Minister met Gota in latter’s car?

Jan 12, 2017

Rumours are making rounds that a leading minister of the ‘Yahapaalana’ government has met former defence secretary recently. Their meeting for nearly one hour took place in the latter’s car.

What they had discussed is not known, but it is being said that a top government figure has sent a message through that minister to Gotabhaya. Political analysts guess that a top government figure has promised to adopt a lenient approach with regard to the accusations leveled against Gotabhaya over the Welikada prison murders.

These killings occurred nearly five years ago, but not even the autopsies have taken place yet. On several occasions, Borella police took measures to carry out the autopsies, but were stopped on orders by a top government position. The CID sought permission from the former and the incumbent IGPs to question the main suspect in the murders, STF’s ASP Sylvester Wijesinghe. But both had kept silent over the requests.  

The ex-defence secretary is linked to the Welikadasa prison murders as well as the MiG deal, but he remains free due to the blessings he receives from top figures in the ‘Yahapaalana’ government. Good governance activists comment that if “the government loves Gota so much and cannot send him behind bars, what it should do is to strip him of his civic rights like J.R. did for Sirima. If not, the government will soon experience the results of pampering serpents.”

Sri Lanka: Is Finance Minister Turning Country into the Hub of Black Money?

First China & India, now the moneyed – What’s next?

(January 12, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The man who earned no reputation among the ordinary citizen, the Finance Minister of Sri Lanka, Ravi Karunanayake has said that foreigners investing a minimum amount of US$ 300,000 individually in Sri Lanka would be issued with two to five year Resident Visas.

He said the budget 2016 passed in Parliament included granting resident visas to foreign individuals who bring a large amount of foreign exchange into the country and added the cabinet has already approved the Special Deposits Account Act.

Political analysts say ‘offshore’ financing is a method of whitening of black money and these moneyed foreigners come in especially in order to take advantage of lower taxes or costs or less stringent regulations.

Recently, individuals and companies that had taken advantage of such facilities in Bermuda were revealed. Antigua,Bahamas and Costa Rica.are some such countries that have made whitening black money part of their economies.

Minister Karunanayake has said that the government has already received over 5000 applications of foreign nationals who have expressed their interest to invest in Sri Lanka.

The funniest part of whole drama is that, he has been selected as the Finance Minister of the Year for Asia-Pacific by the prestigious ‘The Banker’ magazine for his efforts to steer Sri Lanka into a new era of economic reform and a change of mindset.

According to a statement issued by his ministry, The Banker has said Karunanayake secured a $ 1.5 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan program that the country needed to avoid a balance of payments crisis, replenish reserves and rebuild confidence among international investors.

Misuse of state vehicles: Marasinghe must be arrested first: NFF



2017-01-12

United National Party (UNP) MP Ashu Marasinghe, a former chairman of the State Engineering Corporation, should have been arrested first if the alleged misuse of 40 state vehicles by opposition MP Wimal Weerawansa is true, National Freedom Front (NFF) said today. 

NFF media spokesman Mohammed Muzammil said the FCID had arrested Mr. Weerawansa without any written evidence other than a complaint by Mr. Marasinghe. 

“We condemn Mr. Weerawansa's arrest. The UNP is attempting to highlight the fact that several of his relatives were also engaged in this vehicle scam causing a Rs.90 million loss to the state. But they have not revealed the actual facts on the case,” he said. 

He said the ‘Jana Sevana’ housing project was carried out in seven stages and with the support of several close political allies and family members, journalists and the clergy.

 “A majority were our relatives who did their best to make the project a success without any benefits for themselves. They have been provided vehicle facilities to complete the project,” Mr. Muzammil said.

 He said Mr. Weerawansa had been remanded with the help of the FCID to serve political agendas.(Kalathma Jayawardhane) - See more at: http://www.dailymirror.lk/article/Misuse-of-state-vehicles-Marasinghe-must-be-arrested-first-NFF-122101.html#sthash.KdibYhsP.dpuf

Groundwork for an interventionist economic policy

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating

by Kumar David-January 7, 2017

Prime Minister Ranil seems to be edging to a Deng Xio Ping - Lee Kwan Yew interventionist state overview of the economy if one takes the Development (Special Provisions) Bill gazetted on 26 November 2016 at face value. Both domestic capital and foreign investors have left him high and dry, so he has no other option. Whatever road he takes to Rome, it will be good news if he gets there.

