Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Ukraine Is Going to Be a Big Problem for the Next U.S. President

Ukraine Is Going to Be a Big Problem for the Next U.S. President

BY MARK PFEIFLE-OCTOBER 7, 2016

Of the many neglected foreign policy pots and pans that will be waiting on the next U.S. president’s stove, the one marked “Ukraine” may be ready to boil over. The country’s problems are a hearty borscht of bribery, theft, official corruption, and even murder — and nothing is as it first appears.

Ukraine has faded from the American national consciousness as other, even more recent and far more spectacular foreign policy fiascos — Syria, Libya and the Islamic State — overwhelm our capacity to catalog them.

Most Americans have all but forgotten Russia’s invasion of the Crimea in 2014, and at least one U.S. Presidential candidate seems willing to pardon it altogether. Nevertheless, Russians still occupy Crimea, and pro-Russian rebels, supported by the Russian military, control much of the country’s two eastern provinces: Donetsk and Lugansk. 

Russia is deploying a massive military force along Ukraine’s borders, which will be capable of invasion by 2018. The ongoing fighting in Donbass strains the Ukrainian society and undermines people’s trust in the government.

Pro-Russian politicians, such as Alexander Medvedchuk, whose daughters are goddaughters of Vladimir Putin and Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, are still occupy positions of power in Kyiv. Super-rich oligarchs, Moscow- and Yanukovich connected East Ukraine energy king Rinat Akhmetov, finance pro-Russian political parties. 

And then, there is corruption, of the most systemic and ubiquitous kind, corruption that the Obama administration singled out as one of the main threats to Ukrainian state. It would be difficult to fight corruption at the best of times, but during the Russian military engagement and pervasive subversion sponsored by the Kremlin this is all but mission impossible.

Yet the Obama administration — especially Joe Biden — has emphasized corruption fighting, while its reaction to Putin’s aggression has been tepid. President Barack Obama prefers a cautious combination of economic sanctions against Russia and economic support for the Ukrainian government in Kiev.

Obama’s delicate carrot-and-stick approach hasn’t worked, and the long-simmering Ukrainian kettle threatens to boil into the worst crisis in relations between Moscow and Washington since the Cold War.  
Despite all the best efforts of the West since its independence from the former Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine is a kleptocracy. Its political history amounts to little more than a non-stop perp-walk, with one popularly elected leader kicked out of the country in a popular uprising, another suspected of murder, and the third blamed for the weakened institutions and lost opportunities.

The optimism created by the 2013-2014 “EuroMaidan” street demonstrations was short-lived. Prime Minister Arseniy Petrovych Yatsenyuk was forced to resign in April against a backdrop of permanent political crisis and high-profile charges of corruption.

The Russia-inspired war killed thousands of Ukrainians and displaced a million more, but when asked which is more urgent — the war against the pro-Russian rebels or the war against corruption — Ukrainians believe corruption is more important, by a margin of more than two-to-one.

The so-called “Panama Papers” — the millions of leaked documents from the Panamanian corporate law firm Mossack Fonseca last April also proved that President Petro Poroshenko was busy registering offshore accounts even as his own troops were retreating from one of the bloodiest defeats of the war.

Poroshenko is Europe’s richest leader according to Forbes, and despite his promises to “embed new traditions” by selling off his assets, he has sold nothing. In fact, he was the only one of Ukraine’s wealthy businessmen to see his net worth actually increase in 2015, to $858 million. Like his predecessor Viktor Yanukovich, he has erased the thin line once existed between business and politics in Ukraine and he is profiting richly, even as his country struggles through the worst economic and political crisis since the 1991 independence. 

Perhaps most dispiriting of all, even those Ukrainian activists, politicians, and journalists who are portrayed as true reformers appear likewise unable to resist the temptation to engage in the systemic looting of the Ukrainian economy.

In early September, the New Yorker magazine dedicated several thousand words to three citizen-journalists who now serve in the Ukrainian Parliament. Like other western media outlets, the New Yorker portrayed Sergei Leshchenko, Svitlana Zalishchuk, and Mustafa Nayem as dedicated journalists — new faces who sought election to parliament as part of President Poroshenko’s bloc in the wake of the Maidan street protests, which Nayem helped organize.

Now, however, Leshchenko’s post-election acquisition of high-end housing has attracted the attention of the Anti-Corruption Agency of Ukraine, an investigatory body that was established at the urging of the United States. Last week, the Anti-Corruption Agency forwarded the Leshchenko file to the special prosecutor’s office tasked with corruption fighting. Leshchenko could not explain the source of the income that allowed him to buy the residence, loan documents are missing, and the purchase price was allegedly below market

The owner of the building, according to Ukrainian media accounts, is Ivan Fursin, the partner of mega-oligarch Dmytro Firtash.

Recent reports have revealed that Leshchenko’s expenses for attending international forums were paid for by the oligarch Viktor Pinchuk who also contributed $8,6 million to the Clinton Foundation While Leshchenko remains the toast of the western media and Washington think tanks, back at home, his fellow reformers in the Parliament are calling on him to resign until his name is cleared.

