafted constitution. She has vowed to be “above” whoever is chosen as president.