I am cautiously supportive. Why cautious, why not enthusiastic? There is one tangible reason and two attributable to congenital prudence. The tangible concern is that the structure is complicated with too many Agencies and Boards with overlapping functions, and there is no mention of statistically driven decision support units. There is a real possibility of operational logjams. This piece is a description of the bill and weaknesses that can be put right, but probably will not. However, prudence motivates caution on two other counts as well. Who will be appointed to the Agencies and Boards? In addition to indispensable community input will there also be multidisciplinary, intellectually savvy talent with global experience, or will it be the usual political detritus? Bad experiences make Lankans fear that this may be another rabbit’s warren for the corrupt to infest? Second is the usual concern about good intentions failing in action. For now I say just one hearty cheer; the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Modi, the most recent leader to turn unabashed populist sings, "Those looting the nation will not succeed because I wear the raksha kavach (protection shield) of 125 crore countrymen". He plans to follow up by confiscating black-money deposited in banks and going after black assets. Circumstances are driving political leaders beyond their natural limits worldwide. The sooner RW sees this, the better prepared he will be for the unavoidable. Unfortunately RW lacks Modi’s force of character; if only he had half the gumption and one third the balls – or should it be an even fraction? – of his Indian counterpart!

The structure

The objective is good – to accelerate economic development and establish mechanisms for the state and in particular the PM to drive it; an approach I laud. A mini Deng Xiao Ping strategy, or if you prefer to choose your examples from the other side of the ideological divide, a Lee Kwan Yew approach. I will describe the structure through which this is to be achieved first, before making critical comments.

There will be five types/levels of organisation:

a) A Policy Development Office (PDO)

b) An Agency for Development (AfD)

c) A Board of Rural Modernisation headed by the President (BRM)

d) Five Regional Development Boards (5xRDB)

e) An Agency for International Trade (AIT)

No I am most not making all this up. Buy the Gazette and read it. Was this drawn up by a bunch of bureaucrats in search of lifetime sinecures? Search me, but this is what it says in black and white. The coverage of none of the RDBs includes Colombo and the Western Province; presumably one more entity or a link with the Ministry of Megapolis and Western Development is intended.

Before I criticise the blurring of boundaries from (a) to (e) I must say that I am supportive of the intention which is for the state to muscle in on development. The private sector left to itself has failed despite this government being the most capitalist friendly that it can hope for. Direct foreign investment will not materialise on a large scale in Lanka or any other country at this point in the global economic cycle. Meanwhile Trump intends to put a stop to free-wheeling American corporations investing abroad.

If domestic and global capitalism does not measure up to expectations, then the alternative is for the state to play a directive role. From this perspective the objectives of the bill are justified. The government must ignore laments from the old bourgeoisie and its new spokesmen. The lament against "illiberal economics", demands for a stronger private sector to improve productivity and competitiveness (which is just what it has failed to do despite freedom of the wild-ass for two years), and calls to boost foreign investment by trade and tax liberalisation, are simply that much hot air. This is the old concept framework of the neo-liberal era which has been discarded almost everywhere in the developing world – now even by Modi in India. Furthermore, if the government attempts to mess with peasant rights by granting land to big corporations it will be its undoing. (See Sandun Thudugala in Ceylon Today, 15 Dec 2016 http://www.ceylontoday.lk/article20161101CT20161231.php?id=3165)

The functions of the PDO inter alia include:

a) Develop proposals for a National Policy framework on any subject including development

b) Coordinate and assist in implementing national policies

c) Set goals for all economic and social sectors; monitor progress

d) Review the performance of government institutions and the provincial administrations

e) Revisit existing policy and upgrade it to meet new challenges

f) Ensure policy is in consonance with goals set by government

g) Review global economic, political, social and environmental trends and their impact on Lanka

The functions of the AfD inter alia include:

a) Stimulate, expand and develop economic growth through the National Policy framework

b) Strengthen the economic base and modernise the economy

c) Generate employment, increase personal incomes and improve consumer welfare

d) Upgrade technical skills and enhance productivity

e) Provide access to finance and infrastructure

f) Prevent collusion among market players and ensure competition

g) Enable Lankan goods to enter the global value chain and enhance competitiveness

h) Improve the balance of trade and promote export of goods and services

The hierarchy between the PDO and the AfD is blurred and there is excessive overlap. Furthermore we have an AID, whose functions also overlap, and inter alia include:

a) Promote and develop international trade

b) Facilitate exports particularly in agriculture and fisheries

c) Promote Lanka as a trade, business and logistical hub and a nodal agency for international trade

d) Promote a business and regulatory environment conducive to the growth of international trade

e) Facilitate the entry of goods and services into international markets, ensure equitable treatment in international markets for Lankan industrial, agricultural and fisheries products and services

f) Recommend, where necessary, changes to import and export policies

g) Represent Lanka at the World Trade Organisation

After all this gets done there will be nothing left of the toes of the various agencies, so heavily will they tread on each other. I suspect the chapters of the bill were drafted by different groups and blindly strung together. Nobody seems to have taken an overview of the draft as a whole to ensure it is well balanced, managerially coordinated and functionally rational. As one who favours this interventionist approach I am disappointed that the drafters have so messed it up in formulation. I do hope the PM takes a step back, reviews the whole works and revises it into a more rational shape.