Meanwhile, the next president is sure to find Ukraine besieged on all sides: With Russian troops and pro-Russian rebels at its throat and corruption destroying it from within —and as the Leshchenko scandal suggests, not all in Ukraine is what it appears to be. 

The new president must learn to discern Ukraine’s true reformers from those who made anti-corruption crusades into a lucrative business, and be able to distinguish real action from empty words. 
If not, the two and a half decades-long Ukrainian experiment with independence may boil over completely.

Photo credit: BULENT KILIC/AFP/Getty Images

 The Washington Post’s Jenna Johnson explains what the stakes are for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign following the release by The Post of a 2005 video in which he makes vulgar comments about women. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

 October 8 at 4:10 PM

The Republican Party plunged into an epic and historic political crisis Saturday with just a month to go until Election Day, as a rapidly growing number of GOP lawmakers called on defiant presidential nominee Donald Trump to drop out of the race in the wake of a video showing him make crude sexual remarks.

The fallout from the tape published by The Washington Post — in which Trump bragged in obscene language about forcing himself on women sexually — now threatens to endanger the GOP’s hold on both houses of Congress in addition to the White House, which many Republicans now fear is lost for good. 

The episode also comes ahead of Sunday’s second presidential debate in St. Louis, which was already a crucial moment in the race but now could help determine how widely the damage spreads for the GOP.
By mid-afternoon Saturday, more than two dozen Republican lawmakers had called on Trump to leave the race in favor of vice presidential nominee Mike Pence. Scores of others, including Trump’s wife, Melania, condemned his remarks while still standing by his candidacy.

But Trump, who offered a qualified apology for the remarks in an overnight video statement while also attacking former president Bill Clinton, told The Post he would not drop out under any circumstances.

Following a Friday report by The Washington Post on a 2005 video of the GOP presidential nominee, various Republicans have said they no longer plan to vote for him and call for him to drop out.

“I’d never withdraw. I’ve never withdrawn in my life,” Trump said in a Saturday morning phone call from his home in Trump Tower in New York. “No, I’m not quitting this race. I have tremendous support.”

“People are calling and saying, ‘Don’t even think about doing anything else but running,’” Trump said when asked about GOP defections. “You have to see what’s going on. The real story is that people have no idea about the support. I don’t know how that’s going to boil down but people have no idea about the support.”

In the 2005 videotape, Trump boasted in obscene language about kissing, groping and trying to have sex with women during a conversation caught on a hot microphone, saying that “when you’re a star, they let you do it. They let you do anything.”

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her allies seized on the video as another in a long line of disqualifying remarks and actions by Trump, and increased their pressure on Republican candidates to disavow their support of him or risk being tied to him on Election Day. Democrats are now openly bullish about the Senate and increasingly optimistic that they could even flip control of the House, which seemed out of reach just a few days ago.

Several Democrats said they believe Trump will come into Sunday’s town-hall-style debate with the mindset of a “wounded animal” — a factor that could make him more dangerous to Clinton and also to himself.

“I’ve never seen a candidate walk into a debate with this much at stake,” said longtime Clinton ally James Carville. “He’s overweight, he’s old, he’s tired and he’s crabby. And he’s going to have a very long hour and a half.”

In the wake of a new Washington Post report showing Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaking in very lewd terms about women in 2005, some Republicans are calling for Trump to step down as nominee. (Thomas Johnson/The Washington Post)

As of Saturday afternoon, the Republican Party’s top leadership — including House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and party chairman Reince Priebus — had denounced Trump’s comments but have continued to support him.

But a growing number of elected lawmakers and other prominent Republicans said they simply cannot vote for Trump given the video. Many said they would like to hand the ticket over the ticket to Pence, but experts said it would be almost impossible logistically for the party to replace its nominee a month from the election.

The list includes the third-highest ranking Republican in the Senate, John Thune of South Dakota, who tweeted on Saturday: “Donald Trump should withdraw and Mike Pence should be our nominee effective immediately.”

The calls for Trump to step aside started Friday night, as Republicans waited and waited for Trump to fully apologize for his comments. The calls first came from those who had already said they wouldn’t vote for Trump or who had avoided taking a stance.

Sen. Mark Kirk (Ill.), who revoked his endorsement of Trump in June, called on Trump to drop out so that the party could “engage rules for emergency replacement.” Sen. Mike Lee (Utah), one of very few Republican senators who never endorsed Trump, called for the nominee to “step aside” and asked conservatives to find a new candidate.

“It’s occurred to me on countless occasions today that if anyone spoke to my wife, my daughter, my mother or any of my five sisters the way Mr. Trump has spoken to women, I wouldn’t hire that person. I wouldn’t hire that person, wouldn’t want to be associated with that person,” Lee said in a video filmed at his home in Utah. “And, I certainly don’t think I would feel comfortable hiring that person to be the leader of the free world.”

