Taliban bomber kills 4 Americans at NATO base in Afghanistan

Taliban suicide bomber kills four at NATO base in Afghanistan

Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers and police keep watch outside the Bagram Airfield entrance gate, after an explosion at the NATO air base, north of Kabul, Afghanistan November 12, 2016. REUTERS/Omar Sobhani-An Afghan policeman keeps watch near the Bagram Airfield entrance gate, after an explosion at the NATO air base, north of Kabul, Afghanistan November 12, 2016. REUTERS/Omar Sobhani

Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers keep watch outside the Bagram Airfield entrance gate, after an explosion at the NATO air base, north of Kabul, Afghanistan November 12, 2016. REUTERS/Omar Sobhani-Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers keep watch outside the Bagram Airfield entrance gate, after an explosion at the NATO air base, north of Kabul, Afghanistan November 12, 2016. REUTERS/Omar Sobhani

By Mirwais Harooni | KABUL- Sat Nov 12, 2016

A Taliban suicide bomber dressed as a labourer blew himself up at the NATO air base at Bagram north of the Afghan capital Kabul on Saturday, killing four Americans and wounding at least 17 people in one of the bloodiest attacks against U.S. forces since President Barack Obama took office.

Two U.S. military service members and two U.S. contractors were killed, and 16 other U.S. service members were wounded, along with a Polish soldier who was part of the NATO mission, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in a statement.

"For those who carried out this attack, my message is simple. We will not be deterred in our mission to protect our homeland and help Afghanistan secure its own future," Carter said.

It was the deadliest attack on U.S. soldiers in the country since a suicide bomber on a motorcycle killed six American troops on patrol near Bagram in December 2015.

Carter said the Pentagon will investigate Saturday's attack to determine what steps could be taken to improve protection for the base.

The attack, which was claimed by the Taliban, underlines the foreign policy challenge that will face U.S. President-elect Donald Trump when he takes office in January.

President Barack Obama had originally hoped to have all U.S. forces out of the country by the end of his term, but was forced to abandon that goal as Afghan forces struggled to contain the Taliban insurgency.

Under current plans, 8,400 U.S. troops will remain as part of the Resolute Support operation and a separate U.S. counterterrorism mission after Obama decided to slow down a planned reduction of the force, leaving it to his successor to decide future strategy.

Waheed Sediqqi, spokesman for the Parwan provincial governor, said the bomber managed to enter the heavily protected site, the largest U.S. base in Afghanistan, and was standing in a queue with Afghan labourers when he detonated a suicide vest.

The NATO-led Resolute Support mission response teams at the airfield were treating the wounded and investigating the incident.

It follows a suicide attack on the German consulate in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif late on Thursday night that killed four people and wounded more than 100 others. That attack was retaliation for air strikes near the northern city of Kunduz last week which killed more than 30 civilians.

The Taliban's spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, said Saturday's attack, which he said had been planned for four months, had caused heavy casualties, killing 23 Americans and wounding 44. The movement often exaggerates the number of casualties caused by its operations.

(Additional reporting by James Mackenzie and Roberta Rampton; Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman, Hugh Lawson and Leslie Adler)

Going it alone not an option, Nato chief warns Donald Trump

Exclusive: West facing its ‘greatest challenge to security in a generation’ says Jens Stoltenberg as he speaks of his fears for alliance between Europe and US

 Nato secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg at a defence ministers’ meeting in Brussels in October. Photograph: Olivier Hoslet/EPA

Daniel Boffey in London and Toby Helm in Berlin-Saturday 12 November 2016 

Nato’s secretary-general has issued a dramatic warning to the US president-elect Donald Trump: “Going it alone is not an option, either for Europe or for the United States.”

Writing exclusively in the Observer, the leader of the western military alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, claims the west faces its greatest security challenge in a generation.

He pointedly recalls the blood spilled by Nato allies after they came to the aid of the US following the 9/11 attacks and warns that, rather than “deepening differences” between the 28 members, now is the time to “nurture what unites” under “strong American leadership”.

In the months before his election, Trump described Nato as obsolete and raised questions over whether America under his leadership would come to the aid of a Nato ally under attack. Stoltenberg writes: “We face the greatest challenges to our security in a generation. This is no time to question the value of the partnership between Europe and the United States.

