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

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Vidya’s soul seeks justice in front of AG’s dept! 

Vidya’s soul seeks justice in front of AG’s dept!

 Feb 07, 2017

The entire country was heated up with the news of Sivaloganathan Vidya, a schoolgirl of Pungudutivu in Jaffna being gang-raped by nine men and murdered on 13 May 2015. Now, it seems excepting her parents and relatives, that flames have ceased to exist. It is clear that instead of ensuring justice for Vidya, attempts have been made by the judicial process to get one of the criminals, a friend of a powerful figure, cleared.

Previously too, we exposed how Colombo University law faculty’s dean Prof. V.T. Thamilmaran and Lalith A. Jayasinghe, the Jaffna senior DIG then and Batticaloa senior DIG now, aided Mahalingam Sasikumar alias Swiss Kumar who had masterminded the crime, to escape and flee the country. That article is affixed herewith.
Reports reaching us say that conspiracy is still very much on within the judiciary and the attorney general’s department. As measures were being taken to arrest those who had aided the criminal to flee, a senior advocate of the AG’s department has advised the police thus, “Those who will get caught are known to us. Therefore, let’s see if this can be settled internally through talks.” The ‘pupils’ of Prof. Thamilmaran have become so powerful in the department that they could see the planned abduction, gang-rape and murder of a schoolgirl by nine criminals as one that can be ‘settled through talks’.
However, the Jaffna magistrate is concerned over the developments and has told a group of lawyers, “See, nothing has been done against the criminals in one and a half years. How can we safeguard the public confidence in the judiciary?” If the law continues to keep silent over such incidents that will create a situation in which the people will take the law into their hands. What will happen again cannot be said after the Jaffna public rose up against the releasing of Swiss Kumar by the police just days after the crime.
The tragedy of Vidya’s soul weeping and asking for justice in front of the AG’s department is happening now. Lanka News Web is ready to bring to you another article with the identities of the accomplices to this crime.

'An assassination': Palestinians call for action over Israeli land-grab law


Officials say aim of law enabling Israel to expropriate Palestinian property is annexation of most of West Bank, and call for international sanctions

Israeli security forces lead away a settler from Amona - but Israel's new law allows the government to expropriate Palestinian land (AFP)

Sheren Khalel-Tuesday 7 February 2017
BETHLEHEM, Occupied West Bank - Israel's Knesset was accused of "assassinating" prospects for a two-state peace settlement on Tuesday as Palestinians, the international community and Israeli human rights groups condemned the passing into law of a bill set to legalise the expropriation of privately-owned Palestinian land in the illegally occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The vote, which passed 60-52 on Monday, was brought to the floor just days after Israeli forces evacuated the Israeli settlement outpost of Amona, in accordance with an Israeli High Court ruling.
The legislation was praised by members of the Israeli right, such as Shuli Moalem-Refaeli - the chair of the Jewish Home party and one of the co-sponsors of the bill - who said the law will mean Israelis living in Israeli settlements, “will no longer be a target for extremist left-wing organisations that seek to destroy and to damage settlements,” according to Israeli daily Haaretz.

READ: Israel legalises settler homes on private Palestinian land

But Mustafa Barghouti , the leader of the Palestinian National Initiative movement, told Middle East Eye that the legislation signalled a turning point in Palestinian-Israeli relations.
“This law is an assassination of the two-state solution,” Barghouti said. “It is an act that aims at annexing most of the land in the West Bank.”
While Israeli authorities already had the ability to confiscate Palestinian land under security auspices as well as declarations of state-land usages, the new legislation now means privately owned Palestinian land can be confiscated exclusively for settlement building, which is deemed illegal under international law.
“I am sure the next step for Israel will be to annex the Maale Adumim settlement,” Barghouti said, referring to an illegal Israeli settlement located in the E1 zone of the occupied West Bank.
“In other words, Israel is legalising settlements, with the intention of annexing them into Israel, that will be the cycle now.”
Barghouti’s predictions are in line with Israeli MK Bezalel Smotrich, another co-sponsor of the law, who called the legislation a “historic step toward the completion of a process that we plan to lead; the application of full Israeli sovereignty on all the cities and communities in Judea and Samaria [the term used by the Israeli government to refer to the West Bank].”
The bill’s passing marks the first time the Knesset parliament has ever passed legislation exerting jurisdiction over the West Bank.

'Grounds for sanctions'

“This law is without a doubt grounds for sanctions from the international community,” Barghouti said.
“And there is now no justification for the Palestinian Authority to delay a referral to the International Criminal Court - Israel should be confronted - any lack of punitive actions against Israel now should be considered acceptance of its actions.”