There seems to be a huge hole in the structure. Instead of this repetitive verbiage the drafters should have paid attention to the indispensable need for a decision support system to underpin planning and implementation. Decision Analysis and Support Units are a sine qua non; they do not intrude on political goals but undertake data gathering, information processing, data mining, decision coordination and optimisation. The scope, size and overlap of the activities proposed in the bill are so ubiquitous that unless a lot of data is processed and unless decisions are coordinated, contradictions will be pervasive. Association with electric power system analysis and planning for 40 years has made me sensitive to these priorities. All giant corporations have their management support and systems analysis departments.

Rural and Regional Development

Overlap does not end here. I have still to mention the RMB and the five RDBs. I agree that the RDBs are needed, otherwise the Provincial Councils (PC) will be up in arms, though by and large the PCs have been failures; politically bankrupt (NPC) or corrupt (the other eight). But there’s no remedy; in the name of devolution we are stuck with a failed system of devolution. But for my commitment in principle to devolution I would say we would be better off without our present PC system altogether.

The regional structure has two arms; five Regional Development Boards (RDB) and a Board of Rural Modernisation (BRM). Limiting the number of RDBs to five (plus the Western Province Megapolis), that is reducing the number to less the nine provinces, is sensible. An even smaller number would have been better. The BRMs are Southern (SP plus Moneragala and Ratnapura), Wayamba (NCP plus Kegelle), Central (CP plus Badulla)), Eastern (NCP and EP) and Northern (all five districts of the NP). The functions of the BRMs are much as expected: (a) coordinate and implement central and regional plans, programmes and projects and (b) facilitate private sector investment "in accordance with guidelines issued by the AfD".

Then there is this strange animal called the BRM which will include President, PM, nine presumably otherwise underemployed Cabinet Ministers and a bunch of Managing Directors and Directors. The BRM is an artifice, a decoration. Its scope is hi-tech agriculture, hi-tech fisheries, primary industries, marketing, connectivity and infrastructure. Presumably the PDO and AfD are low-tech! The guys who wrote this up must have been at their wits end to think up something to shove in which is not already in the PDO, AfD, five RDBs and the Megapolis contraption. They failed. Could it be that the President wanted to play at the table and the drafters thought up this BRM outfit as a toy with which he can fiddle from time to time?

Implementation

Lankans are congenitally cynical and I foresee choruses of "Good intentions but just wait and see it will come to nothing in the end". I will not add my voice to these Cassandras, but make constructive comments. Everything hinges on implementation so the people appointed to the agencies and boards need to be competent, subject savvy, honourable, honest and far-sighted – that goes without saying. A more crucial point is that the types who are allowed to put their finger into this pie MUST NOT be free-market adoring, neo-liberal philosophising, anti state-interventionist ideologues. No offence to the folks you know I have in mind, but this is not their game. If you recruit cricketers into a soccer team they will play neither soccer nor cricket but some lousy version of gudu. People from the wrong ideological stables will destroy the exercise from the start.

A third point follows from this. If you want people who have appreciation and sympathy for the role of the state in economic development, well get that kind of people! To make it perfectly explicit, draw the JVP into both the political and implementation side. The PM needs to work out with its leaders modalities of how the JVP can help take forward the concepts in the bill (after it is cleaned up as I have suggested). Maybe the JVP leaders will be less sectarian than usual and grasp opportunity by the fetlock – for once.

Freed Al Jazeera journalist speaks out in support of colleague held in Egypt

Following the arrest of his colleague Mahmoud Hussein in Egypt last month, Al Jazeera journalist Baher Mohamed talks to MEE about his detention in 2013

Journalists around the world rallied in support of the Al-Jazeera journalists arrested in 2013 (AFP)

Thursday 12 January 2017

Al Jazeera journalist Baher Mohamed said he was surprised to hear the news about the arrest of his colleague Mahmoud Hussein in Cairo on 23 December 2016, the same month Mohamed himself was detained by Egyptian authorities more than three years ago.

“Hearing about what happened to Hussein was just a shock, a total shock,” Mohamed told MEE. “It reminded me of each and every single thing I experienced inside prison."

Hussein, 51, an Egyptian national, was stopped and interrogated for 15 hours at Cairo International Airport upon his arrival from Doha to spend his vacation with his family. He was detained the same day and security forces stormed the homes of his two brothers and arrested them as well. They were all taken to an unknown location, according to a statement issued by Al Jazeera. 