“The only time Nato has invoked its self-defence clause, that an attack on one is an attack on all, was in support of the United States after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This was more than just a symbol. Nato went on to take charge of the operation in Afghanistan. Hundreds of thousands of European soldiers have served in Afghanistan since. And more than 1,000 have paid the ultimate price in an operation that is a direct response to an attack against the United States.”

Jens Stoltenberg points out that Nato members came together in support of the US after the terror attacks on 9/11. Photograph: Naomi Stock/Rex Features

Stoltenberg, who is a former prime minister of Norway, concedes that America’s Nato allies need to increase contributions, a demand made by Trump during the presidential campaign. America accounts for 70% of Nato spending.

But the head of Nato writes: “Naturally, we have our differences. But leaders on both sides of the Atlantic, and across the political spectrum, have always recognised the unique ties that bind us. Our proud history is one of common challenges overcome together.

“It is all too easy to take the freedoms, security and prosperity we enjoy for granted. In these uncertain times we need strong American leadership, and we need Europeans to shoulder their fair share of the burden. But above all we need to recognise the value of the partnership between Europe and America. It remains indispensable.”

Stoltenberg’s passionate intervention, just days after Trump’s shock election to the White House, highlights the deep concerns within European military circles about the new American president.

In July Trump had said that Nato was incapable of dealing with terrorism and that he would be willing to tell allies who did not “reimburse” America for its military protection: “Congratulations, you will be defending yourself.”

Stoltenberg, however, hits back, claiming that Nato is playing a “crucial role” in the fight against Islamic State, and in strengthening the capacity of partners in North Africa and the Middle East to combat terrorists.

He also writes that it is Vladimir Putin’s Russia which has become more “assertive” in recent years, and that the tens of thousands of troops the country is amassing across its western border should be treated as a genuine threat to which the west must respond. Trump has claimed that he will be able to build a strong relationship with Putin, and has attacked those who have encouraged a deterioration in relations with the Kremlin.

Stoltenberg writes: “We have implemented the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the cold war. And the United States has significantly strengthened its commitment to European security, deploying a new armoured brigade to eastern Europe and delivering equipment and supplies to support future reinforcements if needed. This is deterrence, not aggression. We do not seek to provoke a conflict, but to prevent a conflict.”

“Nato battalions numbering thousands of troops cannot be compared with Russian divisions numbering tens of thousands just across the border. Our response is defensive and proportionate. But it sends a clear and unmistakable message: an attack against one will be met by a response from all.” Stoltenberg’s comments, stressing the vital importance of America in maintaining European security, will be widely seen as a sign of concern over earlier statements by European commission president Jean-Claude Juncker. Last week Juncker claimed the Americans “will not ensure the security of the Europeans in the long term. We have to do this ourselves.” He added: “That is why we need a new start in the field of European defence, up to the goal of setting up a European army.”

Former foreign secretary Jack Straw said Juncker was guilty of “narcissism”, and that such 
proposals would only push Trump away from Nato. “I think this is another example of serious error by Juncker,” he said. “Every time Juncker spoke during the referendum, he helped the Leave campaign. The EU wants to make a choice about whether it wants Nato to continue. What would be the purpose of a European defence force? It is a folie de grandeur, like other things the EU has done which has caused it to face its current existential crisis. It is frankly crackers. But it is illustrative of the weird and narcissistic world in which he operates.”

The Observer has, however, learned that France and Germany are planning to unveil proposals on European military integration in the coming weeks.

Norbert Röttgen, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the German Bundestag, said that greater defence cooperation was even more important following Trump’s election. He stressed that it was a key area in which the UK should agree to compromise during Brexit negotiations. “We see in recent days that these geopolitical dangers and insecurities have increased and there is one most important asset – and that is unity of the west and European unity,” he said.

Nicole Ameline, a member of the French National Assembly’s foreign affairs committee, warned the world was now “more unpredictable” with Trump in the White House and called for the UK to play its part in a strengthened European defence structure, as an aid to Nato rather than an alternative. “We have to reinforce our security and to do that we need the UK,” she said.

Meanwhile the Foreign Office has confirmed that Boris Johnson, who branded vocal European concern about the US election result a “whinge-o-rama”, would not be attending an emergency EU foreign ministers’ meeting on Sunday to discuss Trump’s election.

If Obama stayed in power?