READ: Israel faces world anger over illegal settlement law

Husam Zumlot, the strategic affairs advisor for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, insisted that the next move in the political sphere must come from the international community.
“The two-state solution has always been a project of the international community that we have followed, but these questions regarding what needs to happen now are questions that need to be directed to the international community,” Zumlot said.
“The international community must decide what it is going to do, vis-a-vis this project, because this legislation is Netanyahu responding to the recent United Nations resolution passed against settlements, the French initiative, and the international community in general.”
Zumlot added that the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) had plans to “convene immediately” to discuss the move.
“Once they convene they will take the necessary steps to safeguard national interests of the people,” he said.
Abbas, who was in Paris for talks with French President Francois Hollande, described the law as an "attack against our people" which was against the wishes of the international community.
Hanan Ashrawi, a PLO executive committee member, expressed similar views, calling for sanctions and punitive actions on Tuesday.

'Ethnic cleansing'

“It is imperative that the international community, including the United States and the European Union, assumes its moral, human and legal responsibilities and puts an end to Israel’s lawlessness and its system of apartheid and ethnic cleansing,” she said.
Israel's new settlement law
What does it say?
It allows Israel to expropriate private Palestinian land on which settlers illegally built outposts. Palestinian landowners would be compensated with cash or given alternative plots.
How many properties?
Settlement watchdog Peace Now says it covers between 53 and 55 outposts set up without formal approval from Israeli authorities. International law considers all settlements to be illegal, but Israel distinguishes between those it sanctions and those it does not. A total of 3,900 homes will now be recognised by Israel, Peace Now says.
Will it be enforced?
Experts, including Israel's attorney general, say the law is likely to be struck down by Israel's Supreme Court and several Israeli NGOs have already announced plans to petition the court.
Israeli political context
The bill was promoted by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked and Education Minister Naftali Bennett, both of the far-right Jewish Home party and members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition government. Netanyahu at first criticised it but eventually dropped his overt opposition and did not vote.
“Accountability should include punitive measures and sanctions before it is too late.”
Issa Amro, a Palestinian activist and founder of Youth Against Settlements, told MEE that the PA must take any avenue possible to garner support for punitive actions against Israel by the international community, from the ICC to the UN, and bilateral state actions.
He added that the PA should also encourage Palestinians to stand up against the legislation in the street.
“We need civil disobedience on the ground,” Amro said. “The PA should encourage civil disobedience on the ground to show our opposition for Israel’s actions.”
Israeli rights’ group B’Tselem called the legislation a “disgrace for the state and its legislature”.
“The law passed by the Knesset today proves yet again that Israel has no intention of ending its control over the Palestinians or its theft of their land,” the group said in a statement.
“Passing the bill mere weeks after UN Security Council Resolution 2334 [in which the council condemned Israeli settlement activity as a "flagrant violation" of international law] is a slap in the face of the international community. While enshrining the dispossession in law is a new development, in practice it is another facet of the massive land grab carried out openly for decades by declaring 'state land'.”
Meanwhile, Omar Shakir, the Israel and Palestine Country Director at Human Rights Watch, said the legislation “undoes years of established Israeli law.”
“Coming just weeks after the Security Council’s unanimous passage of Resolution 2234 on the illegality of settlements, [the legislation] reflects Israel’s manifest disregard of international law,” Shakir said.
“The bill further entrenches the current reality in the West Bank of de facto permanent occupation where Israeli settlers and Palestinians living in the same territory are subject to ‘separate and unequal’ systems of laws, rules and services.”
Shakir ended his statement with a dig at US President Donald Trump’s budding relationship with Israel, stating that “Israeli officials driving settlement policy should know that the Trump administration cannot shield them from the scrutiny of the International Criminal Court, where the prosecutor continues to examine unlawful Israeli settlement activity.”

European pension funds still profit from Israel’s war crimes

Israeli soldiers stand guard near the Israeli settlement of Beitar Illit in 2014. The settlement is built on lands expropriated from the Palestinian village of Wadi Fukin, near Bethlehem, in the occupied West Bank.Ahmad Al-BazzActiveStills

Adri Nieuwhof-7 February 2017


Major European pension funds are profiting from the dispossession of the Palestinian people.

The Copenhagen-based research group Danwatch says in a new report that it has “identified European investments in a number of Israeli banks that finance, support, and facilitate illegal settlements.”

Danwatch says that the top five European investors hold $357 million in shares of five big Israeli banks that are heavily involved in colonizing the occupied West Bank.

A staggering 766,302 Israeli settlers lived in the occupied West Bank by December 2015, including 360,000 in East Jerusalem, according to figures cited by Israeli media, sourced to the interior ministry.

The population in the settlements in the West Bank has grown much faster than the rest of the Israeli population, a reflection of the priority Israel gives to colonizing the occupied territory.

Settler sewage

Faced with prohibitively expensive housing costs in present-day Israel, Israeli Jewish citizens are lured to the settlements with generous subsidies, tax breaks and easy connections to Jerusalem and other cities via a system of segregated roads.

Danwatch’s report includes a case study of Beitar Illit, a settlement of 50,000 near Bethlehem – and of its impact on the nearby Palestinian village of Wadi Fukin.