Al Jazeera Journalist Mahmoud Hussein reporting from Tahrir square in Cairo (Photo courtesy of Al Jazeera)

On 4 January, Egyptian prosecutors extended the detention of Hussein for another 15 days, accusing him of spreading false information, fabricating press reports about Egypt, participating in a plot against state institutions, and belonging to the banned Muslim Brotherhood group. In 2013, Egypt officially listed the group as a terrorist organisation.

These accusations are not new to Mohamed, who went through a similar experience when he was held inside the Tora maximum security prison - known as Scorpion prison - for part of his detention back in 2013.

HRW condemns treatment of prisoners

Mohamed was forced to sleep on a damp cement floor inside a small prison cell that was six-and-a-half feet wide.

There is no information about where Hussein is being held, but Mohamed says he believes he is in the notorious prison where he was once detained.

"I know he is kept in solitary confinement in Scorpion prison at the moment, I know his mind will take him to the deepest and darkest thoughts," he said.

'I know he is kept in solitary confinement in Scorpion prison at the moment, I know his mind will take him to the deepest and darkest thoughts'

Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report in September 2016, stating that the staff at Scorpion have severely assaulted inmates, refused to let them see lawyers and families, and kept them locked alone in cramped overcrowded cells.

Some prisoners even died because they were denied access to essential medical treatment, according to HRW.

Mohamed was arrested along with Al Jazeera English journalists Peter Greste and Mohamed Fahmy, on 29 December 2013. They were sentenced to between three and 10 years in prison on charges that included "spreading lies to help a terrorist organisation". Greste was eventually deported and the other two journalists were freed in 2015.

Al-Jazeera’s Peter Greste (L) and his colleagues, Mohamed Fadel Fahmy (C) and Egyptian Baher Mohamed inside the defendants cage on 23 June, 2014 (AFP)

Security forces stormed Mohamed’s house in the middle of the night, searched it, and confiscated his equipment and money, and shot his dog Gatsby in the leg.

Mohammed learned that his wife was pregnant with their third child two weeks after he was arrested. He missed the birth of his son Haroon and by the time he was released from prison after over 400 days, 

Haroon was six months old.

International support

Mohamed believes he was more privileged for being accused alongside foreign journalists in the same case, including Egyptian-Canadian Fahmy and Australian correspondent Greste. Fahmy renounced his Egyptian citizenship at the behest of Egyptian security officials who told him it was the only way he would benefit from a new law that allows foreigners to be deported during their trials.

“I was always told: ‘You should thank God you have foreigners with you.’ Now, I’m more worried because I know that Hussein is alone…he is completely by himself in this,” Mohamed said.

'I was always told: "You should thank God you have foreigners with you." Now, I’m more worried because I know that Hussein is alone … he is completely by himself in this'

Following the arrest of the Al Jazeera journalists back in 2013, rights groups and fellow journalists took part in a campaign led by Al Jazeera calling for the release of Mohamed and his colleagues using the campaign hashtag #FreeAJStaff. Journalists taped their mouths with black tape in protest against the repression of free speech.

Demonstrators protest outside the Egyptian embassy in central London on 29 December, 2014, to mark the one year anniversary of the arrest of three Al Jazeera journalists in Egypt (AFP)

Their arrest attracted international condemnation and wide media coverage, especially with the involvement of two foreign journalists in this case.

However, many other journalists who worked for local media organisations or as freelancers were arrested following the coup that toppled President Mohamed Morsi. Without a prominent media organisation to back them like Al Jazeera or much media coverage, they are left to face their fate alone, like freelance journalist and researcher Ismail Alexandrani.

He has been detained since December 2015 on charges of spreading false information and belonging to a terrorist organisation, largely because of his critical coverage and research on the conflict in the Sinai Peninsula between the Egyptian military and the Islamic State group.

Not alone in case

Hussein could be alone in his prison cell, but he is not the only person involved in this case. A student at the New York Film Academy, Reem Qotb, was also arrested in Cairo International Airport, a few days after Hussein’s arrest, because of alleged links to Al Jazeera.

Security sources told local media that Qotb worked for Al Jazeera and had attended “training programmes” with them in Turkey that taught her to use “small spy planes and photography devices to film events and send them to the channel in Doha," referring to a drone they found in her luggage. 

The film student was detained pending investigations into accusations similar to Hussein’s, despite her family’s denial of any links between her and the Qatar-based network. In a statement on Facebook, the family said that Qotb came back to Cairo for a visit during the Eid al-Fitr holiday, before she went back to the US to complete her studies.

Both families of Hussein and Qotb refuse to speak to the press, apparently because of security concerns.

The detention of Hussein and Qotb follows the release of a documentary produced by Al Jazeera on military conscription in Egypt, entitled The Soldiers: Testimonies on Forced Military Conscription in Egypt. The documentary raised controversy and anger among circles in the Egyptian media and the social media community, which viewed it as an insult to the Egyptian army.