By Jonathan Power

November 8th 2016.

An interesting question is what would happen to American foreign policy if President Barack Obama were allowed to have another four year term in office?

It would be a less interventionist presidency than what is about to become. This is not to say that I think the way Obama has handled the war in Afghanistan has been successful. Nor do I believe the attack on Libya was a sensible idea. Nor do I think the way he dealt with Russia and Ukraine in the last four years has been anything but counterproductive.

But I do believe the world would be an even messier place if he had not been president. Syria would have been invaded with ground troops. Iraq would have been replicated.

I think confrontation with China over the ownership of the contested islands in the South China and East China seas would have been more serious than it has been.

There would have been no bringing back Cuba in from the cold. (Cuba was the home of the missile crisis of 1962 when the world came terrifyingly near to a nuclear war.)

Most important, there would have been no nuclear deal with Iran. Iran’s research which could have led to the making of a nuclear bomb (not that I think it had any intention of going that far) would have continued.

At some point Israel would have bombed Iran’s reactors leading to outrage in many parts of the Muslim world, especially among Iran’s neighbours. Even Saudi Arabia would have been angry and would have given up its role as a would-be interlocutor between Israel and Palestine.

The US, for its part, would have been implicated since it would be assumed it had given Israel the green light. Russia, de facto part of the team of Western mediators, would have been furious.

All Obama’s military conflict problems except Libya – Syria, ISIS, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq – he inherited from George W. Bush. Indeed, according to Bush’s Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, his administration had a plan that after subduing Iraq and Afghanistan the US would do the same with Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Yemen.

Obama has not gone to war elsewhere.

He has drawn a line under further interventionism. He has always believed that interventionism is a crude instrument. On the other hand Obama has continued the fight against terrorism using drones, targeted assassinations and Special Forces.

Obama believes US military power must be used sparingly and that in many situations, if not most, it will be counterproductive. He refused to consider a plan to push the Russians out of Crimea following its invasion. According to his long interview in Atlantic magazine in April he believes the Middle East is of declining importance.

He does not believe, as his opponents do, that the US must always seem “credible”. That’s why, when he had a last minute change of mind about going into Syria, he was not influenced by that calculation.

His critics suggest that having once drawn a red line he should not have crossed it as it undermined American “credibility”. But that he considers nonsense, not surprisingly when one considers that the combined resources of the US military are more than all the other nations of the world combined.

So if Obama were president for another four years what would happen?

I think, as usually occurs in civil wars, Syria would burn itself out, but with a chastened President Bashar Al-Assad still on top. ISIS would be defeated as the militaries of the US, Russia and other NATO members combine.

The islands disputes with China would remain frozen, just as the China/Taiwan one has long been. Negotiations with North Korea over its growing nuclear armoury would be given new vigour, winning over China to put increasing pressure on its regime. The Israel/Palestine dispute would probably remain impervious to progress.

Obama would become cooler in his dealings with the corrupt government of Ukraine, having been belatedly convinced that his earlier confrontational stance in support of Ukraine’s attempt to break away from the Russian orbit and enter the European Union’s had been mistaken and misplayed. He would also make amends with President Vladimir Putin about his decision to expand Nato up to Russia’s borders, and for planning to deploy missiles that, meant to be a defence against an Iranian attack, could be switched to hit Moscow.

Making it up with Putin would be his number one priority. This would not be easy as so much bad blood has been spilt. But if successive presidents could forge a working relationship with Khrushchev and Brezhnev during the depths of the Cold War Obama surely could reach out to Putin. Ending the trade embargo and making peace over Ukraine would be the way to start.

Now the US has a new president cut from a different tree.

We move from the uncertainly known to the totally unknown.

China may find Trump just as unpredictable as America has

Chinese newspapers feature front-page photos of President-elect Donald Trump, at a news stand in Beijing on Nov. 10, 2016. (Greg Baker/AFP/Getty Images)

By Simon Denyer November 12 at 4:48 PM

BEIJING — China’s nationalist press could barely contain its glee this week. Under President Donald Trump, argued the tabloid Global Times, the United States will embrace isolationism, stop projecting its strategic might and shrink its global influence. 

Meanwhile, the United States’ Asian allies, the paper gloated, fear being cast aside. A cartoon showed the Chinese leaders’ archrival, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, sweating profusely as a slot machine came up with a Trump jackpot.