On Friday night, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah), the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, retracted his endorsement of Trump after discussing the issue with his wife and deciding that Trump’s comments were “intolerable,” although he stopped short of calling for Trump to drop out.

On Saturday morning, the calls increased and began to include some of Trump’s supporters and those from strongly Republican states.

“As disappointed as I’ve been with his antics throughout this campaign, I thought supporting the nominee was the best thing for our country and our party,” Rep. Martha Roby (Ala.) said in a statement. “Now, it is abundantly clear that the best thing for our country and for our party is for Trump to step aside and allow a responsible, respectable Republican to lead the ticket.”

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), who supported Trump but would not endorse him, tweeted on Saturday morning that she would not vote for Trump and would instead write in Pence.

“I cannot and will not support a candidate for president who brags about degrading and assaulting women,” Ayotte said in a statement.

Senators calling for Trump to step aside include Mike Crapo (Idaho), Ben Sasse (Neb.) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.), and members of the House doing the same include Mike Coffman (Colo.), Joe Heck (Nev.), Bradley Byrne (Ala.), Scott Garrett (N.J.), Charlie Dent (Pa.), Chris Stewart (Utah), Fred Upton (Mich.), Ann Wagner (Mo.) and Rodney Davis (Ill.).

Others include former GOP rivals George E. Pataki and Carly Fiorina, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr., South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard and conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, who used to defend Trump.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.) did not explicitly call on Trump to drop out, but said Saturday he might need to “reexamine his candidacy.”

“As a woman, a mother, and a grandmother to three young girls, I am deeply offended by Mr. Trump’s remarks, and there is no excuse for the disgusting and demeaning language,” she said in a statement. “Women have worked hard to gain the dignity and respect we deserve. The appropriate next step may be for him to reexamine his candidacy.”

Trump was supposed to campaign on Saturday in Wisconsin with Ryan, Priebus and other prominent Republicans, but Ryan rescinded the invitation on Friday. Pence was supposed to go in Trump’s place but decided not do so to give Trump necessary space to navigate the fallout from his statements directly, according to a campaign aide.

Pence avoided questions about Trump’s comments at campaign events on Friday and issued a statement on Saturday that said: “As a husband and father, I was offended by the words and actions described by Donald Trump in the eleven-year-old video released yesterday. I do not condone his remarks and cannot defend them. I am grateful that he has expressed remorse and apologized to the American people.”

In both New Hampshire and Ohio, the GOP chairs signaled there would be no repercussions from the party for any elected officials or others who make a clean break from the nominee.

New Hampshire GOP chair Jennifer Horn issued a statement condemning Trump’s “erratic behavior” and “outrageous comments.” She added, “There will be no repercussions from the party directed at those who choose not to support Donald Trump.

In Ohio, party chair Matt Borges said in an interview that the state party would be “fully supportive” of Sen. Rob Portman, who is running for reelection against former governor Ted Strickland.

“Rob needs to know that we are fully supportive of his campaign,” Borges said in a phone interview. “However he chooses to proceed there will be no ramifications from the state party.”

Trump said in a statement that he planned to spend Saturday preparing for Sunday’s presidential debate with the help of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and Priebus, who on Friday said that no one should ever talk about women the way that Trump did in 2005.

On Saturday morning, Trump broke an hours-long silence and tweeted: “Certainly has been an interesting 24 hours!” He tweeted again Saturday afternoon: “The media and establishment want me out of the race so badly - I WILL NEVER DROP OUT OF THE RACE, WILL NEVER LET MY SUPPORTERS DOWN!”
Meanwhile, Trump’s 2005 comments played again and again on cable news, upstaging even a dangerous hurricane. Some of Trump’s surrogates and prominent supporters came to his defense.

Sen. Roy Blunt (Mo.), a member of the party leadership who is facing a tough reelection battle, said Saturday that Trump’s comments were “absolutely unacceptable” but he dismissed the idea that Trump could step aside 30 days before the election to make way for another nominee.

“I think that’s an unrealistic solution,” Blunt said. “The devastation of Obamacare, the out-of-control regulators, the foreign policy that our friends don’t trust us, make a third Obama term an unacceptable alternative.”

Asked whether he would vote for Trump, Blunt asked: “Didn’t I just say that?”

Dallas investor Doug Deason dismissed the episode as a manufactured media story.

“It’s just CNN and the press making a big deal out of nothing,” said Dallas investor Doug Deason. 
“Anybody who is surprised about that or appalled or shocked is disingenuous. People knew that Trump was like that in those days. There’s probably more of it out there. He’s not like that anymore. He is a changed guy. We are a nation that believes in redemption and second changes, right? I don’t think he’s been that way for a very long time.”

Trump allies dismissed the notion that he would bow out of the race.

“I would be astounded if Trump would ever give up the fight at this point in time,” said Ed Rollins, senior strategist for the pro-Trump Great America PAC, which could see its final tranche of big donations freeze as donors withdraw support or wait to see how things to play out.