According to Al Jazeera, Hussein was not part of the production crew that made the documentary, and in a statement it said that he was a news producer for Al Jazeera Arabic based in its newsroom in Doha, Qatar, having joined the news organisation in 2011 as a correspondent in its Cairo office. 

False confessions

A couple of days after his arrest, a video of Hussein was leaked to Egyptian local media, purporting to be part of his confession to Egyptian authorities.

In the video he criticised the documentary and said that it “does not represent reality at all and it targets the Egyptian military and soldiers”.

He added that Egyptian nationals working in Al Jazeera tried to stop the release of the documentary, but their demands were ignored by the network's administration.

The video of Hussein did not come as a surprise to Mohamed, who said he knew that Hussein would be pressured into making false confessions, which is exactly what happened to him.

“I was pressured to sign a testimony of confessions on things I did not do, I was told that ‘we know how to make you sign’. At this point, I feared for my family,” Mohamed said. “I heard about the torture and abuse practised against prisoners, and I had already lived in solitary confinement for a month inside Scorpion prison and that was torture.” 

Systematic targeting

In a statement condemning Hussein’s arrest, The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) Middle East and North Africa programme coordinator Sherif Mansour said: “Egyptian authorities are waging a systematic campaign against Al Jazeera, consisting of arbitrary arrest, censorship, and systematic harassment. Egypt must release Mahmoud Hussein immediately and end its crackdown on the press."

'Egyptian authorities are waging a systematic campaign against Al Jazeera, consisting of arbitrary arrest, censorship, and systematic harassment'

Journalist and press freedom activist Shaimaa Aboul Khier agreed, saying that the political standoff between Egypt and Qatar is becoming more costly.

“We are in a situation where the price of political conflicts between countries is paid by professional and hardworking journalists.”

Hussein's arrest was the latest move against the Qatar-based broadcaster that Egypt accuses of supporting the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood of former president Mohamed Morsi.

Al Jazeera managing director Yasser Abu Hilalah denounced Hussein's arrest, saying that Al Jazeera is not involved in any internal conflict in Egypt.

Mohamed, however, said that he could not see the political conflict between Egypt and Qatar as a pretext for the arrest of journalists.

“It is about journalists who are professionals and who do their work independently and critically, it has nothing to do with politics. We really love our country,” he said.

Al-Jazeera's journalists Egyptian national Baher Mohamed (R) and his colleague Mohamed Fadel Fahmy talk to press before their trial at the Tora prison on 23 February, 2015 (AFP)

Mohamed has promised to speak out about Hussein’s case whenever he can, even showing solidarity by putting a badge on his bicycle with an image of his jailed colleague, demanding his freedom.

“I’m trying to do what was done for me when I was jailed, I’m returning the favour by helping to talk more about Hussein’s cause.”

The Intelligence Community Faces Sharp Challenges, but No Crisis

BY STEPHEN SLICK-JANUARY 11, 2017

Weeks of partisan sparring and media speculation culminated last week in the rare spectacle of America’s leading intelligence officials presenting, in turn, to President Barack Obama, President-elect Donald Trump, Congress, and the public, factual findings and an analytic judgment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Accounts of Russian hacking and covert influence operations were accompanied by various, often contradictory, leaks about changes the incoming administration planned for U.S. intelligence. This exercise was certainly unwelcome and measurably harmful, but it does not signal an existential crisis for the strong institutions and resilient workforce that comprise the U.S. intelligence community. Perhaps the greatest risk is that bitter residue from this scuffle over a single (albeit significant) analytic assessment will deflect attention from the more serious intelligence policy questions that require the government’s attention.

The outgoing and incoming administrations should cooperate in the final days of the transition to insulate the intelligence agencies from further bruising encounters with partisan politics. The leaders of intelligence agencies (incumbents and their designated successors) should model for subordinates the thick skin and apolitical ethos demanded of intelligence professionals. And, most importantly, the new administration should lay the groundwork for a disciplined, non-public policy review that answers at least three key questions: How effective is U.S. intelligence at collecting and evaluating the information executive decision-makers require? Does the current model for governing this sprawling community of 16 agencies work? And what should the American public expect to know about the intelligence activities being undertaken on their behalf?

Surveying the Damage

A full accounting of Russia’s efforts to influence the U.S. election is not yet available to the public, or likely even to the relevant government agencies. For example, we do not know precisely how and when these activities were first detected, attributed to the Russian government, and conveyed to policy officials. Unfortunately, leakers have stepped forward and volunteered sensitive information on the collection sources to journalists. For its part, the current administration has not adequately explained why it imposed limited sanctions (while threatening more aggressive actions) on Russia only after the election was over and before it had even requested an authoritative intelligence community assessment of the events.