“The expansion of the settlements surrounding the town threatens its agriculture, since the settlers release sewage into the valley,” Danwatch states. “In addition, the army often closes the village entrance, or seals off areas or roads in the village, making it hard to grow, harvest and transport the crops to market.”

This brief video, included in the Danwatch report, shows Wadi Fukin mayor Ahmad Sokar talking about the impact of the expanding settlement, which can be seen in the background:


“I was three years old when the first settlers came. No one asked our permission. They just confiscated the village’s land and began building houses for settlers,” Sokar also told Danwatch. “Now there are 50,000 settlers, and we are nearly surrounded on all sides.”

Investing in settlement financiers

Israeli law requires developers that build settlements to partner with banks to guarantee financing and insurance. The banks also provide mortgages and services to settlers and settlement municipalities through branches in the colonies.

In 2014, the Dutch Pension fund PFZW (formerly PGGM) divested tens of millions of dollars from the five biggest Israeli banks because of their role in settlement construction.


But major European financial institutions continue to invest in these banks.

According to Danwatch, the Norwegian government pension fund, commonly known as the oil fund, is by far the largest investor, holding a total of $253 million in shares in all five of the Israeli banks.
And despite numerous calls to divest, the Dutch pension fund Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP holds $104 million worth of shares in three of the banks.

Two other major pension funds, one in Denmark and one in Sweden, hold no shares in the Israeli banks, according to Danwatch, but neither has placed the banks on their lists of excluded companies.

Settlement surge

Israel has announced plans for more than 6,000 new housing units in its illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank since January.

Even the administration of President Donald Trump – which has shown warmth to the settlers – weighed in unexpectedly last week, warning Israel that the continued expansion of settlements would not help the US achieve its goal of peace in the region.

Amnesty International called the flurry of settlement announcements a “brazen disregard” for international law.

“Israel’s policy of settling Jewish civilians in the occupied Palestinian territories violates international humanitarian law and amounts to war crimes,” Amnesty added. “It is also inherently discriminatory and has resulted in grave human rights violations including the destruction of homes, forced evictions, unlawful killings, arbitrary detentions and collective punishment.”

Last year, Human Rights Watch urged all companies to end any business in or with the settlements. It highlighted the role of Israeli banks in financing the settlements as particularly egregious. The group also urged governments to withhold aid to Israel over the issue.

All of Israel’s settlements are illegal under international law, as the UN Security Council reaffirmed in a much-publicized resolution in December.

“If Israel understands that the international community will take no meaningful steps to enforce the Council’s resolution, it will continue to intensify its settlement project undeterred,” UN special rapporteur on human rights for the occupied Palestinian territories Michael Lynk warned last week.

On Monday night, the Israeli parliament doubled down, passing a law to retroactively legitimize the theft of large tracts of privately owned Palestinian land in the West Bank. The move prompted another flurry of international condemnation, but no action by governments to hold Israel accountable.

Both the Norwegian state pension fund and Dutch fund ABP claim to adhere to ethical and social investment principles.

But by continuing to invest in Israeli banks they are aiding and profiting from Israel’s crimes.

U.N. chief says Israel settlement bill goes against international law

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres addresses a news conference on the sides of the 28th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the Heads of State and the Government of the African Union in Ethiopia's capital Addis Ababa January 30, 2017. REUTERS/Tiksa Negeri
A general view picture shows home in the Israeli outpost of Palgey Maim, in the occupied West Bank February 6, 2017. REUTERS/Baz Ratner

Wed Feb 8, 2017

The Israeli parliament's move to legalize thousands of settler homes in the occupied West Bank goes against international law and will have legal consequences for Israel, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was quoted as saying on Tuesday.

Palestinians have condemned the legislation approved by Israeli lawmakers on Monday as a blow to their hopes of statehood, but its passage may only be largely symbolic as it contravenes Israeli Supreme Court rulings on property rights.

The legislation retroactively legalizes about 4,000 settler homes built on privately owned Palestinian land.

"The Secretary-General deeply regrets the adoption of the (bill) ... This bill is in contravention of international law and will have far-reaching legal consequences for Israel," Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for Guterres, said in a statement.

"The Secretary-General insists on the need to avoid any actions that would derail the two-state solution," said Dujarric, referring to longstanding international efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israel's attorney-general has said the law is unconstitutional and that he will not defend it at the Supreme Court.

(Reporting by Rodrigo Campos; Editing by Matt Spetalnick and James Dalgleish)

Russia’s Last Opposition Hero

Vladimir Putin’s most vocal critic has survived crackdowns and intimidation. But Alexei Navalny’s latest gambit against the Kremlin may be his last.