“We are in a very precarious place when it comes to raising money,” Rollins said.

Abby Phillip, Dan Balz, Matea Gold, David Weigel and Jose A. DelReal contributed to this report.

US officially accuses Russia of hacking DNC and interfering with election

Administration says ‘only Russia’s senior-most officials’ could have signed off on cyber-attacks and urges states to seek federal security aid for voting systems
The accusation against Russia came shortly after the US also called for the country to be investigated for war crimes in Syria. Photograph: Misha Japaridze/AP

 and  in New York-Saturday 8 October 2016

The US government has formally accused Russia of hacking the Democratic party’s computer networks and said that Moscow was attempting to “interfere” with the US presidential election.

Hillary Clinton and US officials have blamed Russian hackers for stealing more than 19,000 emails from Democratic party officials, but Friday’s announcement marked the first time that the Obama administration has pointed the finger at Moscow.

“We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities,” said the office of the director of national intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)in a joint statement.

The accusation marked a new escalation of tensions with Russia and came shortly after the US secretary of state, John Kerry, called for Russia to be investigated for war crimes in Syria.

Vladimir Putin’s spokesman dismissed the accusation as “rubbish.”

“Every day Putin’s website gets attacked by several tens of thousand of hackers. A lot of these attacks are traced to the territory of the USA, but we do not blame the White House or Langley each time,” he told the Interfax news agency.

The Russian foreign ministry said Washington lacked any evidence for its accusations, which were an attempt to fan “unprecedented anti-Russian hysteria”.

The deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov said: “This whipping up of emotions regarding ‘Russian hackers’ is used in the US election campaign, and the current US administration, taking part in this fight, is not averse to using dirty tricks.”

He said Moscow reiterated an offer to US officials, first made last year, to hold talks on fighting cybercrime together.

The White House declined to say whether the formal attribution would trigger sanctions against Russia.

The US agencies said that some US states had detected attempts to breach their election systems, and that most of those attempts originated from servers operated by a Russian company. “However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government,” the statement said.

The agencies said that the “decentralized nature” of the US voting systems, as well the lack of connectivity between voting machines themselves, would protect against Russian-sponsored electoral tampering.
But they urged states across the country to seek additional cybersecurity aid from the DHS. On Wednesday, the homeland security secretary, Jeh Johnson, said that21 of the 50 states in the US had sought to improve cybersecurity at the voting booth thus far.

US intelligence and the Obama administration had concluded over the summer that sophisticated Russian hackers were responsible for hacking the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and leaking emails that embarrassed senior Democratic officeholders.

But for months, White House and other US officials have stopped short of publicly accusing Putin’s government, a rhetorical reluctance that Republicans have criticized and which has intensified a debate about how to deter digital attacks.

On Friday, both agencies went further than many expected, calling out not only the Russian government but implying the transparency group WikiLeaks and others involved in spreading the Democrats’ emails were Kremlin cutouts.

The hack of the DNC’s computer systems was initially claimed by Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, but who security analysts have concluded was more likely to be the public persona of a Russian hacking group.

“The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts,” the statement said.

Over the past four months, websites including media outlets and WikiLeaks have widely distributed information stolen not just from the campaigns of US Democrats but of the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) and of the ruling party of the Turkish government.

The Wada hack was perceived to have been launched in revenge against whistleblowing athletes who revealed corruption among Russian anti-doping officials. An internal investigation by Wada itself this week found that the leaked information had been partially falsified before it was distributed.

Security firms believe a single operation is behind the attacks into the closed digital systems. The hacking group has been assigned different shorthand names by different analysts – including the flamboyant moniker Fancy Bear – as well as Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) 28 and the Sofacy group. Fancy Bear is believed to be operating under the aegis of the GRU, Russia’s largest intelligence service.

A second group, codenamed Cozy Bear or CozyDuke, appears to have broken into the DNC as well, but has not yet distributed whatever information it may have retrieved. Cozy Bear is believed to be affiliated to the FSB, the Russian intelligence agency most directly descended from the KGB.

Democratic lawmakers had long pushed the administration to lay the blame for the digital intrusion on the Kremlin’s doorstep.

“I applaud the administration’s decision to publicly name Russia as the source of hacks into US political institutions. We should now work with our European allies who have been the victim of similar and even more malicious cyber interference by Russia to develop a concerted response that protects our institutions and deters further meddling,” said congressman Adam Schiff, the senior Democrat on the US House intelligence committee.

What next for Colombia?


Erika Piñeros-MONTERIA, 5 October 2016

Days after Colombia voted ‘no’ to the terms of a peace deal between the government and the FARC rebel group, the country is still struggling to come to terms with the unexpected result and what it means for the nation’s long and elusive search for peace.