The declassified assessment acknowledges that “Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the U.S. presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide,” and that such covert programs are currently underway. We may be assured that a counterintelligence review team has already been assembled in Moscow to comb through the declassified version of the assessment and related media reports to learn how U.S. intelligence detected these activities and linked them to Russia and its president. Based on this intelligence community review, Russia will refine its operational tradecraft ensuring that future covert programs will be harder to discover and link to the state sponsor. Similar reviews will be undertaken in Beijing, Pyongyang, Tehran, and elsewhere.

This damage is real, and it was avoidable. It is not difficult to imagine an alternative scenario in which information on Russian hacking, disinformation, and propaganda aimed at undermining the U.S. election gets conveyed to the administration immediately after it is collected and verified, appropriate warnings get shared with responsible campaign and party officials, the agencies deliver classified briefings to key U.S. allies (and prospective victims), and real unilateral and/or multi-lateral penalties get imposed on Russia without disclosing the intelligence that informs our actions.

Similarly, we do not yet understand the basis for the president-elect’s apparent skepticism of the intelligence community’s objectivity and competence or any changes he may plan for U.S. intelligence. This uncertainty has led to claims that morale at the intelligence agencies has cratered and that skilled professionals may choose to resign or retire rather than serve an administration that does not value their work.

The president-elect is entitled to be skeptical of intelligence reports and judgments, as are all policy officials. This is a familiar challenge for U.S. intelligence. A number of past presidents have chosen to ignore, challenge, or supplement from other sources the information delivered by our intelligence agencies. It is ultimately the responsibility of intelligence professionals and their new leaders to adapt to the next administration’s priorities, decision-making style, and the president-elect’s own preferences for learning about unfamiliar foreign events. The president-elect has not yet taken the oath of office, and there will be many opportunities for our intelligence agencies to build a relationship with him and demonstrate their worth. The incoming administration — which already includes a number of sophisticated intelligence consumers — will discover that our intelligence community, while not flawless, is essential in monitoring, contextualizing, and responding to fast-moving global events, and in coping with today’s exceptionally complex threat environment.

Claims of eroding morale and staff defections predictably accompany Washington intelligence controversies. They are grounded in anecdote and gossip rather than evidence. The energy and creativity that intelligence officers invest in their work does not fluctuate with the daily news cycles. The parking lots at our intelligence agencies fill early in the morning and empty late at night without regard for unfolding political dramas. Intelligence veterans know they will have countless opportunities in the coming months and years to warn and inform our elected leaders of threats and make other unique contributions to our national security. That is where their focus is and will certainly remain.

Competence

The U.S. intelligence community is uniquely connected with, and responsive to, the president and his National Security Council. This direct relationship is anchored in statutes, executive orders, and longstanding custom. The president sets the priorities for collection and analysis of information, personally authorizes covert actions, and shares with Congress the responsibility for providing resources for U.S. intelligence. All three branches of government, together with the media and non-governmental actors, participate in overseeing U.S. intelligence activities.

The incoming administration should undertake a disciplined review aimed at determining how effective our intelligence agencies are at providing “timely, accurate, and insightful” information to policymakers, warfighters, and diplomats. The findings are likely to be mixed but will at least provide an empirical foundation for evaluating proposals for structural reform, strategic investments, and human capital development. It is critical that this review not be limited to current performance, but also attempts to identify trends and anticipate future demands.

Russia’s aggressive hacking campaign punctuates the most significant challenge confronting U.S. intelligence. The digital technologies that are changing how humans relate to one another, organize themselves, and compete for advantage is also changing every aspect of the intelligence profession. This is not news to our intelligence agencies. We have passed the inflection point and are now deeply engaged in a largely unregulated competition with state and non-state rivals to develop the best tools to protect, to steal, to interpret, and to manipulate data. The stakes in this competition for our national security and prosperity are high.

U.S. intelligence has not slept on this challenge. We have developed extraordinary technological capabilities, and agencies like Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency have sought to emphasize digital technology in ongoing reorganizations. One goal of the new administration’s performance review should be to ensure that as with the emergence of the telegraph a century ago and overhead reconnaissance in the early years of the Cold War, U.S. intelligence builds and maintains an decided edge in applied digital technology.

Governance

After the new administration sets its priorities and expectations for intelligence support, it will confront the challenge of implementing these policies across a widely dispersed community. From the moment the U.S. established its first peacetime intelligence structures after World War II, debates ensued over the relative merit of a centralized intelligence bureaucracy under the control of a single leader or a federated community of agencies lodged in other cabinet departments. The most recent chapter in this debate began in 2004, when Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, informed by the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which had been charged with investigating the 2001 al Qaida attacks in the United States. The act established a National Counterterrorism Center to pool terror threat reporting, mandated greater information sharing between agencies, and established a new post of director of national intelligence to lead a more “unified” intelligence community.