But the glee could be short-lived, and the Chinese government’s impressions of Trump — as a pragmatist who will make business deals with China but play down geopolitics; as an isolationist who will pull back from the Asia-Pacific region; as a realist who won’t bug them about human rights — could end up being seriously misguided. 

“They are expecting that they are going to be able to work with this guy,” said Paul Haenle, director of the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center in Beijing.” But the big risk here is that the Chinese have come to one conclusion, and the reality may be very different.”

[China is the big winner as candidates disavow hard-fought Pacific trade deal]

It is far too soon to know what is in Trump’s mind, or whom he will appoint to his foreign policy and national security team. But early signs are that he may take a significantly more hawkish line toward China than Beijing expects.

Case in point: an article by two prominent Trump advisers, Alexander Gray and Peter Navarro in Foreign Policy that set out the president-elect’s “Peace Through Strength Vision for the Asia-Pacific,” borrowing Ronald Reagan’s Cold War mantra.

As expected, the essay advocates a withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an ambitious 12-nation trade deal championed by President Obama as a key element of his rebalance, or pivot, to Asia. China was not part of TPP negotiations, and the demise of the TPP would be a clear strategic win for Beijing, experts say.

But the rest of the essay makes for very uncomfortable reading for China, promising that Trump will massively rebuild the U.S. Navy, to reassure allies that the United States remains committed to “its traditional role as guarantor of the liberal order in Asia.”

Although Japan and South Korea will be respectfully asked to do more to support the U.S. military presence, “there is no question of Trump’s commitment to America’s Asian alliances as bedrocks of stability in the region,” Gray and Navarro wrote.

Trump would back Taiwan with a comprehensive arms deal, they argued, and end the “mistreatment” of other Asian friends and allies, drawing Thailand’s military government back into the U.S. embrace and away from China, for example.

Trump has already spoken by telephone with Japan’s Abe, telling him he looked forward to strengthening the “special relationship” between the two countries, according to Japan’s Foreign Ministry. 

In Mexico, China, Russia and Israel we ask people what they think of the election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th president of the United States. (Jason Aldag/The Washington Post)

He also chatted with South Korean President Park Geun-hye, who told him of the importance of their alliance and the need to maintain strong sanctions and pressure on North Korea.

Trump said he agreed with her “100 percent,” according to a statement from her office in Seoul. “We are with you all the way, and we will not waver,” he was quoted as saying.

The contrast with the consensus in Beijing is marked. 

Jin Canrong, an expert on U.S.-China relations at Renmin University of China in Beijing, said he did not expect Trump to cut off funding for U.S. military bases in Japan or South Korea. But he said he thinks that the new U.S. leader would be less interested in a pivot to Asia.

“The American pressure on China’s strategic plans will be smaller,” he said, adding that China would not have to modernize its military so anxiously.

Su Hao, director of the Center for Asia-Pacific Studies at China Foreign Affairs University in Beijing, said Trump was likely to go ahead with the deployment of the THAAD missile-defense system in South Korea but otherwise take a less-confrontational stance toward China. “He is not very likely to have a high-profile military confrontation with China on the South China Sea issue,” he said.

At Gavekal Dragonomics, China policy analyst Yanmei Xie said Beijing’s optimism about a Trump presidency was based on a number of factors.

“First, they think Trump is a businessman who will be transactional, and China knows how to do transactions,” she said. “They also know how to massage the ego of a dictatorial strongman.”

According to this optimistic analysis, Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping might get along, just as Trump appears to have found a “kindred spirit” in Russian President Vladimir Putin, she said. Meanwhile, there is a belief that the next U.S. president “doesn’t really mean” all the criticism he leveled at China during the campaign. 

“None of that is a very solid basis for having an optimistic view,” Xie argued. Indeed, Trump’s foreign-policy advisers do not look like fans of China’s or people who see the country as a partner and a friend, she added.

At the other extreme, several experts warned, if Navarro and Gray are wrong and Trump takes a more isolationist approach, that might not be such unalloyed good news for China’s Communist Party, either. 

“Many clear-minded scholars think that an American retraction, the trend towards isolationism, may not be a good thing for China,” Zhao Hai, a research fellow at Tsinghua University’s National Security Institute, argued on a Carnegie-Tsinghua podcast.