A ‘yes’ vote would have paved the way for an end to more than half a century of fighting between the government and the left-wing Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

The conflict with the FARC and other armed groups has claimed more than 260,000 lives, the majority of them civilians, and displaced nearly seven million people.

But just over half (50.21 percent) of those who cast their ballots on Sunday voted ‘no’ to the question: “Do you support the final accord to end the conflict and build a stable and lasting peace?”

In the hours following the announcement of the result, both the government and the FARC issued statements calling for calm and emphasising that a June ceasefire would remain in place.

But on Monday, FARC chief Rodrigo Londoño, aka Timoleon or "Timochenko", insisted that the peace agreement signed on 26 September was legally binding, irrespective of the referendum result.
Then, on Tuesday night, President Juan Manuel Santos announced that the ceasefire would end on 31 October.

Londoño responded on Twitter: "And after that, the war continues?”

That indeed is the question that now hangs over a country that had become increasingly polarised in the run-up to the plebiscite.

Dual role

The sense of division was not helped by conflicting messages around what Colombians were being asked to vote on. While President Santos campaigned for “Yes to peace”, the opposition’s slogan was “No to the accord”.

Legally, the government was responsible for educating the public about the contents of the 297-page peace accord. And yet, Santos’s government was also behind the ‘yes’ campaign.

“It wasn’t clear to voters what was instructive and what was the ‘yes’ campaign,” said Pedro Vaca, director for the Foundation for Freedom of the Press (FLIP).

“It was very dirty. What we had was a political campaign, not an information campaign,” commented Rafael Batista, a local journalist.

And yet, the government’s attempts both to educate the public and promote the ‘yes’ campaign, failed to reach the entire country.

Deaf ears

Refugees International conducted a fact-finding mission among people displaced by the civil war and found “large numbers of displaced people who at best were uninformed or, at worst, had fundamental misgivings on the accord’s provisions,” said Francisca Vigaud-Walsh, a senior advocate with the organisation.

In Norte de Santander – a province that saw an overwhelming vote against the accord – Vigaud-Walsh noted that, “Nearly all Colombians we interviewed said that the peace deal would not improve their lives.
“Peace agreement or not, they are currently experiencing increased threats from the ELN guerrilla group.”

The National Liberation Party (ELN) was not a party to the peace deal.

Enthusiasm to get out and vote was low too. Historically, Colombia has a low voter turnout rate, but only 38 percent of registered voters participated in Sunday’s referendum. That’s the lowest turnout rate since 1994.

In addition, despite the simple Yes/No option on the ballot, more than 250,000 votes were left blank or found to be invalid, the highest rate in over half a century.

Part of the problem may have been the short timeframe that was allowed for new voters to register – just five weeks between the announcement of the plebiscite and voting day.

In a country with one of the world’s highest displacement rates, an unknown number of those most affected by the conflict were left unable to cast their votes.

Vigaud-Walsh of Refugees International said that many displaced people would have had to return to their places of origin in order to vote.

“[That’s] a costly option for the vast majority, both in financial and security terms,” she told IRIN. “Their inability to vote may have been a factor in the outcome of the plebiscite.”


Official wait at the voting station in Necoclí, Antioquía

The devil was in the detail

‘No’ voters have been keen to make clear that they did not reject peace, but the terms of the accord which many felt gave too much away to the FARC in terms of amnesty for confessed war crimes and political power, among other issues.

“I voted ‘no’,” said Ana, a 42-year-old nurse from Colombia’s northwestern Uraba region. “We all want peace, but not like this. Those accords were not transparent or fair,” she added, referring to the secretive nature of the initial peace talks between the government and the FARC, and the fact that the deal does not extend to all armed groups.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in June, President Santos warned that, should Colombians reject the peace deal, “we have ample information that the FARC are ready to go back to war, an urban war which would be even more destructive than the rural war.”

Whether Santos was using scare tactics or genuinely feared a return to war is unclear.

The leader of the opposition and the ‘no’ campaign, former president Alvaro Uribe, was due to meet with Santos on Wednesday to present his party’s demands for a renegotiated peace deal.

“Our standards of justice, reparation, attention to victims and truth have to be higher,” said opposition spokesman and former vice-president Francisco Santos. “We will work with the government to be able to redirect this accord.”

But the FARC may be unwilling to compromise on major sticking points for the Uribe camp, such as prison time for its leaders, payment of compensation to victims and those found guilty of crimes being barred from public office.

An anonymous source, who is in regular contact with the FARC high command, told IRIN, “It’s clear [the FARC] are looking for other things. There’s a lot of economic interest there.
“Colombians are too divided now, and the ones who will decide everything are the ones at the top, as always.”

ep/ks/ag

Predictive Intelligence & Business Disruptions – the Airport’s Dilemma

airport_view

Airport operations are systemic and Heathrow’s despair had a knock on effect on other European airports.   Frankfurt airport, Germany’s biggest, was clear of snow and ice but officials cancelled about 300 of 1,340 flights because of problems elsewhere in Europe. During the period of crisis, French civil aviation authorities requested airlines to reduce their flights at the two main Paris airports by 30 percent.

by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne

( October 6, 2016, Montreal, Sri Lanka Guardian) The media reported on 8 August 2016 that at least 451 of Delta Airlines flights were stranded around the world, cancelled for nearly six hours and nearly half a million passengers were facing delays on Delta Airlines flights due to what a spokesman for the airline called “a major systems collapse worldwide affecting passengers trying to check-in/board.” The disruptions came at an inopportune time when Delta Airlines was riding high with a sustained reputation of on time departures and a good chance of attracting more corporate and leisure customers. Worse still, Delta joined the band of carriers, including rivals Southwest Airlines Co and American Airlines Group Inc., that have suffered flight disruptions during the past year due to data system malfunctions.

The Guardian of 17 December 2010 reported that heavy snow and ice threatened severe travel disruptions both in air transport and road transport in Britain, urging authorities to prepare for the upcoming chaos.  The Guardian further reported that Gatwick Airport was monitoring the situation and if the snowfall was too severe, the runway would be closed.  On 19 December The Guardian reported: “Britain remained paralysed by snow today, with airport schedules heavily disrupted, trains delayed and roads coated in black ice as the government said it would ask its chief scientific adviser whether the country was experiencing a “step change” in weather patterns. Heathrow said it would not be letting any flights land on its runway, with only a “handful” of departures taking place, piling on the misery for hundreds of stranded people who were forced to spend the night in terminals”.

From 17 December 2010 for a week or so, heavy snow and ice pounded Europe, grounding air travel across the continent and leaving thousands of passengers stranded as airports struggled to clear a backlog of flights cancelled or delayed by snowfalls. London’s Heathrow, one of the world’s busiest international airports, operated a limited schedule as one of its two runways was open and advised passengers not to travel to the airport unless their flight is confirmed. According to airport operator British Airports Authority (BAA) airlines worked to move aircraft and crew back to their normal positions as severe winter weather continued to cause disruption.

Airport operations are systemic and Heathrow’s despair had a knock on effect on other European airports.   Frankfurt airport, Germany’s biggest, was clear of snow and ice but officials cancelled about 300 of 1,340 flights because of problems elsewhere in Europe. During the period of crisis, French civil aviation authorities requested airlines to reduce their flights at the two main Paris airports by 30 percent. Thousands of travellers were stranded after about 400 flights in and out of Roissy-Charles de Gaulle were scrapped, with some 30,000 travellers’ plans disrupted by the cancellations and delays. Throughout Europe hundreds of holiday flights were cancelled, as freezing rain and widespread snowfalls caused travel chaos.   Repeated snowfalls stranded travellers in Ireland and Denmark and shut Dusseldorf airport in Germany for hours.  Elsewhere, in the Netherlands and Spain the same problem ensued with numerous flights cancelled and passengers stranded. EUROCONTROL, Europe’s air traffic supervisory body which supports its member States to achieve safe, efficient and environmentally-friendly air traffic operations across the whole of the European region, reported that approximately 3,000 flights had been cancelled across Europe in a single day on 21 December.

Meanwhile a few days later, In John F. Kennedy International Airport, a severe snowfall effectively crippled equipment at Terminal One, which necessitated passengers on an Alitalia flight coming in from Rome to stay in the aircraft for 7 hours with no food or drink as the aerobridge could not be connected to the aircraft.  In the case of Vumbaca v. Terminal One Group Association L.P decided in April 2012 by the United States District Court, E.D. New York. Vivian Vumbaca – the Plaintiff – an Italian citizen who was a permanent resident of the United States who arrived in New York during the snow storm of 26-27 December 2010 from Rome on the said Alitalia flight, alleged that she was kept locked in an aircraft on the ground without food, water, or adequate sanitary facilities for seven hours, suffering mental distress.  She sued Terminal One Group Association, L.P. (TOGA), which operates Terminal One, and sought to represent similarly situated passengers claiming emotional harms resulting from negligence, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under her contract of carriage on the ground that Terminal One Group Association did not afford her the facility of disembarking at her destination and kept her on board the aircraft for seven hours causing her mental distress.

Predictive intelligence, or anticipatory intelligence is an essential factor in minimizing or eliminating the adverse effects of risks that threaten airports.  A report released by Booz, Allen, Hamilton in August 2014 states: “Predictive intelligence combines tradecraft, big data and analytics, technology and workforce to help clients, anticipate, detect, prevent and respond to global threats and global opportunities with real time actionable insight about their environment – internally, externally, globally and socially – so that they can take action to be ready, to manage risks, to protect assets, and to thrive”. The necessity for corporate foresight stems from the continuing and rapid development of science and technology which are the drivers of social and economic change. Using these two knowledge- based and fact intensive fields, airports would be able to obtain a clear picture of challenges and opportunities confronting them.  Airports are a complex, big business and their business environment is highly dynamic. Therefore, they need proactive measures to respond to the uncertainties of their business as well as a long term orientation to remain stable amidst imponderables.  Airports need think tanks to mesh their technology trends and market trends to meet a growing demand for air travel. Foremost in this process is a far reaching and forward looking communications strategy as well as a good team of scientific and economic forecasters.

The first step to corporate foresight is to know what the future is going to be like by adopting a foresight-awareness culture. There are two aspects to the issue of preparedness for disruption to business at airports.  The first is airport responsibility and the second is the need for corporate foresight. As regards corporate foresight, an airport has to start with a culture of corporate foresight.  Emergency management is a dynamic process. Planning, though critical, is not the only component. Training, conducting drills, testing equipment and coordinating activities with the community are other important functions. More importantly, airports should work jointly, and in partnership with airlines and air navigation service providers in furthering their corporate foresight.

ruwantissa_abeyThe author is former Senior Legal Officer at the International Civil Aviation Organization.  He currently heads is own aviation consultancy company in Montreal and   teaches  aviation law and policy at McGill University.  He is the author of 32 books and over 400 journal articles on international law which have been published in  law journals worldwide.  

Aviation industry agrees deal to cut CO2 emissions


Planes flying over London
DAN KITWOODImage captionAir travel accounts for as much CO2 emission as the nation of Germany - and it's growing

BBCBy Roger Harrabin-7 October 2016

The first deal limiting greenhouse gases from international aviation has been sealed after years of wrangling.

From 2020, any increase in airline CO2 emissions will be offset by activities like tree planting, which soak up CO2.

The deal comes in a momentous week for climate policy when the Paris agreement to stabilise climate change passed a key threshold for becoming law.

Scientists applauded both commitments, but warned that plans to cut emissions are far too weak.

The aviation deal was agreed in Montreal by national representatives at the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO.

Attempts have been made for nearly two decades to include aviation and shipping in the UN's climate agreements, but both sectors have managed to avoid firm targets.

The amount of emissions from aviation worldwide are roughly the same as those produced by the whole of Germany - and they are growing fast.

They are projected to consume approximately a quarter of the world's remaining carbon budget by 2050.

Airplane in flight

ICAO previously promised carbon neutral aviation growth in the 2020s, and planned to align the ambitions of airlines with the Paris agreement limiting warming to two degrees Celsius, or preferably 1.5 degrees.

At the last minute in Montreal, those plans were either watered down or dropped. Instead a compromise was agreed.

CO2 will be allowed to grow to 2020 but after that, emissions will need to be offset. The deal will be voluntary to 2026 but most major nations are expected to take part.

Britain's Aviation Minister Lord Ahmad said: "This is an unprecedented deal, the first of its kind for any sector. International aviation is responsible for putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year than the whole of the UK, and yet until now, there has been no global consensus on how to address aviation emissions.

"For years, the UK has pushed to tackle emissions globally. Now, 191 countries have sent a clear message that aviation will play its part in combating climate change."

Tim Alderslade from the British Air Transport Association also welcomed the deal. He told BBC News: "It should not be forgotten that we are the only industry that has voluntarily agreed to such a commitment.
"As a sector we have really decoupled growth in aviation from growth in emissions."
Environmentalists were unimpressed.

Bill Hemmings from the green group T&E said: "Airline claims that flying will now be green are a myth. Taking a plane is the fastest and cheapest way to fry the planet and this deal won't reduce demand for jet fuel one drop."
An Airbus A340-313

The offsetting proposal is especially controversial. Airlines are striving to make planes more efficient, but the industry can't innovate fast enough to contain its dynamic growth.

That led to the proposal for offsetting - but sometimes offsetting by planting woodlands simply duplicates efforts already being made, and the offsetting industry is said to be prone to double-counting.
What's more, the ICAO deal has no clear rules for offsetting.

Tim Johnson from Aviation Environment Federation warned that to meet its own ambitions, the UK needed to go much further than the ICAO agreement.

He told BBC News: "With a decision on a new runway expected later this month, the UK's ambition for aviation emissions must match the ambition of the (UK's) Climate Change Act, and not simply the ICAO "global lowest common denominator" of "carbon neutral growth from 2020.

Follow Roger on Twitter: @rharrabin

Rise in girls asking GPs about genital cosmetic surgery is blamed on online porn

A study has found there has been a threefold rise in girls asking for genital cosmetic surgery in the last decade
A study has found there has been a threefold rise in girls asking for genital cosmetic surgery in the last decade

The Telegraph7 OCTOBER 2016

An increasing number of girls as young as 15 are asking their GPs for advice about genital cosmetic surgery, a study has found.

Teenage girls who are increasingly concerned that their genitals don't look "normal" have been inquiring about the possibility of getting a labiaplasty - a surgical procedure that removes tissue from the labia.

Author of the study Dr Magdalena Simonis from the University of Melbourne, said she felt compelled to conduct the survey after her own patients began asking about the procedure. 

She said: "I felt underprepared to respond to those requests. When I spoke to colleagues who were also working in areas of women’s health, they also expressed the same sort of experiences with women questioning whether their genitals looked normal.

"Many of them volunteered that that 20 or 25 years ago, this was never an issue."

The study was published in the BMJThe study was published in the BMJ

The study, published in the British Medical Journal, represents the first to explore GPs' experience of female genital cosmetic surgery.

Dr Simonis said she believes a variety of factors are playing a part inwomen's anxiety about their genitals, with online porn playing a major role in their dissatisfaction.

More than 1,500 labiaplasties were performed in Australia in 2013 - a threefold increase in the procedure over a decade.

Dr Simonis asked over 400 GPs a series of questions about the requests they had had for female genital cosmetic surgery.

Of the respondents, 54 per cent had seen female patients who had asked for the surgery, while 97 per cent said they had been asked by women of all ages about the normality of their genitals.

More than half the GPs surveyed said they suspected problems such as depression, anxiety, relationship difficulties and body dysmorphic disorder might often be behind their patients' concerns.
Dr Simonis pointed out that surgery could lead to complications - something that young women need to be aware of before they decide to have this procedure.

"When we talk about adult women into their 20s of course they are entitled to make their own decisions about their body and surgery, provided they are well informed and have good information and don’t have any mental health disorders that might be affecting their decision," she said.

"But the really vulnerable are young women and teens impressed by what they see online and what a lot of the portrayals are like in pornography. I think we need to be carefully looking at those women and ensuring they are supported and better informed."

Friday, October 7, 2016

INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS WERE OF GREAT ASSISTANCE TO THE COMMISSION – MAXWEL PARANAGAMA

paranagama-blog-060716-5
( Commission on Missing Persons had 80% of its sitting in the North and East and recorded Statements from 6,400 complainants)

Sri Lanka Brief07/10/2016

image_1475688788-a97a77df96In an interview with Daily Mirror Retired High Court Judge, Maxwel Paranagama, Chairman of the Presidential ‘Commission on Missing Persons has said that ” the group of eminent persons was of great assistance to the Commission’s business. The Commission relied upon the legal expertise of the members of the Advisory Council, who had an unrivalled experience of international law practice before the ad hoc international tribunals created or sponsored by the United Nations. Indeed, this Commission expressly requested the assistance of international experts and is there been no shame in recognizing the fact that there may be lack of experience in the Sri Lankan jurisdiction of international humanitarian law practice? Amongst the experts we had international Prosecutors who had tried and investigated such cases, making judgments and decisions at the very highest level.”

Following are the excerpts of the interview:
Ethical concerns and media


2016-10-08


In the afterglow of the January 8 change last year and the formation of a National Government following the general election in August, we have seen the restoration to a large scale of media freedom – one of the time tested pillars of democracy. Even the state controlled media generally maintain a balance in their reporting. The state media’s regular political talk shows often present the opposition viewpoint also with Janatha Vimukthi Permuna leaders especially accusing the national government of doing what the ousted Rajapaksa regime did. 

   With the gradual restoration of media rights, there also needs to be a gradual increase in media responsibility. Essentially the media’s main role is to be the voice of the voiceless and oppressed people on issues ranging from the ethnic conflict to education and healthcare. In reporting and feature writing, the time tested principle for the media is to be fair, balanced and accurate. On this foundation, journalists could be trained to be police professionals who go into the dimensions of investigative, interpretative and proactive reporting or feature writing.  

  With the enactment of the long delayed Right to Information act and the setting up of the Freedom of Information Commission, journalists and even other people will have access to information regarding various projects, tenders, contracts and related issues. With even more freedom there needs to be more responsibility and the best way is for professional journalists themselves to work out and more importantly act according to a code of ethics.    Recently a MOVEMENT OF JOURNALISTS FOR ETHICS AND JUSTICE was formed. The movement says its vision is to foster, sustain and empower an ethically conscious national media. It wishes to help in their transformation into fora of dialogue on social justice issues, while cooperating with stakeholders in finding a fair resolution. 

   The movement hopes to raise awareness among journalists and all relevant parties in the media, on the need for a value-based and socially responsible national media. Its mission is to ensure that media practices are inspired by humanitarian values, respect for Sri Lanka’s plurality in its numerous strands, guided by decency and fairness and inculcating in them respect for the sensitivities of communities, religions and vulnerable groups, such as, women, children, the oppressed and the disabled.  

  The movement stresses that all media need to adhere to the principle that media rights accompany and are inseparable from media responsibilities with equal significance given to both. There also needs to be reverence for life, upholding non-violent conflict resolution, promoting national reconciliation, upholding and sustaining plurality in all its dimensions, respecting the rights of readers or audiences and advocating the inviolability of their privacy. The mission also includes support for equality in all its aspects; priority for democracy: emphasizing the primacy of Sustainable Development, poverty alleviation and promoting sensitivity to environmental concerns and empowering those seen as weak.