The CIA did not receive the 2004 reforms warmly — its director would no longer serve simultaneously as the leader of the intelligence community. Same with the Department of Defense, which was reluctant to cede authority over intelligence elements that are geared to support military commanders.
Notwithstanding an additional grant of authority in 2008 amendments to the executive order that charters U.S. intelligence, each of the four officials appointed as director of national intelligence has faced challenges in attempting to more closely integrate the intelligence community. Comments sourced to anonymous transition team members echo a frequent criticism that the director of national intelligence plays a role that is too large, excessively bureaucratic, and overly intrusive into agency operations, and that it should be at least streamlined, if not abolished.

The director of national intelligence’s relationship with the CIA director, the secretary of Defense, and other key department and agency heads, and their respective relationships with the president, will greatly impact how U.S. intelligence is governed under the next administration. The president has considerable flexibility in organizing U.S. intelligence to serve his information needs, but the director of national intelligence’s core responsibilities and authorities are embodied in a law that passed by overwhelming majorities in both chambers of Congress. It remains to be seen whether Trump will choose to spend political capital on intelligence reforms that are likely to prove controversial, thereby accepting the political risk of dismantling or gutting structures put into place to prevent a second catastrophic attack on the United States, and that have contributed to achieving that objective.

Legitimacy

For much of the last four years, U.S. intelligence has been embroiled in controversies triggered by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s unlawful disclosures of electronic surveillance programs and belated congressional investigations into CIA counterterrorism activities during the George H.W. Bush presidency. Exhaustive, redundant, and expensive investigations of these intelligence activities failed to uncover conduct that was illegal, unauthorized, or that was not shared with congressional overseers. Rather, our intelligence agencies proved to be highly responsive to political direction, meticulous about following the law, and conscientious in respecting the civil liberties of American citizens.

Nonetheless, many Americans were surprised, and some deeply troubled, after learning the details of these intelligence programs. Our intelligence leaders were caught off guard by this reaction and grew concerned about the public’s apparent lack of trust in institutions that exist solely to defend them. Measured support from the White House and mixed reactions by lawmakers led intelligence officials to re-examine how agencies that must operate in secret should go about establishing and sustaining democratic legitimacy.

The director of national intelligence launched an initiative to promote greater transparency for U.S. intelligence by declassifying documents of historical and current interest, engaging the public directly through social and traditional media, and increasing intelligence community participation in academic conferences, with the goal of explaining and demystifying the intelligence profession. Agencies like CIA and NSA invested heavily in these efforts, recognizing that broad public legitimacy will be needed if they are to continue attracting talented employees, gaining cooperation from private sector and foreign partners, and commanding the attention of busy policymakers.

Because of the intelligence community’s legal and practical obligation to protect sensitive intelligence sources and methods, much of what actually interests and concerns the public about intelligence work remains unexplained and misunderstood. The next administration will choose whether to continue prioritizing direct public engagement by our intelligence agencies or revert to a past practice that reinforces secrecy but encourages insularity. If these efforts to increase transparency are slowed or reversed, the intelligence agencies will be forced to rely for popular legitimacy on a steadfast defense from the White House and informed congressional overseers.

The U.S. is safer and more prosperous because of the work done by the men and women who serve in our intelligence agencies. The acrimonious transition between presidential administrations has led to uninvited, often unfair scrutiny of these essential institutions. As the new administration settles in and assumes responsibility for daily management of our foreign and national security affairs, it should undertake a disciplined review of U.S. intelligence to ensures that these agencies are capable now and in the future, effectively governed, and trusted by the public they protect.

Photo credit: MARK WILSON/Getty Images

Trump’s pick for CIA leader said he would refuse to restart enhanced interrogation techniques

Rep Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), President-elect Trump's nominee for CIA director, faced the Senate Intelligence Committee at his confirmation hearing, on Jan. 12 at the Capitol. (Reuters)

By Karoun Demirjian and Joby Warrick January 12 at 12:39 PM

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) said Thursday he would “absolutely not” comply with any orders from Donald Trump to start using enhanced interrogation techniques again.

During his confirmation hearing, Pompeo told senators that as CIA director, he would not only commit to cross Trump, but that the president-elect would expect him to do so. Trump said during his campaign that he would consider resurrecting interrogation techniques like waterboarding.

“You have my commitment that every day, I will not only speak truth to power, but I will demand that the men and women … who live their life doing that will be willing, able, and follow my instructions to do that each and every day,” Pompeo said.

If he survives his grilling from Congress, Trump’s nominee for CIA director could soon inherit one of the most difficult jobs in Washington: liaison between the country’s intelligence analysts and a president who has repeatedly derided their work.

