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

Friday, January 27, 2017


In his first interview at the White House on Jan. 25, President Trump discussed his past issues with the media, his executive actions this week and debunked claims of voter fraud and inaugural crowd size with ABC's David Muir. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

 

All White Houses leak. Sometimes the leaks are big, sometimes small. But there are always people willing to talk to reporters about the “real” story or about why the chief executive made a mistake in regard to some decision he made.
That said, I've never seen so much leaking so quickly — and with such disdain for the president — as I have in the first six days of Donald Trump's presidency.
Two recent examples:

1. This from the New York Times today on Trump's impulsiveness:
Mr. Trump’s advisers say that his frenzied if admittedly impulsive approach appeals to voters because it shows that he is a man of action. Those complaining about his fixation with fictional voter fraud or crowd counts at his inauguration, in their view, are simply seeking ways to undercut his legitimacy. 
Yet some of his own advisers also privately worry about his penchant for picking unnecessary fights and drifting off message. They talk about taking away his telephone or canceling his Twitter account, only to be dismissed by a president intent on keeping his own outlets to the world.
2. This from WaPo on Trump's inauguration crowd estimates:
Trump’s advisers suggested that he could push back in a simple tweet. Thomas J. Barrack Jr., a Trump confidant and the chairman of the Presidential Inaugural Committee, offered to deliver a statement addressing the crowd size. 
But Trump was adamant, aides said. Over the objections of his aides and advisers — who urged him to focus on policy and the broader goals of his presidency — the new president issued a decree: He wanted a fiery public response, and he wanted it to come from his press secretary.
Time and again, the image of Trump pushed by his “aides” is one of a clueless child — someone who acts on impulse, disregarding the better advice of people who know better. We know he needs to be managed or else he will say and do stupid things, the message seems to be. We're working on it.

And what we know about Trump from his presidential campaign is that some of his top staffers — most notably Kellyanne Conway — often communicated to the boss via the media. What that strategy suggests is that Trump is influenced at least as much — and, in truth, likely more — by reading the sniping of his aides on background (meaning without their names attached) in the news than he is by private conversations. That the best way to reach him, change his mind or otherwise bend his ear is through a public airing of grievances.

Trump has shown that his tendency to obsessively consume media — especially cable television — is unchanged in the six days since he has become president. He appears to be making policy decisions via things he watches or reads.(Remember Trump's famous/infamous statement that he got his military information and advice “mostly from the shows.”)

At odds with all of this, however, is the fact that Trump is both deeply proud and hugely image-conscious. Having to read and watch allegedly loyal “aides” casting him as a sort of feckless child constantly in need of guidance wouldn't seem to be the sort of thing that would sit well with him.
Tim Miller, a former spokesman for Jeb(!) Bush's presidential campaign and a frequent Trump critic, summed that sentiment up nicely:
Trump doesn't seem like the type who will enjoy his advisors talking about him like he's a child to the New York Times for long. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/824597792299581440 
It doesn't take much imagination to conjure up an image of an irate Trump surrounded by the various clips of his aides driving the perception that he badly needs to be managed at every moment. If Trump's entire #brand is centered on being the best/classiest/smartest, these sort of leaks fundamentally undermine that image. And we're only six days into his presidency!

The frequency — and nature — of these leaks are yet another reminder that the Trump presidency is nothing like anything that's come before it. There is no blueprint. We're through the looking glass.

But my educated guess is that these leaks must be driving Trump absolutely crazy. And when he gets mad, history suggests he will try to get even. And quickly.
New research shows that developing countries send trillions of dollars more to the west than the other way around. Why?
 A report on global money flows has found that trade misinvoicing and tax havens mean the world’s givers are more like takers. Photograph: C Villemain/AFP/Getty Images

-Saturday 14 January 2017 

We have long been told a compelling story about the relationship between rich countries and poor countries. The story holds that the rich nations of the OECD give generously of their wealth to the poorer nations of the global south, to help them eradicate poverty and push them up the development ladder. Yes, during colonialism western powers may have enriched themselves by extracting resources and slave labour from their colonies – but that’s all in the past. These days, they give more than $125bn (£102bn) in aid each year – solid evidence of their benevolent goodwill.
This story is so widely propagated by the aid industry and the governments of the rich world that we have come to take it for granted. But it may not be as simple as it appears.
The US-based Global Financial Integrity (GFI) and the Centre for Applied Research at the Norwegian School of Economics recently published some fascinating data. They tallied up all of the financial resources that get transferred between rich countries and poor countries each year: not just aid, foreign investment and trade flows (as previous studies have done) but also non-financial transfers such as debt cancellation, unrequited transfers like workers’ remittances, and unrecorded capital flight (more of this later). As far as I am aware, it is the most comprehensive assessment of resource transfers ever undertaken.
What they discovered is that the flow of money from rich countries to poor countries pales in comparison to the flow that runs in the other direction.
In 2012, the last year of recorded data, developing countries received a total of $1.3tn, including all aid, investment, and income from abroad. But that same year some $3.3tn flowed out of them. In other words, developing countries sent $2tn more to the rest of the world than they received. If we look at all years since 1980, these net outflows add up to an eye-popping total of $16.3tn – that’s how much money has been drained out of the global south over the past few decades. To get a sense for the scale of this, $16.3tn is roughly the GDP of the United States
What this means is that the usual development narrative has it backwards. Aid is effectively flowing in reverse. Rich countries aren’t developing poor countries; poor countries are developing rich ones.
What do these large outflows consist of? Well, some of it is payments on debt. Developing countries have forked out over $4.2tn in interest payments alone since 1980 – a direct cash transfer to big banks in New York and London, on a scale that dwarfs the aid that they received during the same period. Another big contributor is the income that foreigners make on their investments in developing countries and then repatriate back home. Think of all the profits that BP extracts from Nigeria’s oil reserves, for example, or that Anglo-American pulls out of South Africa’s gold mines.
But by far the biggest chunk of outflows has to do with unrecorded – and usually illicit – capital flight. GFI calculates that developing countries have lost a total of $13.4tn through unrecorded capital flight since 1980.
Most of these unrecorded outflows take place through the international trade system. Basically, corporations – foreign and domestic alike – report false prices on their trade invoices in order to spirit money out of developing countries directly into tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions, a practice known as “trade misinvoicing”. Usually the goal is to evade taxes, but sometimes this practice is used to launder money or circumvent capital controls. In 2012, developing countries lost $700bn through trade misinvoicing, which outstripped aid receipts that year by a factor of five.
Multinational companies also steal money from developing countries through “same-invoice faking”, shifting profits illegally between their own subsidiaries by mutually faking trade invoice prices on both sides. For example, a subsidiary in Nigeria might dodge local taxes by shifting money to a related subsidiary in the British Virgin Islands, where the tax rate is effectively zero and where stolen funds can’t be traced.
GFI doesn’t include same-invoice faking in its headline figures because it is very difficult to detect, but they estimate that it amounts to another $700bn per year. And these figures only cover theft through trade in goods. If we add theft through trade in services to the mix, it brings total net resource outflows to about $3tn per year.
That’s 24 times more than the aid budget. In other words, for every $1 of aid that developing countries receive, they lose $24 in net outflows. These outflows strip developing countries of an important source of revenue and finance for development. The GFI report finds that increasingly large net outflows have caused economic growth rates in developing countries to decline, and are directly responsible for falling living standards.
Who is to blame for this disaster? Since illegal capital flight is such a big chunk of the problem, that’s a good place to start. Companies that lie on their trade invoices are clearly at fault; but why is it so easy for them to get away with it? In the past, customs officials could hold up transactions that looked dodgy, making it nearly impossible for anyone to cheat. But the World Trade Organisation claimed that this made trade inefficient, and since 1994 customs officials have been required to accept invoiced prices at face value except in very suspicious circumstances, making it difficult for them to seize illicit outflows.
Still, illegal capital flight wouldn’t be possible without the tax havens. And when it comes to tax havens, the culprits are not hard to identify: there are more than 60 in the world, and the vast majority of them are controlled by a handful of western countries. There are European tax havens such as Luxembourg and Belgium, and US tax havens like Delaware and Manhattan. But by far the biggest network of tax havens is centered around the City of London, which controls secrecy jurisdictions throughout the British Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories.
In other words, some of the very countries that so love to tout their foreign aid contributions are the ones enabling mass theft from developing countries.
The aid narrative begins to seem a bit naïve when we take these reverse flows into account. It becomes clear that aid does little but mask the maldistribution of resources around the world. It makes the takers seem like givers, granting them a kind of moral high ground while preventing those of us who care about global poverty from understanding how the system really works.
Poor countries don’t need charity. They need justice. And justice is not difficult to deliver. We could write off the excess debts of poor countries, freeing them up to spend their money on development instead of interest payments on old loans; we could close down the secrecy jurisdictions, and slap penalties on bankers and accountants who facilitate illicit outflows; and we could impose a global minimum tax on corporate income to eliminate the incentive for corporations to secretly shift their money around the world.
We know how to fix the problem. But doing so would run up against the interests of powerful banks and corporations that extract significant material benefit from the existing system. The question is, do we have the courage?
Join our community of development professionals and humanitarians. Follow @GuardianGDP on Twitter.

India's investors brace for transaction tax hike, less friendly budget

FILE PHOTO: Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley attends a seminar on the Goods and Services Tax (GST) issues during the Vibrant Gujarat investor summit in Gandhinagar, India January 11, 2017. REUTERS/Amit Dave/File PhotoFILE PHOTO: Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley attends a seminar on the Goods and Services Tax (GST) issues during the Vibrant Gujarat investor summit in Gandhinagar, India January 11, 2017. REUTERS/Amit Dave/File Photo

By Rafael Nam | MUMBAI-Fri Jan 27, 2017

Investors in India are bracing for higher taxes and fewer incentives from the government's annual budget on Feb. 1 as the focus shifts to wringing out revenues to finance giveaways and higher public investment.
While Prime Minister Narendra Modi's administration is widely seen as being friendly to businesses and investors, it not expected to announce any dramatic moves at a time when the economy is under pressure from a cash squeeze.

Among expected measures are a hike in a transaction tax on stock derivatives trading and a less beneficial approach to long-term capital gains tax exemptions, according to analysts. (For more details, see Factbox reut.rs/2jxz3Vs)

India could also provide additional details for new rules in April that will crack down on tax havens, after the government on Friday provided some, but not all, key clarifications.

Full Budget 2017 coverage here reut.rs/2kBpMcy

Foreign portfolio investors are also seeking clarity behind "indirect transfer" rules that could increase tax liabilities for overseas funds.

But any negative impact from such measures could easily be offset should the government also lower corporate tax rates or provide incentives to sectors hit by government's surprise decision in November to abolish high-value banknotes, analysts said.

"We can certainly see a sensitivity for investor concerns, and the government wants to do things like ease the cost and complexities of doing business, improve India's competitiveness rankings and attract foreign investors," said Rajesh H. Gandhi, a tax partner at Deloitte Haskins & Sells.

"However, at the same time the government has revenue pressures as it seeks the meet its fiscal targets."

Expectations for higher taxes for investors have increased since Modi said in December that market participants needed to make a "fair contribution" to nation-building, without providing any details.

Among the potential measures could be a second consecutive annual hike in the Securities Transaction Tax for futures and options markets, currently set at around 0.05 percent for every 10 million trades.

India could also lower the time threshold for long-term capital gains.

Currently, investments sold after at least a 12-month holding period are exempt from taxes, while anything below that is taxed at up to 20 percent of the gains.

For foreign investors, the budget is expected to provide guidelines behind the General Anti Avoidance Rule (GAAR) that will start in April that are intended to crack down on tax avoidance.

The government eased some of the doubts on Friday by saying that GAAR would not apply for foreign investors based in a jurisdiction for genuine commercial reasons, while saying investors meeting key conditions of individual tax treaties would not be subject to GAAR.

Overseas portfolio investors will also seek more details after India's tax department said in December that foreign companies with more than 50 percent of their assets in India could be liable to pay indirect transfer taxes when exiting from their investments.

The comment was seen as potentially ensnaring foreign funds that have more than half of their portfolios invested in India.

(Editing by Kim Coghill)

Filipino mortuary owner vows to ‘tell all’ after ‘for-profit’ killing of South Korean


Filipino police officers and other law enforcement officials take their oath during a Senate investigation of a kidnapped South Korean businessman that was allegedly killed by policemen at the police headquarters in Pasay, Metro Manila, Philippines Jan 26, 2017. Pic: AP
27th January 2017
THE operator of the funeral home where the remains of a South Korean kidnap-for-ransom victim Jee Ick-joo was brought has vowed to “tell all” in the case, which rocked the nation and implicated police officers.
According to Rappler, Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II said the funeral home owner, Gerardo Santiago, a former police officer, had arrived from Toronto, Canada on Friday.
Aguirre was quoted as saying that Santiago is being placed under protective custody of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) due to death threats.
He added that Santiago began receiving death threats from two groups while he was still in Canada.
“He started sending feelers for his return to my office via trusted intermediaries last week. He requested that he be secured upon his arrival,” Aguirre said, as quoted by Rappler.
The local news site also quoted NBI Deputy Director for Forensic Investigation Services Ferdinand Lavin as saying that the department had instructed the NBI to fetch Santiago at the airport.
“I can see that he’s very much afraid of his safety. He promised to tell all,” Lavin said.
On Thursday, President Rodrigo Duterte apologised to South Korea for Jee’s death, saying he wanted to hang the rogue police allegedly responsible and send their heads to Seoul, Reuters reported.
He called again for the death penalty to be reinstated so that he could hang 20 criminals a day.
Duterte also promised the toughest punishment for those behind the kidnapping and killing of the businessman inside the national police headquarters in October.
The death of the South Korean comes as the Philippine police face growing criticism from rights groups and some lawmakers, who say cover-ups and abuses of police power are rampant.
Duterte’s critics, however, say he is to blame for creating a culture of impunity by promising to protect police on the front lines of his war on drugs.
The police accused of kidnapping and killing Jee were anti-narcotics officers.
Philippine authorities confirmed that the police officers involved not only kidnapped and killed the South Korean businessman but also used his disappearance to extort money from his wife.
Meanwhile, Aguirre said Santiago’s return to the Philippines was a “welcome development” to the case.
He said: “We assure the Filipino people and our Korean friends that earnest efforts will be exerted to bring the real perpetrators to justice.”
After arriving in the Philippines, Santiago explained to NBI officials hat his trip to Canada was long scheduled and was not an attempt to flee the investigation.
“I came back because I didn’t do anything wrong. If I did something wrong, I wouldn’t have returned to the Philippines; I would have gone in hiding in Canada,” he said during a news briefing.

Refugee pushes Canada to help asylum seekers in Israel


Eritrean refugee Dawit Demoz was granted residency in Canada but says he must help asylum seekers who live in dire conditions in Israel
African asylum seekers, mostly from Eritrea, take part in a protest against Israel's deportation policy in front of the Knesset on 26 January (AFP)

Jillian D'Amours's picture
Jillian D'Amours-Friday 27 January 2017
TORONTO, Canada – “No more prison! We are refugees!” the crowd chanted outside the Israeli parliament in Jerusalem this week, as more than 1,000 African asylum seekers rallied to demand that their asylum requests be fairly heard.
The refugees, mostly from Eritrea and Sudan, have been fighting for years for Israel to ease its harsh restrictions on their daily lives and put an end to indefinite detention and threats of deportation.
“You, the justices of the High Court, are the only ones who have the authority to save Israel from committing the injustice of deporting vulnerable asylum seekers in violation of all international agreements,” March for Freedom, the group that organised the protest this week, said in a statement, according to the Jerusalem Post.
“Our fate is completely in your hands,” the group said.
The protest comes only a few weeks after an Eritrean refugee, who is now living thousands of kilometres away in Canada, began working once more to expose the harsh treatment African asylum seekers are subjected to in Israel.
Dawit Demoz left Israel last March after more than six years in Tel Aviv, where he became a leading activist in the struggle to protect the rights of the country’s marginalised and maligned African asylum seekers.
Now a Canadian permanent resident, the 30-year-old is studying psychology at York University in Toronto and working part-time at a local grocery store.
But he can’t forget the tens of thousands of African asylum seekers still in Israel.
“I can’t just come here, and forget everything I left behind. It’s hard. I think about it all the time,” Demoz told Middle East Eye from a café in Toronto’s west end earlier this month.
“I cannot forget about the people that I left behind. The situation is getting worse there, there’s no hope that the situation in Israel will change. I said to myself, ‘I have to do something.’”

Human rights abuses

The dire living conditions of African asylum seekers in Israel have been widely reported since tens of thousands of mainly Eritrean and Sudanese refugees began making the journey to Israel in the last decade.
More than 40,000 asylum seekers currently live in Israel, the vast majority of whom are originally from Eritrea and Sudan. Many refugees reached Israel after a dangerous journey across the Egyptian Sinai desert.
In its history, Israel has recognised less than one percent of all asylum claims. Last year, it granted refugee status for the first time to a Sudanese national, Mutasim Ali, a young activist and protest leader.
For years, the government gave asylum seekers from Eritrea and Sudan “temporary protection” in the form of short-term visas, which allowed the government to avoid actually processing their asylum claims.
Today, most African asylum seekers must renew temporary visas to remain in the country, and they live under a risk of being summoned to Holot, a detention facility built in the southern Negev desert.
Israel also signed a secretive deal to deport asylum seekers to third countries. The Israeli government says the agreement poses no risk to the deportees; a representative for the Israeli Justice Ministry said last year that at least 3,000 people had been sent to Rwanda and Uganda.
But it’s a policy that refugee advocates say puts the asylum seekers in danger and leaves them in a state of legal limbo. Some asylum seekers have reported being repatriated to their home countries after their deportation from Israel, where they may face imprisonment, torture and other abuses.

‘Expedited’ immigration process

Demoz, who recently organised a film screening and fundraiser in Toronto to benefit the Eritrean Women’s Centre in Tel Aviv, said he is encouraged by Canadians’ desire to help Eritreans.
The first goal of the event was to raise awareness, and provide information for how Eritreans can be sponsored to come to Canada, he said.
“I want you to know about the situation of Eritreans, but at the same time, there are things that you can do now. If you are ready or if you’re interested to help, you can sponsor Eritreans,” said Demoz, who was privately sponsored by a Canadian group.
Canada’s unique private sponsorship programme allows community groups (known as private sponsorship agreement holders) to sponsor individuals in need of resettlement. These groups are then financially responsible for the refugees’ first year in Canada.
"If you are ready or if you’re interested to help, you can sponsor Eritreans” - Dawit Demoz
Officially, the Refugee Protection Division within the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada is tasked with holding hearings and investigating claims for refugee protection made in the country.
It recently gave Eritreans access to an “expedited process” to make their claims. Syrian and Iraqi nationals are the only others to have access to this process in Canada.
This means that the IRB has recognised a “pattern of human rights abuses” and can grant refugee status to individuals from these countries more quickly, explained Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees.
“An expedited process is good for them to try to move [through] obvious claims quickly,” Dench told Middle East Eye. “From the claimants’ point of view, it can [mean] you are saved what can be a very traumatising hearing process. It makes it an easier and friendlier and potentially a slightly faster process.”
Between January and August last year, 3,081 Eritreans received permanent residency in Canada: 2,773 were privately-sponsored refugees, while the remaining 308 people were sponsored by the government. That’s an increase from 2015, during which 1,648 Eritreans received Canadian permanent residency.
But Dench said Canada should also put a suspension of removals in place for Eritrean nationals, given the dire human rights situation in their home country.
In 2015, United Nations said the Eritrean government was responsible for “systemic, widespread and gross human rights violations” that may amount to crimes against humanity.
Eritreans are forced into indefinite conscription, where they are subjected to hard labour, torture, physical and sexual abuse. Dissent is stifled, imprisonment and enforced disappearances are widespread, and hundreds of thousands have fled the country.
“It is not law that rules Eritreans – but fear,” the UN reported.
Having a clear policy that blocks deportations to Eritrea would allow the refugees to get work permits and be in a better position than simply waiting for Ottawa to deport them.
“It’s well established that there are massive human rights abuses going on, and yet there is very little international coverage of it,” Dench said. “I think that’s one of the reasons why we don’t have a temporary suspension. If people have been paying more attention, it would have been in place long ago.”

Can Canada help Eritreans in Israel?

Individuals cannot apply directly for resettlement in Canada, but they must instead be referred, either by the United Nations’ refugee agency (UNHCR) or other organisation, or a private sponsor, explained Rémi Larivière, a spokesperson for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).
In the case of Eritreans living in Israel, Larivière said Canada has no specific agreement with Israel to resettle them, and the IRCC department has not requested referrals from UNHCR for refugees in Israel.
“However, Canada always remains open to considering urgent or vulnerable cases the UNHCR may identify as being in need of resettlement anywhere in the world,” Larivière said.
Since 2012, Canada has instituted caps on the number of new applications it will accept each year from sponsorship agreement holders.
"Canada always remains open to considering urgent or vulnerable cases" - Rémi Larivière
Last year, a cap of 350 new applications was put in place in Tel Aviv “due to a growing backlog of applications and concerns over long wait times,” he said.
This year, the cap on private sponsorship applications is set at 7,500 people globally, and Canada expects to resettle 40,000 refugees and protected persons.
Larivière added that Canada has committed to welcoming 4,000 government-sponsored Eritrean refugees currently in Sudan and Ethiopia before the end of 2018.
According to Dench, there are political considerations involved in how Canada approaches the possible resettlement of Eritreans currently living in Israel.
“If you resettle somebody out of their country, then you are indirectly acknowledging that the country is not providing appropriate protection and a durable solution to the refugees that are there, and a country like Israel might not take well to that,” she said.
Meanwhile, Demoz said that his new life in Canada has showed him just how unjust the situation in Israel really is.
“Canada is a country of immigrants and both the Canadian government and the Canadian public see this as an asset… They say diversity is our strength,” he said.
“In Israel, it’s completely different. [They say], ‘You’re not part of us; you’re a different colour, you’re a different ethnicity, you’re a different culture so you’re not part of us. We don’t want you.’
“Forget about refugee status… where is the humanity?”

Free soda: France bans unlimited sugary drink refills


A soda fountain in New York (file image)
BBC
27 January 2017
Restaurants and other spaces catering to the public in France have been banned from offering unlimited sugary drinks in an effort to reduce obesity.
It is now illegal to sell unlimited soft drinks at a fixed price or offer them unlimited for free.
The number of overweight or obese people in France is below the EU average but is on the rise.
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends taxing sugary drinks, linking them to obesity and diabetes.
Self-service "soda fountains" have long been a feature of family restaurants and cafes in some countries like the UK, where a soft drinks tax will be introduced next year.
The new law [in French] targets soft drinks, including sports drinks containing added sugar or sweeteners.

Obesity in Europe

Of people aged 18 and over in EU countries...

15.9%
are obese
  • Highest obesity in Malta 26%
  • Second lowest is Italy 10.7%
  • France 15.3%
  • Among children across EU 5.7%
Getty Images
All public eateries, from fast-food joints to school canteens, are affected.
The aim of the law is to "limit, especially among the young, the risks of obesity, overweight and diabetes" in line with WHO recommendations.
A recent Eurostat survey of adult obesity put the French at 15.3%, which is just below the EU average of 15.9%. France was slimmer than the UK (20.1%) but fatter than Italy (10.7%).
Past the age of 30, nearly 57% of French men are overweight or obese, according to a report published in October by the French medical journal Bulletin Epidemiologique Hebdomadaire.
Some 41% of women in the same age category are also overweight or obese, the study found.

Soft drink controls that fizzed or went flat

Bottles of Coca Cola on a supermarket shelfImage copyright
  • Before the all-you-can-drink ban, France already had a soft drinks tax, and vending machines are barred from schools

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Forecast for 2017: Ruki Fernando





GROUNDVIEWS on 01/26/2017

This is the fifth in a series of video interviews forecasting what 2017 will have in store across different sectors, including women’s rights, economics, and human rights. Activist Ruki Fernando speaks about challenges and opportunities in the field of human rights for the year 2017. At 0:25 he discusses the recently released CTF report. At 2:22 he weighs in on constitutional reform and at 3:31 he outlines developments he hopes to see in the human rights field in 2017.
To view the earlier videos from this series, click hereherehere and here.