“They know the United States has been a big pillar of the current international system, and China has benefited from the current international system,” he said.

A sudden and dramatic U.S. withdrawal, Zhao and Xie argued, could leave a power vacuum, breeding instability in Asian affairs — not something that China’s stability-obsessed Communist Party leaders would welcome, especially as they grapple with a slowing economy and a transition in senior leadership next year.

The idea, for example, of Japan’s building its own defense capabilities, or even of Tokyo’s and Seoul’s seeking nuclear weapons, would be anathema to Beijing.

Finally, there is one other implication of a Trump presidency that might be welcomed in the corridors of power but not necessarily on the streets. 

“Mr. Trump is a successful businessman, and he’s likely to favor profits and short-term tangible interests over principles,” said human rights activist Hu Jia. “I fear that he would put price tags on values that are priceless. And if that’s the case, human rights issues are most likely to be affected.” 

Luna Lin, Congcong Zhang and Jin Xin contributed to this report. 

Some American Athletes Refusing to Play on Trump’s Team

BY EMILY TAMKIN-NOVEMBER 11, 2016 

For Ella Masar, an American pro soccer player, Tuesday’s presidential election of Donald Trump was the deflating equivalent of the home team scoring a goal against itself. And so on Friday, Masar, who played for the U.S. women’s national soccer team in 2009, and who signed a deal with Sweden’s FC Rosengard last December, asked her team’s management to let her stay in Sweden.

“I actually went in to see [FC Rosengård management] and asked to sign on for another four years at the club so I do not have to go back to the U.S. with Donald Trump as president,” she said.

This is not, of course, a possibility for millions of Americans — or even for all athletes — who are alarmed by the new Oval Office occupant. LeBron James, star of the very much United States-based Cleveland Cavaliers and former Hillary Clinton campaigner, said in a very long Instagram caption, “Parents and leaders of our children please let them know they can still change the world for the better! Don’t lose a bit of faith! They’re our future and we must remain stronger than ever!! Yes we all wanna lace up the boots, put on the hard hats and strike but that’s not the answer. Love, genuine LOVE and FAITH will be the only thing that can get us through this. Minorities and Women in all please know that this isn’t the end, it’s just a very challenging obstacle that we will overcome!!”

As for whether James would go to the White House to see Trump if the Cavaliers win again next year, the basketball star said only, “I don’t know. That’s something I would cross. We’ll have to cross that road, I guess. We’ll see. I would love to have to cross that road.”

Of course, not all of Cleveland’s athletes feel as James does. On Wednesday, hours after Trump became the president-elect, Trevor Bauer of the Cleveland Indians tweeted, “M.A.G.A!!!” He was referring to Trump’s campaign slogan. When asked how he could look his female relatives in the eye, Bauerresponded, “the [sic] all voted Trump as well.”

We are sure the Swedish Baseball and Softball Federation is crushed that it will not be gaining a new American member.

Photo credit: Leigh Vogel/WireImage

Trump triumphs ! America gets a “Trumpachchi !’

(Lanka-e-News -10.Nov.2016, 10.30PM)  The Prime Minister (P.M.) of Sri Lanka Ranil Wickremesinghe issuing a communiqué stated , the cordial  ties between America and  SL will be further strengthened, after  Donald Trump is sworn in  as president of America .

While congratulating the new president of America on his victory , the P.M. said , this triumph of Trump is a confirmation that the people of America wanted a revolutionary change .

Trump was  not a politician, and he  was one who made a name in the business circle. He  secured the presidential candidate nomination defeating his party politicos . Trump’s victory is specially laudable because he emerged victorious surmounting   numerous formidable odds and obstacles during the run up to the presidential election , the P.M. ‘s communiqué mentioned.

Meanwhile president Maithripala Sirisena too had sent a congratulatory message to Trump the new president of America.

It is worthy of note , prior to the elections no responsible international media or mainstream media of America prophesied the victory of Trump . While the election results were being announced, the   international media reported that only one website predicted  he could become the president.

One main media in England referring to the victory of Trump said mockingly ,based on the  promises made by  Trump who is a building contractor and not a politician , the successful construction of the Mexican border wall is certain. Trump who was most vociferous against immigrants said , he would build a wall along the Mexican border against the Mexican emigrants to America.