Pompeo’s confirmation hearing comes on the heels of the president-elect launching another broadside at the intelligence community, dismissing as “nonsense” a classified report summarizing allegations that Russia had gathered damaging personal information about him. Trump suggested that intelligence officials might have deliberately leaked the uncorroborated report to smear him, adding: “That’s something Nazi Germany would have done.”


President-elect Donald Trump has tapped Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) to be CIA director, close allies say. Here's what we know about him. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)

Pompeo told senators that he considered the intelligence community’s report on Russia to be “sound” as an analytical product.

“It’s pretty clear about what took place about Russian involvement in efforts to hack information,” 

Pompeo continued, saying he was “very clear-eyed” about the intelligence report’s findings, and promising to relay his take “not only to the president, but to the team around him.”

Yet Pompeo agreed with Republicans that the intelligence community – and government at large – does not have a strategy for counteracting and safeguarding against and the type of cyberattacks outlined in that report, from Russia and other countries.

“We have to get better at defending against this,” Pompeo said, calling for an “incredibly robust American response” and pledging to help lawmakers design such a policy.

He also offered several words of praise to the intelligence community personnel, noting that he has “seen their morale through tough times” and “I have seen them walk through fire.” He lauded the CIA as “the finest intelligence agency the world has ever known.”

Since the election, Trump has moderated some of his earlier criticisms and said he respects the country’s intelligence professionals.

[Trump’s choice for CIA director has reputation as a fierce partisan]

What lies ahead for Trump’s nominees, and how Democrats helped smooth the way

Pompeo will have to win over two disparate audiences on Thursday: the senators who will vote on whether to confirm him for the CIA job and thousands of CIA employees who will hang on his every word.

But some on the committee remained concerned that politics would creep its way into Pompeo’s thinking, even as CIA chief.

The 53-year-old Kansan served a stint on the House Intelligence Committee, where he won widespread respect for his intellect while also cementing his reputation as a fierce partisan, leading the attack against the Obama administration on the Benghazi affair and the Iran nuclear deal.

Sen. Angus King (I-Me.) questioned Pompeo about a tweet he wrote last year, promoting the WikiLeaks release of Democratic National Committee’s hacked emails and asking if anyone “need[ed] further proof that the fix was in from President Obama on down” about Hillary Clinton’s email server.

King asked if Pompeo considered WikiLeaks to be a “reliable source of information.”

“I have never believed the WikiLeaks was a credible source of information,” Pompeo said.

Democrats also challenged him about his criticism of the administration’s policy and intelligence related to Iran and its compliance with the recent nuclear pact, which went into effect last year.

Pompeo pledged to lead an agency that makes “objective, sound judgments” about intelligence related to Iran’s compliance – noting that Iran was one of the greatest threats he sees to American security, alongside the Islamic State, Russia, and mounting cyber threats, among others.

But he added that “the Iranians are professionals at cheating,” suggesting there might be breaches the intelligence community did not know about. He noted that intelligence collection would not be perfect under his watch either, but that he would work to “diminish the risk that in fact we are missing something.”

Pompeo said his focus as director would be to ensure that the agency “remains the best in the world at its core mission: collecting what our enemies do not want us to know.” He pledged to “lead the agency to aggressively pursue collection operations and ensure analysts have the time, political space and resources to make objective and sound judgments.”

But the extent of the information Pompeo hopes to collect might not sit well with all senators.

Pompeo faced sharp questions about his public posture on domestic surveillance, and his advocacy to reinstate laws allowing the government to collect all metadata, including from social media. Privacy advocates such as Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) pressed Pompeo to say whether he thought there were any boundaries to the information the intelligence community could collect.

“You have my assurance we will not engage in unlawful activity,” Pompeo said, arguing that if “someone’s out there on their Facebook page talking about an attack,” the intelligence community would be “grossly negligent if they didn’t pursue that information.”

Pompeo acknowledged that even if the Congress changes laws to allow intelligence officials access to more information, “not all encryption takes place in the United States.”

“The intelligence community’s going to have to figure out a way to perform its function knowing that encryption will continue to be out there,” Pompeo said.

Unrelenting Reality of American Politics

Of Wizards, Washington, And The Dreary

A raw and sometimes darkly comic survey of America’s treacherous political terrain

by John Chuckman-Jan 13, 2017

Jan 12, 2017

(January 12, 2017, Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian) The books about The Wizard of Oz were written as satire on American politics, but Hollywood, in its inimitable way, turned them into a song-and-dance picture for children. Still, one scene in the film has a sense of the author’s intent. That scene is when Dorothy, in Emerald City, approaches a closet-like structure, which, as it happens, is the Wizard’s control booth for sounds and smoke and lights, his special effects for intimidating visitors and impressing them with non-existent power.

Unrelenting Reality of American Politics.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd