MR slams Govt. on corruption

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa greets his supporters as Joint Opposition members look on at yesterday’s rally in Nugegoda – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara  

By Dharisha Bastians -Saturday, 28 January 2017

Borrowing several battle-cries from the opposition campaign that ousted his administration two years ago, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa addressed a massive political rally in Nugegoda yesterday, accusing the national unity Government of corruption and vowing to recover stolen state assets when he regains political power.

The Government was guilty of treason, Rajapaksa said, accusing them of selling off state institutions, property and harbours to foreigners. The ex-President turned Member of Parliament for the Kurunegala District also issued a tacit warning to all those looking to invest in state owned assets that a future government he leads would be looking to reclaim them.

“When we come back to power, we will reclaim all these state assets,” he warned.

President Maithripala accepted that the Government was corrupt, Rajapaksa charged. “But the taste of the hopper is too good to resist,” he quipped.

Dressed in red and sporting his signature maroon shawl, the former President baited the crowd, asking them if all was well under the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration that just completed two years in office this month.

Addressing President Sirisena directly, Rajapaksa claimed: “I was going to retire. It was you and the actions of your Government that drew me back into politics.”

Speaker after speaker at the Joint Opposition rally, most of them out on bail or under investigation for fraud and misuse of state property themselves, leveled major charges of corruption against the ruling coalition,

Former Minister Johnston Fernando, one of those arrested and released on bail on corruption charges, took direct aim at Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. He claimed the Prime Minister had brought the Central Bank under the purview of his Ministry just in time to execute the bond scam.

“People in Colombo think he is Mr. Clean,” Fernando taunted, “but from now on we call him ‘dirty Ranil.’

UPFA MP Udaya Gammanpila charged that the Government was turning the entire country into an auction ground.

Joint Opposition MP Vasudeva Nanayakkara demanded that the Government call elections so the pro-Rajapaksa faction could prove its mettle. “If you don’t give us an election, we will turn this into a massive people’s struggle.”

UPFA MP Kumara Welgama who is also facing corruption charges, vowed that the JO would make Mahinda Rajapaksa Prime Minister in 2017.

Former Sports Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage said the Government was “stinking to high heaven” and said the people had ruled that two years was enough. “The Nugegoda warning signal is that two years is enough. Go home in your third year,” Aluthgamage claimed.

The rally which drew large crowds in Nugegoda, strongly featured anti-minority, homophobic speeches, with supporters holding versions of the national flag stripped of the orange and green stripes representing ethnic minority communities living in the island. Nearly every speaker accused the Government of trying to “legalise” homosexuality, and mocked the SLFP for sitting in Government with the UNP, a party they claimed was “pro-gay.” Controversial Sinhala nationalist Buddhist Monk Elle Gunawansa was a speaker at the rally. Former LTTE Eastern Commander and Minister in the Rajapaksa cabinet Vignayamurthi Muralidharan alias Karuna also addressed the meeting. The former LTTE commander was recently arrested and released on bail on charges of abusing state property. He remains a member of the SLFP.

However, the rally appeared less lively than usual with the Joint Opposition keenly feeling the loss of NFF Leader Wimal Weerawansa, who draws crowds and stirs up political meetings with his firebrand nationalist rhetoric. The former Housing Minister is in police custody, after being arrested for grave misuse of state property and vehicles. Keen to insert Weerawansa into the proceedings one way or the other, announcers kept promising the crowds that he would arrive at the rally at some point, eventually playing a recording of one of the MP’s speeches. In spite of JO pledges to the contrary, no SLFP members serving as Ministers in the coalition Government turned up at the pro-Rajapaksa rally.

In his speech, former President Rajapaksa also took aim at the process to draft a new constitution, saying it would be a deceptive document seeking to divide the country. “The victory we won is going to be betrayed,” Rajapaksa said, referring to the military defeat of the LTTE which he claimed would be conceded by a new constitution that is likely to feature broader power sharing proposals with the provinces in a bid to resolve the ethnic conflict.

“This country’s leaders have an obligation to protect our victory. Stop this new constitution now,” the former President charged.

He said that what President Sirisena and his Government had promised on election stages was to restore executive power to the Parliament. “That was the promise, not a division of the country,” Rajapaksa noted.

Sri Lanka: Looters in the Government Plotting Against AG

( January 27, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) A group of UNP MPs is planning to bring in an adjournment motion against the audit general ( AG), most probably at today’s (27) sittings of parliament, the local media reported while quoting the political sources say.

They met yesterday to discuss their plan, say the sources.

It comes in the wake of a claim made to the media by Minister Lakshman Kiriella that the World Bank has informed the government that the AG’s report into the Central Bank bond sales had been prepared in violation of the internationally-accepted process.

However, president Maithripala Sirisena gave a telephone call to the AG recently and advised him not to allow any politician to cover up acts of fraud and corruption and to work bravely for the public’s sake.

That follows reports that a government minister had threatened the AG, after he had sent a copy of a report he had requested to the speaker.

The president has said that he was very much worried that he was forced to cohabit with a gang of thieves, after previously having abandoned a government run by a ‘royal family of thieves’, say AG’s department sources.

AG is playing a vital role against the corrupted Minister including the Finance Minister, who severely criticised the AG in the parliament recently.

Premajayantha’s fury at FCID linked to Rs.10370 million

January 27, 2017

Minister Susil Premajayantha has stated that FCID is illegal and a reliable source states he has made this statement as the FCID has commenced an investigation into a serious financial fraud said to have committed by him.

The investigation is being carried out on a fraud of Rs. 1,037,800,000 when importing 8 ships of fuel when Mr. Premajayantha was the Minister of Petroleum Resources Development.

Normally, when buying fuel the process followed is to order for the average price in the market. However, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation had ordered this stock of fuel at the highest price in the market due to pressure from Minister Premajayantha. As a result Petroleum Corporation had to incur a massive loss but Minister Premajayantha has received a massive illegal profit states the complaint.

The investigations on the complaint have been hindered due to the pressure from stalwarts of the government and it is said that the reason for Mr. Premajayantha to join the ‘joint’ government is the complaint regarding this fraud.

The sudden attack on the FCID could be the fear that the complaint would be investigated.

This reveals that Mr. Maithripala Sirisena too, following in the footsteps of Mahinda Rajapaksa, is using complaints of frauds and corruption to manipulate ministers and MPs.

Coal racket continues!

Jan 27, 2017

This is the third article on Lanka Coal Company. Even before the second one was published, former chairman of the company Maithri Gunaratne sent a written response to the first article titled ‘Where is this Maithri?”. Respecting the right to reply, we published his response without any change.

Before starting on the third article, we thought it would be apt to say this. We are never here to settle personal scores or to help anyone to do so. Our media usage has nothing to do with character assassination. We cannot do anything if anyone wears the hat if it fits, following our revelations. That is the choice of that person. We have to stress the very same to Mr. Gunaratne too. We do not want to attack your privacy. We are talking about the Lanka Coal company.

The December 30 auditor general’s report was special, in that it revealed the irregularities in the purchases of coal. After studying the entire purchase process and going by the observations and the conclusions, it is only fair to ask the question as to what purpose Lanka Coal company serve. Its conduct in carrying out its responsibilities with regard to coal purchases is highly questionable.

The special standing procurement committee appointed by the cabinet on 03rd of March last year gave a tender to Adani Global to supply 260,000 mt of coal at 50.25 dollars per ton. However, only 146,117 tons were supplied and 113,883 mt were not. However, Lanka Coal did not notice that. That is how the company had disregarded its duties.

Furthermore, when the balance 113,883 mt of coal could have been purchased from Adani Nobel at 50.25 dollars under that tender, the same company was given another tender to supply at 64.77 dollars per ton. As a result, the CEB had to pay 14.52 dollars in excess, which translates into a loss of Rs. 240 million, according to the AG’s report. Can Lanka Coal’s irresponsible conduct here be pardoned?

Also, as per addendum 13 of the state procurement code of 2006, suppliers should get registered for all contracts worth over Rs. five million, under clause 8 of the state contracts act no 13 of 1987. However, Lanka Coal had disregarded this requirement until its fifth purchase. From 2009, six long-term purchases had been made, but no proper method has been introduced to measure the size of the coal to be supplied. The tender file in question only mentions it as ‘will be notified later.’ Not only that, the formula to measure the size of the coal had also been given wrong in the sixth purchase.

Lanka Coal has the responsibility of preparing the tender file. However, it has been unable to rectify its shortcomings in the past six years. The technical committee and the tender board have no responsibility in that regard. How can it be justified that the responsible party has failed to fulfill that responsibility.  

The AG’s report also observes a lack of coordination among Lanka Coal, subject ministry, Ceylon Shipping Corporation and the CEB. From 2009, the tender documents had been amended and the adverse impacts caused thereby to the suppliers have not been addressed, causing the entire tender process to be halted due to appeals.

At every shipment, samples are obtained and checked for quality. Until that report is received, the full payments are not made. However, the audit report notes that payments have been made in violation of that. For the shipment no. 100, the sample was obtained on 03 February 2016 and the quality report made available on 09 March, but the final payment was made by 08 February. For the shipment no. 101, the sample was obtained on 15 February 2016 and the quality report made available on 08 April but the final payment was made by 24 February. In that manner, payments for three shipments had been made outside the due process. Lanka Coal company had the responsibility. But, why did it did not take that responsibility? These are not imaginary, but are observations of the auditor general. Based on these observations, the AG has determined that the relevant authorities should consider if an institution that has acted against interests of the state should be continued.

Ashika Brahmana

Previous article

Shady deals of Ceylon Coal Company

International laws in armed conflict 

By Neville Ladduwahetty-January 27, 2017

Continued from yesterday

POST-CONFLICT APPLICATION of IHRL and IHL

The position originally adopted by some participating in the e-mail exchange was that IHRL and IHL concurrently apply in Armed Conflict. Since then they have conceded that the Law applicable to Armed Conflict of a non-International nature is IHL and furthermore that it is applicable up to the cessation of hostilities in Sri Lanka in May 2009. Their original position that IHRL and IHL concurrently applied was influenced by a misguided notion that such a position would strengthen Sri Lanka’s hand to address issues of accountability and also defend the interests of the security forces better. However, what is evident from the foregoing is that the concurrent application of IHRL and IHL is in fact detrimental to Sri Lanka’s interests.

Since it has been conceded that only IHL applies up to the cessation of hostilities i.e. May 2009, it means that their original position would have jeopardized the interests of not only Sri Lanka but also those of the security forces. Acknowledging this reversal is a manifestation of integrity that is rare and therefore noteworthy. What is even more heartening is that since IHL is more restrictive in its application and offers greater latitude when engaging in an Armed Conflict, Sri Lanka would be in a better position to meet the charges leveled against it since most of these occurred prior to May 2009 than under their previous position that IHRL and IHL operated concurrently.

Notwithstanding these clarifications it is important to note that the ruling by the ICTY was that IHL continues to apply "beyond the cessation of hostilities until a general conclusion of peace is reached; or in the case of internal conflicts, a peaceful settlement is achieved". Furthermore, although there was no formal peace settlement, the rationale behind using this ICTY ruling to advantage is that if IHL is applicable ONLY up to May 2009, IHRL cannot be enlarged beyond "hard core human rights" until conflict related issues are resolved. Considering the realities that prevailed post May 2009 such as the situation in Manik Farm and other detention camps, the presence of land mines in undisclosed locations, security related issues from potential acts of terrorism, and identifying former LTTE combatants from bona-fide civilians as well as the challenges associated with providing humanitarian assistance to over 300,000 displaced that included combatants, it would be unrealistic to expect IHRL to operate fully beyond May 2009 without first addressing issues relating to human safety. .

The need to restrict personal liberties until conflict related issues are resolved is addressed in Article 2 Section 2 of the Additional Protocol II. This states: "At the end of an armed conflict, all persons who have been deprived of their liberty or whose liberty has been restricted for reasons relating to such conflict, as well as those deprived of their liberty or whose liberty is restricted after the conflict for the same reasons, shall enjoy the protection of Articles 5 and 6 until the end of such deprivation or restriction of liberty". These are all provisions of IHL.

A more compelling reason not to apply IHRL and IHL concurrently immediately after hostilities cease is that the starting point to relax IHRL is the "hard core human rights". Therefore, the transition process must necessarily be gradual. How gradual is a subjective call that needs to be handled with caution if unintended complexities are to be prevented. Under the circumstances stated above and strengthened by the rulings of ICTY and ICRC the applicable Law beyond the cessation of hostilities should be IHL.

CONCLUSION

This article is the result of a debate between two divergent views as to which International Laws govern non-International Armed Conflicts such as in Sri Lanka. Although Sri Lanka’s conflict had been categorized as one that defeated Terrorism or as a Humanitarian Operation, it has now come to be accepted as a non-International Armed Conflict. Despite this categorization of Sri Lanka’s conflict as an Armed Conflict, which particular International Laws are relevant to issues of accountability have not been explored.

The position advocated by me since 2008 was based on the ruling by the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) appointed by the Security Council. My position was that the conflict in Sri Lanka was an Armed Conflict and as such the International Law that should govern the conflict was International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Furthermore, that IHL should apply to the whole territory up to the cessation of hostilities and beyond. The position advocated by others was that International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law should apply concurrently. It is heartening to note that the latter group has now revisited their position and acknowledged that IHL applies up the end of hostilities which in the case of Sri Lanka was May 2009.

The UN official publication cited above titled ""INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ARMED CONFLICT" by the United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner, New York and Geneva, 2011 states: "Two arguments have specifically been raised against their concurrent application. Firstly, it has been argued that international human rights law and international humanitarian law are regimes that apply in separate contexts – namely the former in peace time only and the latter in armed conflict – and that concurrent or complementary application is therefore, irrelevant. Second, it has also been argued that if both bodies of law are applicable in situations of armed conflict, then the question is whether one body of law would have pre-eminence over the other as a matter of lex specialis" (p.54).

The fact that there are two equally valid positions depends on one body of law being pre-eminent over the other. However, the pre-eminent law is IHL because the provisions of IHRL are derogated to the point that only the "hard core human rights" prevail during an Armed Conflict. Therefore, the task is not to condemn one and extol the other but to find which position would best serve the interests of the security forces and Sri Lanka.

All of the above is academic to many readers. However, its impact on Sri Lanka and in particular the fate of the security forces could be significant. Therefore, it is of extreme importance that a clear and unambiguous determination is made as to the International Laws that should regulate investigations relating to accountability – should it be IHL throughout the conflict and thereafter until conflict related issues are resolved, or IHL up to May 2009 with IHRL and IHL applied concurrently thereafter.

Such a determination should factor in the following statements in the Preamble to the Additional Protocol II of 1977 on which IHL is based. The relevant statements are: "Recalling furthermore that international instruments relating to human rights offer a BASIC (emphasis added) protection to the human person" and "Emphasizing the need to ensure a BETTER (emphasis added) protection for the victims of armed conflicts". This underscores the pre-eminence of IHL in Armed Conflicts.

Unless and until these issues are resolved there would not be a clear remit to the judicial process particularly because the UNHRC of 2015 Resolution, A/HRC/30/L.29 states that the judicial mechanism should "investigate allegations of violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, as applicable". Since the words "as applicable" are vital there is a need to identify which International Laws are applicable to accountability related issues.

Braving Israeli bullets in Gaza’s sea

A portrait of Muhammad al-Hissi is held up during a protest held in Gaza City three days after his disappearance.Mohammed AsadAPA images

Nesma Seyam-26 January 2017

Gaza’s fishermen have already endured regular Israeli attacks during the first few weeks of 2017.

On 4 January, Muhammad al-Hissi went missing after the Israeli navy sunk the vessel on which he worked. Although his body has not been recovered, members of his family have resigned themselves to the probability that al-Hissi was killed.

A memorial service was organized for al-Hissi a few days after he went missing, while his family issued a statement describing him as a “martyr for God’s reward.” Aged 33, he was the father of three children.

“He is an excellent swimmer – like all fishermen,” said Muhammad’s brother Wael. “He would have made it to the shore if he was alive.”

The incident occurred off Sudaniya Beach in northern Gaza. An Israeli navy gunboat rammed directly into the fishing vessel, which belongs to Rashad al-Hissi, Muhammad’s cousin, causing it to capsize. No warning was issued before the attack.

An Israeli army spokesperson told the Ma’an News Agency that “naval forces were escorting a Palestinian fishing boat which had deviated from the Israeli-designated fishing zone to a port … when ‘the Israeli vessel collided with another Palestinian vessel which was not visible.’”

Safe area?

Jamal al-Hissi, also a cousin of Muhammad, was in another vessel a few hundred meters away at the time. He said that the vessel carrying Muhammad was shot at by live ammunition and flooded by water cannons.

“We were fishing around five nautical miles offshore, which is supposed to be a safe area,” Jamal said. “In the blink of an eye, the vessel vanished and Muhammad disappeared.”

Nizar Ayyash, head of the Gaza fishing union, accused the Israeli authorities of deception.

“The Israeli gunboat drowned the vessel,” he said. “Then the Israelis lit flares, claiming to look for the missing fisherman.”

A number of other attacks against fishermen have taken place since then.

On 12 January, Israeli naval ships opened fire at fishermen working off Khan Younis in southern Gaza.

Four days later, Israel shot at fishermen in the northern Gaza area. Five fishermen were taken into detention.

Anas Siyam and his father, Imad, were among those arrested. They were held until the following day.

“We were operating within the permitted fishing area,” Anas said. “Yet they still arrested us and confiscated our net, power generator and the boat itself.”

On 17 January, a fisherman was injured after the Israeli navy fired rubber-coated steel bullets at him. That incident, too, occurred in the northern Gaza area.

Another fisherman was shot in the head with a rubber-coated steel bullet six days later. The fisherman in question, Auranus al-Sultan, was one of those who had been detained by Israel the previous week.

Under the 1993 Oslo accords signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, Israel is supposed to allow fishermen to work freely within 20 nautical miles of the Gaza coastline.

Israel has, however, used the tightened siege it imposed on Gaza in 2007 as a pretext to launch frequent – sometimes daily – attacks on the 4,000 fishermen living and working in the strip. Over the past decade, Israel has only allowed fishing within three to six nautical miles and has repeatedly changed the official limits.

On many occasions, Israel has attacked fishermen working inside the limits it has set.

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights recorded a total of 126 incidents in which fishing vessels were fired upon by Israel during 2016. More than 130 people were detained by Israeli forces while they were on fishing vessels last year, five of whom were children. Twelve of Gaza’s fishermen were injured as a result of Israeli attacks.

Drop in earnings

Fayez al-Amoudi, a resident of Beach refugee camp in Gaza City, began his fishing career in the 1990s.

“I still remember the sudden drop in our earnings after the limit was shrunk to six nautical miles,” he said. “Besides the physical harassment, we are continuously subjected to verbal and psychological harassment. The Israeli navy has flooded us with sewage water while we are on board our vessels.”

Marwan al-Saidi has been working as a fisherman for more than four decades.

“The last 10 years have been the worst,” he said. “I have no idea why the Israeli authorities designate fishing limits if they are intent on harassing fishermen working within the limits. They know that fishing is the only source of living for us. Our belongings are constantly confiscated and we are expected to stay silent about this treatment and take it.”

Nesma Seyam is an interpreter, journalist and fixer based in Gaza. Twitter: @Nesma_Seyam

Fake News, Propaganda and Threats to Journalism

One important way in which propaganda manifests itself, and perhaps the one which is most frequently associated with propagandistic communication, involves some form of deception. Whether through outright lying, omission of important information, distortion or misdirection, propaganda frequently involves manipulation through deceiving people with respect to reality.

by Piers Robinson- Jan 26, 2017

(January 26, 2017, Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian) Threats to journalism and journalistic autonomy come in many forms. At the most extreme, journalists are directly threatened, intimidated and, all too frequently, harmed by political actors seeking to influence the ‘information environment’.

As a form of coercion, aimed at controlling what journalists write and say, threats and attacks can be understood as a form of propaganda: as a kind of ‘propaganda of the deed’ they function not only to silence individual journalists but also to send an unequivocal message to other journalists.

More common forms of propaganda involve approaches to shaping perceptions and actions through the manipulation of information. Although of a different scale to threats and killings, their effect can also be profoundly damaging to the autonomy of journalists. Understood by some to refer to any form of persuasive communication, most definitions of propaganda throughout the 20th and 21st century have recognised that, at some level, propaganda is a form of persuasion that works via manipulation and subversion of the rational will.

One important way in which propaganda manifests itself, and perhaps the one which is most frequently associated with propagandistic communication, involves some form of deception. Whether through outright lying, omission of important information, distortion or misdirection, propaganda frequently involves manipulation through deceiving people with respect to reality.

For Western publics, the most recent high-profile and well-documented example of this occurred in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. During this period, through a combination of distortion and omission, US and UK government information campaigns misled many people into believing there was a clear and imminent threat from Iraqi WMD.  As Chilcot, (chair of the Iraq Inquiry) recently noted, Tony Blair went ‘beyond the facts of the case’ in promoting the war against Iraq.

Of course, recently, the issue of deception and manipulation has become a major focal point for debate in the so-called ‘fake news’ crisis. Much of this debate has been driven by concerns from within the liberal centre ground that political crises surrounding the debate in the UK over Brexit, and the election of Trump as US President, have been fuelled by the resort to outright lies by anti-establishment actors utilising alternative media outlets.

At the same time, the term ‘fake news’ has itself become a propaganda meme providing a useful shorthand to discredit information being provided by alternative media, whether truthful or deceptive, and serving to underpin the frequent allegations being levelled at Russia with respect to interference in the US elections and its military actions in Syria. At this point, no evidence has been presented to confirm the allegations being levelled at Russia. Moreover, there has been little sustained mainstream media attention to the content of the DNC (Democratic National Congress) leaks/hack which have fuelled so much of the controversy regarding the US elections and alleged Russian information warfare.

Indeed, these leaked/hacked emails, released by Wikileaks, showed that the DNC actively favoured Clinton over Sanders during the primaries whilst evidence of question fixing with CNN was also revealed. There are no serious challenges to the authenticity of these emails and, as such, they do not appear to be actual examples of fake news. This has not stopped, however, media coverage linking Russia with the leaks and, arguably, conflating all of this with a fake news/propaganda narrative. Moreover, whilst the fake news debate has been overwhelmingly focused on alternative media and external actors (i.e. Russia), little attention has been paid to the use of deception and propaganda by Western governments.

Moving beyond claims and counter-claims regarding fake news, bias and deception, it is also critical to recognise that propaganda involves coordinated actions and activities beyond simply the crafting of manipulative media messages: It also involves the mobilisation of resources and physical actions.

For example, in relation to the current Syrian conflict, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton authorised the ‘training for more than a thousand (Syrian) activists, students, and independent journalists’ in order to promote her regime change preference in 2011. More prominently, the much-lauded White Helmets Syria Civil Defence entity has been critiqued for its function as a pro-intervention propaganda tool. This group, apparently set up to rescue injured civilians in Syria, and which has been an important source for Western mainstream media outlets, is heavily funded by Western governments and associated only with opposition groups and opposition-held areas.

We are also witnessing a worrying increase in organised attempts to silence dissenting voices here in the West. For example, the apparently self-styled Propornot entity now provides a list of news sites which it claims to be distributing Russian propaganda, whilst Professorwatch blacklists US professors accused (anonymously) for alleged liberal bias and ‘anti-American values’.

It is likely that these, and similar activities, are contributing to a significant restriction of freedom of expression here in the West, as well as across non-liberal democratic states, and are inhibiting news media from performing their expected roles as watchdogs and truth seekers. Indeed, as has recently been argued by Louis Allday, individuals challenging official claims regarding Syria have frequently been met with tirades of abuse whilst former British Ambassador to Syria Peter Ford and mainstream commentator Peter Hitchens have recently both stated that Western publics are being profoundly misled with regard to the reality of the situation in Syria.

We must now seriously entertain the possibility that the war in Syria has involved similar, if not greater, levels of manipulation and propaganda than that which occurred in the case of the 2003 Iraq War: In a nutshell, it appears increasingly likely that a Western-backed regime-change operation in Syria, which includes the supporting and arming of extremist groups, has been obscured via a propaganda campaign aimed at demonising Assad’s autocratic regime and promoting a simplistic narrative of good vs. evil.

Does it go too far to say there is now a crisis across Western public spheres whereby propaganda and ‘fake news’ emanating from mainstream media and governments has created a situation in which there is ‘major media malfunction’?

There probably is a crisis. Government communications strategies involving deceptive combinations of exaggeration and omission, as well as probably occasional outright lies, and the organisation of entities whose objective it is to shape the information environment, including via the intimidation of dissent and free thought, mean that journalistic autonomy and freedom are under severe threat.

When a country can be invaded based upon spurious and bogus claims regarding weapons of mass destruction whilst a second subjected to a five-year-long regime-change war based upon, it seems likely, propaganda and lies, all within the space of 10 years, there are signs that something is seriously wrong. The means are less brutal than those instances of threat and violence usually seen outside the West. But they are, nonetheless, effective. Before casting stones, the West needs to get its own house in order.

Professor Piers Robinson is chair in politics, society and political journalism at the the University of Sheffield.

Copyright © Professor Piers Robinson, Spinwatch, 2017

No evidence Isis leader killed or captured

“Trump Captures Isis Leader on Day One of Airstrikes” – yournewswire.com, 23 January 2017

• 26 JAN 2017

The background

A rumour has been echoing around the web that the leader of the so-called Islamic State group was seriously injured or even captured by the US-led coalition fighting his forces in Iraq early this week.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the man who claimed to have created a new Islamic caliphate in 2014, was said to have been the target of a successful airstrike.

Several UK news sites ran with the news that there were local reports of an attack on al-Baghdadi a social media meme quickly sprang up, with supporters of new US president Donald Trump claiming a major victory for the incoming administration.

This appears to be wishful thinking on their part. There is actually no evidence that any harm has come to Baghdadi, and the US military appears to be working on the assumption that he is still at large.

The analysis

This story has been widely shared and retweeted, with Trump supporters hailing a major military success for the new President.

Many posters linked to articles on dubious news sites which reported Baghdadi’s capture with no evidence or sources provided.

On Monday, several British newspaper websites – including the Express, the Mail, the Sun and the Mirror, ran with the story that there were local claims of the self-styled “caliph” being “badly” or “critically “injured by a coalition airstrike on al-Ba’aj in northern Iraq.

All attributed the claims to local reports, with no further details of sources given.

The Sun noted that Baghdadi’s death has been reported several times in the past, but Pentagon officials believe he is still alive.

A news site with a network of local sources called Iraq Oil Reportreported that “rumours” were spreading among Iraqi forces – mainly the Shia militia fighters of the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) – that al-Baghdadi was pinned down in the Ba’aj area by a US-led operation.

This article didn’t mention physical harm befalling the Isis leader and was careful to say that the story was just an unverified rumour.

Iraq Oil Report hasn’t run a follow-up story on al-Baghdadi’s supposed involvement, so there’s nothing to suggest that this was more than just a battlefield rumour.

A Twitter feed associated with the PMF went further, saying Baghdadi had reportedly been killed or captured. The tweet urged readers to “stay tuned”. But no more claims or evidence was forthcoming and the feed hasn’t referred to Baghdadi since then.

On Monday, Fox News producer Lucas Tomlinson tweeted that the Pentagon believed the story to be false, citing unnamed officials.

A spokesman for United States Central Command told FactCheck: “We are aware of the reports in the media regarding Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi but we have no information to confirm these reports.”

He added: “The reward offered by the Department of State has not changed” and directed us to the US State Department page offering a $25m reward for information that leads to the terror leader being brought to justice.

Trump effect?

Donald Trump supporters were quick to claim the hit on al-Baghdadi as a victory for the new administration, with some contrasting the apparent quick win for Trump with Obama’s failure to kill or capture him.

Apart from the obvious problem that there is no real evidence of any harm coming to the Isis leader, there is a second problem with the timing.

Even if al-Baghdadi was killed or injured, the reports refer to an attack on Sunday 22 January, the day before Donald Trump’s first working day as president, and James Mattis’s first full day as Secretary of Defense.

For this to have anything to do with the Trump team, you would have to believe that they assumed instant direct operational control of US military strikes in Iraq over the inauguration weekend, before actually arriving at their desks.

In fact, there is no evidence yet of the new administration putting any change of tactics against Isis into operation yet.

Before being elected, Trump promised a new tougher strategy against the Islamist insurgency in Iraq.

He pledged that on his very first day in charge, he would “convene my top generals and give them a simple instruction: They will have 30 days to submit to the Oval Office a plan for defeating Isis”.

Trump’s movements on Monday were well covered by the US press, and there was no mention of any meetings with generals. Even if it had happened, it’s clear that the new “plan for defeating Isis” doesn’t exist yet.

Some of the reporting around this on dubious news sites patently false on this point, claiming that Trump fulfilled this campaign promise when there is no evidence that he did.

The verdict

There’s no firm evidence that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been injured, killed or captured.

The source for this appears to be an unverified rumour among militia fighters in Iraq, and nothing emerged subsequently to firm it up.

The US military has told us they cannot confirm the reports but as far as they are concerned, the reward for information leading to al-Baghdadi’s capture is still very much up for grabs.

Many apparently false reports of Baghdadi’s demise have emerged in the past.

Even if Baghdadi had been hit by an airstrike on Sunday, it would be very difficult for any senior members of the Trump administration to try to take credit for this, as none of them had begun their first working day when the bombs fell.

As so often, some of the reporting around this on alternative internet news sites has been wildly inaccurate.

Trump’s Ruinous Stance on Mexico Threatens America

If Trump continues to undermine Mexico, he would make the United States less prosperous and less secure.

BY DAN RESTREPO-JANUARY 27, 2017

Well, that did not take long. President Donald Trump has impulse-tweeted his way to his first diplomatic crisis and seems intent on destabilizing Mexico, one of the United States’ most important partners.

If Trump continues to recklessly squeeze the Mexican economy, undermine the Mexican rule of law, and fuel Mexican nationalism, he would soon unleash a full-blown national security crisis that would make the United States less prosperous and less secure.

Undermining Mexico is no minor thing; Mexico is the United States’ third-largest trading partner and the United States is by far Mexico’s most important economic partner. Mexico ranks second among U.S. export markets and more than 40 percent of the value added in Mexican exports to the United States is of U.S. origin. In 2015, total bilateral trade amounted to $531.1 billion. Mexico is also a critical security and counternarcotics partner.

In recent years, migration from Mexico, in no small measure because of its enhanced prosperity, has basically dried up — the vast majority of migrants crossing the Southwest border into the United States are from elsewhere in the Americas and the world. But a surefire way to restart Mexican migration would be to plunge Mexico’s economy into crisis. We last saw that when the so-called 1994-1995 Tequila Crisis contributed to high levels of migration through the early 2000s.

The weakness of Mexico’s currency shows how Trump has systematically undermined the Mexican economy by creating uncertainty about the U.S.-Mexico partnership at every turn. The day after Trump’s election victory, for example, was the Mexican peso’s worst day since the 1994-1995 crisis. Now, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto’s canceling of his Jan. 31 meeting with Trump has erased the peso’s steady recovery in recent days, when it seemed something like normality was returning to the partnership.

Trump’s plan to build a border wall funded by U.S. taxpayers — that his own Homeland Security secretary says won’t work — and then somehow extort payment while threatening big border taxes for goods entering from Mexico only further undermines our neighbor’s economy and stability. As if these “unintended” consequences were not proof enough that Trump is in over his head, the border wall executive order’s call for a report on the last five years of U.S. assistance to Mexico shows that whoever wrote it does not have the first clue about the relationship. The White House should not hold its breath waiting for a number found in a basic Google search if it thinks assistance somehow gives it leverage to extract “payment” for Trump’s wall.

Credible estimates of the cost of Trump’s U.S. taxpayer-funded wall put the price tag at $25 billion to build and $7.5 billion to maintain. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service puts total U.S. assistance to Mexico during the past five years at $1.1 billion. At that rate, it will take 100 years of withholding future assistance to break even just on construction costs. Even if the math worked,
withholding assistance, much of it dedicated to supporting rule-of-law reform, would be counterproductive. Mexico needs more effective courts and better police — for the benefit of both countries — as more effective rule of law is key to Mexico’s long-term stability and prosperity.

The president’s destabilization efforts do not stop at his wall obsession. Nor do they stop at self-defeating threats to cut assistance. They extend to his de facto policy of mass deportation, set in motion with yet another executive order. A major influx of deported nationals to Mexico would add economic and social tension to a country already struggling with the economic effects of belligerent tweets and the low price of oil.

Beyond the direct negative effects of the president’s actions, he is making us less safe by stoking Mexican nationalism, making it harder for Peña Nieto and political leaders to maintain the role of the adult in the relationship and seek cooperation with the United States.

Eventually, political reality will force the hand of Mexico’s political leaders to do more than cancel visits to Washington. When it does, the breakdown in cooperation, including vital security partnerships, will have an immediate effect on U.S. security interests. Antagonizing Mexico is precisely the opposite of what needs to happen if the United States, Mexico, and others are going to effectively manage the security crisis unfolding in the Northern Triangle of Central America.

Trump speaks of Mexico as if it was a source of chaos and conflict that endangers the United States. It is not. But unless the president quickly comes to his senses, his policies might make for a self-fulfilling prophecy and harm hundreds of millions of Americans and Mexicans.

Photo credit: YURI CORTEZ/AFP/Getty Images