This was the first time a majority of  Americans cast their votes in favor of  a candidate like Donald Trump , a pro Russian presidential candidate who fleeced   the students of their monies after creating fake Universities , cheated on tax payments , sexually  abused  women and  made hate speeches against the minorities .

No matter what , the leaders of the world who acknowledged the result of the  majority have congratulated Trump on his victory . Among them the first  was president of Russia Putin .The leaders of all the countries of the European union , and  England also sent in their congratulations. The Indian P.M. while congratulating Trump said , the latter saying nothing against India during the election campaign is something to feel happy  about.

In any event an American political analyst  who is averse to the policies including racism of Trump declared , Trump who has no understanding of politics , is most likely to become a puppet dancing to the tune of others. Because of his indiscipline and unguarded tongue , the word ‘impeachment’ in the American law could have a meaningful effect.

The pro good governance masses see the triumph of Trump as analogous  to a Rajapakse wielding power in America. They are of the view the ‘parippu’ (trauma and despair) the Sri Lankans ‘ate’ during the nefarious decade of the Rajapakses , the Americans too are going to taste.  Therefore they have addressed Trump as ‘Trumpachchi.’

Lanka e news sees Trump’s triumph as similar to the resounding victory of Vajpayee of BJP party of India in 1996 .In  1992 after the Hindu Muslim riots the Babry Muslim mosque was set on fire and destroyed. Vajpayee’s  party came  to  power by promising to build a Hindu temple on that mosque premises , and by fanning racism. The BJP secured a huge majority then to form a government on its own. However , what the BJP party did first was , building a Muslim mosque instead of a Hindu temple on the ruins of the Babry mosque, and handing it over  to the Muslims themselves.

Thereafter , it was the same BJP party which came to power in 1996  that initiated all the economic reforms of present India .Hence , even though politicians may resort to extremism to secure power they ought not resort to extremism to continue in power.  Trump too is facing such a situation. Rajapakses too brazenly did that. Sadly the Rajapakses , by trying to resort to extremism to continue in power plunged themselves into gloom and doom on an unprecedented scale.

---------------------------
by     (2016-11-10 17:55:50)

South Koreans hold another mass rally to demand Park’s resignation

Protesters stage a rally calling for South Korean President Park Geun-hye to step down in Seoul, South Korea, Saturday, Nov. 12, 2016. Pic: AP

 12th November 2016 

TENS of thousands of South Koreans held a mass rally in Seoul on Saturday to demand the ouster of President Park Geun-hye in what would be one of the biggest protests in the country since its democratization about 30 years ago.

Police anticipate about 170,000 people to turn out Saturday near City Hall and an old palace gate, while the protest organizers estimate as much as a million participants.

It will be the latest of a wave of massive rallies against Park, whose presidency over the last few weeks has been shaken by suspicion that she let a shadowy longtime confidante to manipulate power from behind the scenes.

Despite rising anger, opposition parties have yet to seriously push for Park’s resignation or impeachment over fears of negatively impacting next year’s presidential race.

According to state news agency Yonhap, the rally on Saturday was organised by more than 1,500 civil society groups and the predicted large turnout had prompted police to deploy some 25,000 officers over concerns that the protest would turn violent.

SEE ALSO: ‘Heartbroken’ South Korean president Park admits scandal was ‘all my fault’

The protest on Saturday is anticipated to surpass the record 80,000 protesters in June 2008 during a rally against the government’s decision to resume US beef imports, Yonhap reported.

The protesters in the latest rally also planned to march toward the presidential office later in the evening.

Citing traffic inconveniences, police had earlier announced a ban on protesters gathering near 

Gyeongbokgung Station but a court order early Saturday had overruled the ban, providing freedom of assembly.

SEE ALSO: South Korea: Prosecutors arrest president’s ‘shaman adviser’ amid political scandal

“Considering the specific purpose of this rally, which is to convey the public voice to the president, the meaning Sajik street and Yulgok street hold is significantly different from what they meant for other rallies,” the Seoul Administrative Court was quoted as saying.

“The rally and march are not led by a specific interest group, but by the general public, ranging from adolescents and adults to the elderly who volunteered to take part,” it added.

The court said the possible traffic inconveniences “seems to be within the boundary the public can accept,” adding the the public had been informed of the planned protest.

Additional reporting by the Associated Press

Stress 'changes brains of boys and girls differently'

Teenage boys and girls respond to severe stress in different ways deep inside their brains, the researchers suggest

12 November 2016

Very stressful events affect the brains of girls and boys in different ways, a Stanford University study suggests.

A part of the brain linked to emotions and empathy, called the insula, was found to be particularly small in girls who had suffered trauma.

But in traumatised boys, the insula was larger than usual.

This could explain why girls are more likely than boys to develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the researchers said.

Their findings suggest that boys and girls could display contrasting symptoms after a particularly distressing or frightening event, and should be treated differently as a result.

The research team, from Stanford University School of Medicine, said girls who develop PTSD may actually be suffering from a faster than normal ageing of one part of the insula - an area of the brain which processes feelings and pain.

The insula, also known as the insular cortex, is linked to the body's experience of pain or emotional experiences of fear

The insula, or insular cortex, is a diverse and complex area, located deep within the brain which has many connections.

As well as processing emotions, it plays an important role in detecting cues from other parts of the body.

The researchers scanned the brains of 59 children aged nine to 17 for their study, published in Depression and Anxiety.

One group, of 14 girls and 16 boys, had suffered at least one episode of severe stress or trauma while a second group, of 15 girls and 14 boys, had not been exposed to any.

In the group of traumatised boys and girls, there was evidence that one area of the insula - the anterior circular sulcus - had changed in size and volume compared with the group with no trauma.

This shows that the insula is changed by exposure to acute or long-term stress and plays a key role in the development of PTSD, the researchers said.

Different reactions

Lead study author Dr Megan Klabunde said it was important to consider the different physical and emotional reactions to stressful events.

"It is important that people who work with traumatised youth consider the sex differences.

"Our findings suggest it is possible that boys and girls could exhibit different trauma symptoms and that they might benefit from different approaches to treatment."

And she added: "There are some studies suggesting that high levels of stress could contribute to early puberty in girls."

Dr Klabunde said they would now look at other regions of the brain connected to the insula to see if they could detect similar changes.

What is PTSD?

Post-traumatic stress disorder is the term used to described the psychological effects of being involved in a traumatic event, such as a major car accident, a natural disaster, bullying, abuse or violent crime.

Many young people who experience very distressing events recover without experiencing PTSD - but some people do develop it.

Symptoms can include:

• Flashbacks and nightmares
• Avoiding reliving the event
• Anxiety, unable to relax
• Problems sleeping
• Problems eating

The charity Young Minds says it is normal to experience symptoms for a few weeks after a distressing event but if you are still having symptoms after a month, it is a good idea to talk to your GP who should offer you some therapy to deal with your thoughts and behaviour.

Is that SL Police violate of Human rights

Nov 11, 2016

He has further pointed out that the violation of human rights has been made possible by the continued presence of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Since the Police have been vested with broad powers to counter terrorist activities, the Asian Director has said that this could pose a serious threat for human rights.

Police Media Spokesman DIG Priyantha Jayakody said,  Pointing out that he could not agree with the allegation that has been raised about human rights being violated with the expansion of police powers, the DIG said that the police cannot act contrary to the law. While accepting that there are individual cases where some of the officers have been accused of misbehaving and misusing authority, the Police Media Spokesman said that necessary steps are being taken against such officers.

"The PTA was first implemented in 1971. IN every country in the world there are laws to prevent terrorism. There is a huge difference between terrorism and an ordinary crime. Terrorists are trying to achieve their goals by inflicting fear into the public minds. SO there is less evidence for their actions. So special laws have to be brought in to deal with it. These laws are being strictly implemented in UK as well. But that does not mean that these countries are oppressing people. The greater good is more important.

AshWaru Colombo

Speech and Spies: Why Sri Lanka’s New Counterterrorism Law is a Terrible Idea

Gehan Gunatilleke 9th November 2016

A year ago, Sri Lanka promised the world that it would repeal its current Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). In a historic co-sponsored resolution, it assured the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) that it would replace the PTA with counterterrorism legislation that complies with international best practices. The current PTA is described as ‘draconian’, and has been used to target human rights defenders, journalists and political opponents of the state. Meanwhile, the framework for a new counterterrorism law was recently unveiled in the Sri Lankan press. The framework contains a number of serious problems, including the denial of prompt access to legal counsel and the admissibility of confessions potentially obtained through torture.  This post examines another disturbing feature of the framework: the criminalisation of speech that ‘threatens unity’ and the disclosure of confidential information.

Saying or writing anything that could cause ‘communal disharmony’ is criminalised under section 2(1)(h) of the current PTA. This provision has a notorious history of abuse. In 2009, it was used to convict journalist J.S. Tissainayagam for accusing the armed forces of committing war crimes. The new framework contains a similar provision, which is potentially worse than the PTA. Clause xviii of the section on ‘terrorism-related offences’ criminalises ‘words either spoken or intended to be read’, that ‘threaten the unity’ of Sri Lanka. The clause could therefore outlaw criticism of state policies that favour one community over another.  For example, a journalist who criticises a discriminatory language policy in the public sector could be accused of ‘threatening the unity’ of the country. Moreover, civil society advocates who press for the prosecution of war criminals and perpetrators of religious violence could be accused of ‘threatening unity’ through their advocacy. This clause, if enacted, could seriously impede free speech in Sri Lanka and restrict the space for resisting impunity and the abuse of power.

The new framework in fact goes a step further. It also criminalises gathering or providing ‘confidential information’ with the knowledge that such information will be used for the commission of any offence under the new law. For example, providing confidential information with the knowledge that it will be used to say or write something that ‘threatens unity’ is deemed to be ‘espionage’ and carries a prison term of ten years. This provision has serious implications for whistleblowers, who are vital to revealing state corruption and abuses. It also contradicts Sri Lanka’s new Right to Information Act, which specifically prohibits the punishment of whistleblowers who disclose information held by public authorities. Hence the espionage offence could be particularly devastating when combined with the offence of ‘threatening unity’.

The present government’s persistence in introducing repressive legislation in the face of human rights commitments is certainly disturbing. In fact, this is not even the first time it has attempted to re-enact a provision similar to section 2(1)(h) of the PTA. In December 2015, it attempted to introduce an amendment to the Penal Code, purportedly to criminalise hate speech. The proposed legislation replicated section 2(1)(h), but was withdrawn following opposition from civil society and the Human Rights Commission. Moreover, in August 2016, the Minister of Justice gazetted a Bill that sought to deny suspects the right to access legal counsel until police interrogations are completed. Fortunately, this Bill was also shelved following civil society opposition and the intervention of the Human Rights Commission.

This trend reveals a darker side to the present Sri Lankan government, which has thus far characterised itself as progressive and committed to human rights. It reveals the fact that government actors with repressive interests wield enormous influence over the reform agenda. These interests shape legislation to retain a pervasive national security apparatus – the very apparatus that the present government promised it would dismantle.

The new counterterrorism framework appears to perpetuate this trend. Sri Lankan civil society together with the Human Rights Commission must now prepare for yet another battle to resist repressive legislation. As they reflect on a frustrating year since that historic resolution, they can acknowledge one silver lining. It is the fact that Sri Lanka still affords space for resistance through civil society activism and independent institutions. This space must be safeguarded. Thus the battle against this new counterterrorism framework is not merely against repressive legislation. It is a battle to maintain this space for resistance.

Author profile

Gehan Gunatilleke (@GehanDG) is a human rights lawyer based in Colombo, Sri Lanka, and the Research Director of Verité Research. He is the author of The Chronic and the Acute: Post-War Religious Violence in Sri Lanka. He is also a Commonwealth scholar at New College, University of Oxford.

Citations

Gehan Gunatilleke, “Speech and Spies: Why Sri Lanka’s New Counterterrorism Law is a Terrible Idea” (OxHRH Blog, 9 November 2016), [Date of Access].

Keshap optimistic admiration towards SL remains same

2016-11-11

With the election of Republican Candidate Donald Trump as the President of the US, US Ambassador for Sri Lanka Atul Keshap said he hoped the admiration of the new administration towards Sri Lanka would remain the same.  

 In a comment to a local radio channel, Mr. Keshap said “I can’t speak for the new administration but I think that the sense of admiration for Sri Lanka will long continue because of the leadership your people have shown,” he said.   

He said the diplomats, security officers and civil servants of the US would continue to follow the lawfully elected authority of the country.  “We look forward to what our president-elect will determine and how he will decide as administration goes,” he said.