Left: Alexei Navalny takes a selfie during a memorial march marking the one-year anniversary of the assassination of Boris Nemtsov on Feb. 27, 2016. (Photo by KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV/AFP/Getty Images) Right: Police officers arrest Navalny during a protest against Vladimir Putin's victory in presidential elections on Mar. 5, 2012. (Photo by ALEXANDER NEMENOV/AFP/Getty Images)

Vladimir Putin delivers a speech at a rally in Moscow during the presidential campaign on Feb. 23, 2012. (Photo by YURI KADOBNOV/AFP/Getty Images)-Riot police cordon off Triumfalnaya Square in central Moscow on Dec. 6, 2011 during a protest against Vladimir Putin's planned return as president. (Photo by KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV/AFP/Getty Images)--

BY OLIVER CARROLL-FEBRUARY 7, 2017

No automatic alt text available.MOSCOW — It wasn’t the slick video you would expect from a candidate running for president — the suit was oversized, the camera work uneasy, and the IKEA-framed family pictures too contrived — but its appearance in mid-December was a victory in itself. To stay under the radar of the Russian security services, locations had to be booked at the last minute, and the video itself was edited from hotel rooms. It was a remarkable coup. From a position of weakness, Alexei Navalny, the Kremlin’s most vocal critic, had managed to fire the starting pistol in Russia’s 2018 presidential campaign and present himself for a vacancy that no one, least of all Vladimir Putin, had advertised.

But while Navalny kicked off the long race toward the March 2018 elections, it’s unlikely he will ever be allowed a head-to-head run against Putin. Forces are already moving against him. A Moscow technology firm has closed the campaign’s crowd-funding account, apparently under pressure from state regulators. Top Kremlin figures have said they do not even consider his candidacy to be valid, citing disputed criminal convictions, which, under Russian law, would prevent him from running. Although the European Court of Human Rights has rendered a previous fraud verdict against Navalny as unlawful, that trial quickly reopened following the announcement of his candidacy. A new verdict is expected on Wednesday, and will likely settle the matter once and for all.

“I understand things won’t be fair,” Navalny told Foreign Policy in an interview in early January at his office, tucked away on the top floor of a business center in southeast Moscow. Dressed in jeans and sneakers, the onetime lawyer, anti-corruption activist, and opposition politician seemed keen to present a relaxed demeanor. “In the course of my political career, I’ve always had to deal with bogus criminal cases. It’s the Kremlin’s preferred method,” he says.
But given the clear authoritarian slide in Russia that has accelerated since 2011, his latest gambit could be a kamikaze moment — a final stand, perhaps, of a man out of options.
Navalny’s decision to run for the presidency — the first time he has dared to do so — puts him firmly in the crosshairs of the Kremlin. The political outsider has weathered pressure from the authorities and managed to emerge from previous trumped-up legal proceedings relatively intact. But given the clear authoritarian slide in Russia that has accelerated since 2011, his latest gambit could be a kamikaze moment — a final stand, perhaps, of a man out of options.

Despite his troubles, Navalny insists that he is no dissident. “Here I am in a nice office in central Moscow, drinking cappuccino and hiding from nobody,” he quipped. “I don’t understand why I should be frightened. Let them be frightened by me. Why should I give my country over to a mafia group, mediocre gangsters from St. Petersburg who somehow managed to pull the wool over a drunk Yeltsin’s eyes?” Navalny said, referring to how Putin and his inner circle came to power in the late 1990s.

Defiant as ever, the presidential announcement was a matter of standing up for Russia’s constitutional rights, Navalny says, regardless of the consequences: “They want everyone to play by their criminal rules, but I’m not a man to stay quiet, even if surrounded by serious-looking men in black helmets.”

A star is born

Navalny’s first challenge to the Kremlin was in December 2011. Then, he emerged as the central figure in an opposition movement born out of disputed parliamentary elections. He cut through the political field with highly memorable slogans such as his damning of the ruling United Russia Party as “the party of crooks and thieves,” which became somewhat of a national catchphrase, thrown around by giggling schoolchildren and pensioners alike. But it was with his audacious decision to lead his followers on a march to the Kremlin, on the night following the Dec. 4, 2011, elections, that he made his first claim to leadership.

Ultimately, the opposition candidate proved unable to capitalize on the moment. As the protest movement began to wane over the first half of 2012, so too did his star. With the newly “returned” Putin at the helm, the Kremlin regrouped, clamped down, and found various, effective ways of dealing with its most problematic foe.

This marked the start of Navalny’s incessant legal problems. The cases ranged from the far-fetched to the bizarre. He was accused of stealing a poster, having an extremist blog, and acquiring his lawyer credentials illegally. One of his companies had supposedly stolen assets from a liberal opposition party; he had swindled the director of Kirovles, a timber company in the small city of Kirov. This is the case that most likely will be used to derail Navalny in court before the 2018 presidential contest.

The endless stream of legal proceedings has kept Navalny busy — which, of course, is the point. But at the time it also seemed inevitable he would be sent to jail. Indeed, in the first run of the Kirovles case in July 2013, a regional judge sensationally sentenced him to five years of hard labor.

That would probably have been the end of Navalny’s story, were it not for something rather unusual in modern Russia. Unsanctioned and largely uncoordinated, up to 30,000 Muscovites risked arrest and took to the streets to protest the ruling. Police, who had expected merely a few dozen faithful, were overwhelmed, and the Kremlin was forced to backtrack. An appeal was granted, and the following day, Navalny was on a train back from Kirov to Moscow.

“The decision to release me came from above. When they saw the numbers that turned out, they must have figured that we could be back to the situation of 2011-2012, and then they panicked,” Navalny says.

In the summer of 2013, he launched a bid to be mayor of the Russian capital, squaring off against Putin appointee and loyalist Sergei Sobyanin. Eventually, the Kremlin allowed Navalny to run, calculating that he would barely register with voters in controlled local elections. Vycheslav Volodin, the man charged with overseeing domestic politics in the wake of the protest movement, was bullish at the time. “He said that when the internet hero Navalny met with reality, he could expect no more than 6 or 7 percent of the vote,” Navalny recalls.

Navalny proved Volodin wrong. Thousands of volunteers were signed up, Obama-style, to take the message to the people; the power of the internet was harnessed to the full; and Navalny worked himself into the ground, attending hundreds of events. According to official — but disputed — results, Navalny won 27 percent of the vote and nearly forced a runoff. From a cold start without significant mass media coverage, it was a remarkable achievement. Navalny says that the ballots were deliberately miscounted to deny a second round of voting, and had the election gone to a runoff, he believes he would have won.

The crackdown widens

Apparently, he wasn’t the only one to think so. Soon after his strong showing in the mayoral election, the opposition leader was placed under house arrest and forbidden from communicating with the media. A little more than a year later, he faced another confused and contradictory court case, in which he was accused of defrauding a subsidiary of the cosmetics company Yves Rocher. Only this time, Navalny’s younger brother, Oleg, was co-defendant in the trial. In a Shakespearean flourish, authorities made Oleg hostage to Navalny’s fortune by imposing a custodial sentence on the younger brother alone and freeing Alexei.

“This was unprecedented stuff, even by Putin’s standards,” says fellow opposition politician Ilya Yashin, a onetime colleague of Navalny in the centrist Yabloko Party. While opposition figures have been targeted in underhanded ways, their families have generally been off limits. When the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky was released from prison, for example, he famously thanked Putin for not touching his family. With Navalny, however, the authorities have upped the stakes. “There’s no fair play here. Navalny’s brother is now behind bars, his parents’ businesses and apartments are being searched. He’s being followed, his wife is being followed, and security officials even follow his children,” Yashin says. “It’s the kind of pressure not everyone can cope with.”

Navalny would not be the first opposition leader to be forced into a compromise with the Kremlin, nor would he be the first to leave the country. But his response thus far has been alien to normal Russian sensibilities. He has declared, at least publicly, that he will not follow what he considers criminal, unjust laws or “understandings” with the authorities. Shortly after the court convicted his brother, he tore off his home-arrest tag and set off for a meet-and-greet on the Moscow metro. His declaration for the presidency sets a similar challenge to accepted norms. On the eve of sentencing, he opened a new campaign headquarters in Russia’s second-largest city, St. Petersburg.

A useful idiot?

Navalny’s resilience has led some within the opposition to question whether he is not quite what he seems. Conspiracies swirl as to whether his opposition is somehow a bit too useful for the Kremlin. Few, after all, have managed to criticize those at the very top and survived to drink cappuccino. Sergei Magnitsky, a fellow lawyer who raised corruption concerns, is dead. Former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov, the opposition’s only other charismatic leader, was killed within sight of the Kremlin — quite possibly in an act of independent entrepreneurship by a group looking to impress Putin. On Feb. 2, Nemtsov’s ally, Vladimir Kara-Murza, was hospitalized following organ failure and rumored poisoning. In Russia’s anarchic system of outsourced state harassment, the physical dangers facing those who refuse to play by the political rules are arguably as acute as they have been since the death of former Soviet leader Josef Stalin in 1953.

Navalny rejects the line that he is in cahoots with the government — his brother is in prison, after all. “The Kremlin makes its decisions based on what it can and can’t do at any given time,” he says. “Maybe I was lucky in 2009-2010, when I wasn’t too well known. Then, it was difficult to send me to jail. It’s a different paradigm now. We’re at war. We’re shooting down passenger jets.”

Political consultant Gleb Pavlovsky — a onetime Soviet dissident who famously chose a path of collaboration with the authorities, later becoming a senior Kremlin advisor — suggests that Navalny is, in fact, playing a controlled game.

“On an intuitive level, he realizes Putin is watching him, and in a way he doesn’t watch other opposition leaders like [Garry] Kasparov, [Mikhail] Kasyanov, or even Khodorkovsky,” Pavlovsky says. “There’s a corridor of what is and isn’t allowed, and, by and large, Navalny is observing the rules.”
Navalny’s move to enter the 2018 contest, however, has tested the limits.
Navalny’s move to enter the 2018 contest, however, has tested the limits. According to his legal team, the judge was initially told to deliver a custodial sentence — though it now seems more likely that the sentence will be a repeat of the five-year probational sentence brought against him in 2013. The Kremlin certainly has plenty of tricks up its sleeve, too. Whether or not he is sent to prison, there is little chance Navalny will be allowed to take his big-city electoral appeal beyond Moscow and St. Petersburg. In a time of economic belt-tightening, the Kremlin is in no mood to experiment with liberalizing its system and giving an opportunity for Navalny’s anti-corruption populism to catch on across Russia.

“You can’t even compare today’s Russia with the Russia of 2011. The comparisons that work are Belarus, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Zimbabwe,” Navalny says. “And, believe me, our express train is already speeding along rapidly down that route.”

Top image credit: KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV/AFP/Getty Images

Article 50 bill: May sees off attempt to give MPs veto over Brexit deal

Commons votes 326 to 293 to approve government plan that will give MPs vote on final Brexit deal on ‘take it or leave it’ basis

 Theresa May remains relatively confident the Brexit bill will pass the third reading on Wednesday without changes. Photograph: James Gourley/Rex/Shutterstock

 and Tuesday 7 February 2017

Theresa May has faced down a Conservative rebellion over Brexit in the House of Commons, rejecting calls for MPs to be given the power to send her back to the negotiating table if they do not like her proposed divorce deal from the EU.

The government said it would only let MPs have a vote on May’s final Brexit deal on a “take it or leave it basis”, despite Labour, the Scottish National party and some Tories demanding greater power to order a rethink after two years of talks.

A string of MPs branded the offer of a final vote a “con” and a “Hobson’s choice”, aware that a refusal to back the final deal struck by May would leave Britain reliant on damaging tariffs set by the World Trade Organisation.

But the Commons still voted 326 to 293 to approve the government’s plan without amendment, with just seven Conservative rebels voting against their party and a few more abstaining.

Among those who defied the whip were former ministers Bob Neill, Claire Perry and Anna Soubry, joining veteran pro-EU former chancellor Ken Clarke. Neill, a former communities minister, said it was the first time he had ever voted against his government.

But their rebellion was virtually cancelled out by six pro-Brexit Labour MPs, Frank Field, Ronnie Campbell, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, Graham Stringer and Gisela Stuart, who voted with the government.

Justifying the government’s position, David Jones, the Brexit minister speaking for the government, said: “I can’t think of a greater signal of weakness than for this house to send the government back to the European Union and to say we want to negotiate further.”

In a dramatic last part of the debate, Perry even accused some of her more committed pro-Brexit colleagues of acting like Islamic extremists during the debates in the Commons in recent weeks.
Nicky Morgan, the former education secretary, was among those to abstain, sitting resolutely on the government benches, next to a whip trying to persuade her to vote. George Osborne, the former chancellor, was absent.

The vote means May has cleared two days of debate in the Commons without the Brexit bill being amended, with just one day to go. There is still the potential for a revolt over the issue of guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals living in the UK, with a number of Tory MPs from both the remain and leave camps still thinking about whether to back a Labour amendment.

However, the government remains relatively confident the Brexit bill will pass its third and final Commons reading on Wednesday without changes, before heading to the Lords.

Ministers attempted to dampen the Tory rebellion early in the debate by promising MPs a vote on whether to accept her Brexit deal before the European parliament is asked to approve the terms, probably in October 2018.

This was initially accepted by Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, who said it was a “huge and significant concession” leaving him struggling to make many more points in his speech.

“This is a significant victory for parliament, and follows months of concerted pressure from Labour,” he said. “Labour has repeatedly said that parliament must have a meaningful vote on any final Brexit deal, that means MPs are able to vote on the final deal before it is concluded, that the Commons has a debate and vote before the European parliament does, and that the vote will cover withdrawal from the EU as well as our future relationship with the EU.”

However, many backbenchers remained unconvinced that parliament was being given enough of a say on the final deal, which will have to be struck over the next two years before the UK leaves the EU by the end of March 2019.

Chris Leslie, the Labour backbencher whose amendment was picked for a vote, said the government was still not offering a meaningful choice for MPs on its Brexit deal.

“The government’s so-called ‘concession’ falls short of giving parliament a meaningful vote,” he said. “Ministers have failed to produce a new amendment, so their commitment will not be binding. The minister refused to give parliament the option to reject the deal and tell the government to go back to negotiate a better one.

“And on the nightmare scenario – that we could leave the EU with no deal at all, and face damaging barriers to trade with Europe – it seems parliament could have no say whatsoever.”

Angela Eagle, the former Labour shadow cabinet minister and leadership contender, described the offer as a “Hobson’s choice”, meaning MPs could face a choice in two years’ time between hard Brexit and no deal at all.

Starmer subsquently came under criticism from opposition parties over Labour’s decision to applaud the government’s concession and withdraw its own frontbench amendment.

Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green party, said MPs “must not be duped by the government’s attempt to quell unrest on their backbenches”.

“The vote they’re offering, which will give MPs a choice between an extreme Brexit and falling off a cliff edge into World Trade Organisation trade rules, isn’t a concession, it’s an ultimatum,” she said.

Some Labour MPs were also unhappy with Starmer’s positive approach towards the government and unimpressed by the concession.

“He needs the cover to be able to say ‘we’ve won this major concession’ as a way to get people to vote it through. But the truth is we have won nothing since this whole process began,” one Labour MP said.

“The government were just trying to give cover to some of their rebels by promising something they already said a month ago – either we vote on a deal they make, or crash out on WTO terms which would be catastrophic. We knew that already.”

However, Starmer’s decision to hail the early vote as a victory could mean shadow cabinet ministers who are conflicted over Brexit, such as Clive Lewis and Diane Abbott, may feel more comfortable with voting in favour of the bill on Wednesday, as they will be able to argue that the party helped shape the process.

Abbott, the shadow home secretary, and Barry Gardiner, shadow trade secretary, are understood to have been pushing the Labour frontbench to abstain on Wednesday’s vote if the bill emerges unamended after three days of debate.

This view was challenged by Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, at a meeting on Tuesday where she rejected the idea that the Labour party’s answer to the greatest decision facing Britain is to say it could not decide either way.

At the end, the shadow cabinet decided collectively that Labour’s position would be to vote in favour of triggering article 50 regardless of whether amendments pass.

Cambodia bans Taiwan flag out of respect for ‘One China’ policy


Cambodia's Prime Minister Hun Sen stands in attention for the Chinese and Cambodian national anthems during the start of the Cambodia-China Business and Investment Forum outside of Phnom Penh, Cambodia, Thursday, Dec. 1, 2016. Pic: AP
7th February 2017
CAMBODIA’S prime minister said the Taiwanese flag has been banned because Cambodia follows the “One China” policy promoted by Beijing.
Hun Sen, in a speech to the Cambodian-Chinese Association posted on his Facebook page, said he welcomes investment from Taiwanese businessmen, but that respecting Chinese sovereignty means acknowledging Taiwan is a province of China.
He said in his remarks, delivered Saturday, that Taiwan’s flag shouldn’t be raised on its national day.
“We should not do anything that affects the respect of China’s sovereignty and independence through shaking hands and stepping on feet. I cannot do it,” Hun Sen said, as quoted by Cambodia Daily.
“We need to respect the sovereignty of China, which places the same value on respecting Cambodia’s sovereignty too.”
Hun Sen said since Taiwan was considered an independently-governed Chinese province, Cambodia should not raise the country’s flag.
“I request to people here: Please don’t raise the Taiwanese flag whenever you are gathering, even at the hotel during Taiwanese national holidays. It is not allowed,” he said.
China is impoverished Cambodia’s key ally and economic partner. It has provided millions of dollars in aid and investment over the past decade, granted it tariff-free status on hundreds of trade items, and written off debt.
In return, Cambodia supports China in international forums, including in Beijing’s ongoing territorial disputes with other Southeast Asian countries in the South China Sea.
Hun Sen added that Cambodia also considers Tibet, an autonomous province, as part of China, and that his decision to ban the Taiwanese flag is a continuation of Cambodia’s long-standing foreign policy towards its close ally.
“You need to understand what this foreign policy is—a policy that has been implemented since Sihanouk’s regime regarding China,” he said, alluding to Cambodia’s governance under King Norodom Sihanouk which lasted until the’1970s.
According to Cambodia Daily, this was not the first time the Cambodian leader has gone the extra mile to ensure minimal Taiwanese presence in the country.
In 2014, Hun Sen announced that he would block the Taiwan External Trade Development Council from opening an office in Phnom Penh due to his government’s strict observance of the One China Policy.
However, Hun Sen maintains that Cambodia welcomes Taiwanese investments.
“I only agree with doing business. I can do that. For instance, the direct flights from Taipei to Phnom Penh and from Taipei to Siem Reap,” he said.
Bilateral trade between Taiwan and Cambodia reached about US$744 million in 2015, a 1 percent drop on the previous year, according to statistics released by Taiwan’s Finance Ministry last year.
Taiwanese imports from Cambodia were valued at $66 million for the year, while Taiwan’s exports to Cambodia reached US$678 million, the daily reported.
Additional reporting by the Associated Press
Trump administration to approve final permit for Dakota Access pipeline


 
Protesters rally against plans to pass the Dakota Access pipeline near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota in November. (Stephanie Keith/Reuters)

The deputy secretary of the Army will grant the final permit needed for completion of the Dakota Access Pipeline, the Army declared in a court filing Tuesday, clearing the final bureaucratic hurdle standing in the way of the massive infrastructure project.

The Army’s intention to grant a 30-year easement under Lake Oahe, which came in a court filing over an ongoing federal environmental review of the controversial project, was immediately hailed by congressional Republicans and decried by members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and other opponents of the pipeline. In documents filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Army officials indicated that they were terminating a plan to prepare an environmental-impact statement on how the pipeline would affect land and water along its 1,170-mile route.


The move, coming two weeks after President Trump instructed the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an expedited review of the easement, underscores the new administration’s intent to spur infrastructure development and support the fossil fuel industry. Both during the presidential campaign and since taking office, Trump has spoken of the need to accelerate domestic energy production and the construction of pipelines that can bring oil and gas to market.

While couched in dry language — the letter from Deputy Secretary of the Army Paul D. Cramer to Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) detailed the 7.37 acres the pipeline would traverse on federal property — the easement marks a major blow to activists who had come from across the country last year to gather on the Great Plains and mark the land as the site where a tribe and its allies would defy the federal government. Those opponents argued the project — which crosses four states and would carry crude oil from the rich shale oil basins of western North Dakota to the pipeline networks and refineries in the Midwest — could damage the environment and disturb ancient burial grounds.

Construction cannot begin until the actual easement is granted, which Cramer wrote will be given to the project’s sponsor Energy Transfer Partners no later than Wednesday afternoon. Energy Transfer Partners declined to comment Thursday.

The 1,100-mile stretch running underneath Lake Oahe is one of the final parts to be built, and it will take between 60 and 80 days from the start of construction before the pipeline will become operational.
In the meantime confrontations between activists and law enforcement, who have already clashed on the proposed site of the project, could flare up once again. While the Standing Rock Sioux tribe has urged its supporters to go home due to worsening weather conditions, a few hundred protesters have remained. Last week, authorities arrested 74 activists who had decamped from the tribal reservation to land owned by Energy Transfer Partners.

Fights over pipeline siting has become a new front in the broader push to address climate change, with environmentalists arguing that curbing pipelines will limit the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere by restricting the extent to which fossil fuels can be extracted and burned. At the same time projects such as Dakota Access have reignited the sense of injury among many American Indians, who believe that this land belongs to them under treaties signed between them and the federal government in the 1800s.

“We are a sovereign nation and we will fight to protect our water and sacred places from the brazen private interests trying to push this pipeline through to benefit a few wealthy Americans with financial ties to the Trump administration,” Dave Archambault II, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, said in a statement Tuesday. “Americans have come together in support of the Tribe asking for a fair, balanced and lawful pipeline process. The environmental impact statement was wrongfully terminated. 

This pipeline was unfairly rerouted across our treaty lands. The Trump administration — yet again — is poised to set a precedent that defies the law and the will of Americans and our allies around the world.”
The tribe on Tuesday said it plans to challenge any easement decision on the grounds that the planned environmental impact statement was wrongfully terminated. In addition, tribal officials have asked a court to compel the company behind the pipeline to publicly disclose its oil spill and risk assessment records for the Dakota Access project. Ultimately, the tribe said it will seek to shut down the pipeline’s operations if it is successfully constructed.

Jan Hasselman, a lawyer with the environmental group Earthjustice, said the new administration had no right to short-circuit a process started by then-Obama administration officials to scrutinize the project’s potential impact on critical resources along the route. Late last year, then-President Barack Obama, after weeks of protests, instructed the corps to look at different route options for the pipeline.

“The Obama administration correctly found that the Tribe’s treaty rights needed to be respected, and that the easement should not be granted without further review and consideration of alternative crossing locations,” Hasselman said in an email. “Trump’s reversal of that decision continues a historic pattern of broken promises to Indian Tribes and violation of Treaty rights. They will be held accountable in court.”
Backers of the pipeline, who argue that it is the most effective means of transporting crude oil extracted on the Great Plains, hailed the Army’s decision.

“New energy infrastructure, like the Dakota Access Pipeline, is being built with the latest safeguards and technology,” said Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) in a statement. “The discord we have seen regarding the Dakota Access Pipeline doesn’t serve the tribe, the company, the corps or any of the other stakeholders involved. Now, we all need to work together to ensure people and communities rebuild trust and peacefully resolve their differences.”

And Craig Stevens, a spokesman for the business-backed MAIN coalition, called the action “proof-positive of President Trump’s commitment to supporting domestic energy development, including midstream infrastructure projects.  Today’s action sends a strong positive signal to those individuals and companies seeking to invest in the U.S. and will help strengthen our economy and create jobs.”
A Native Nations march on Washington has been planned for March 10, with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and others across the country expected to join other protesters in demonstrating against the pipeline project.

“Expect mass resistance far beyond what Trump has seen so far,” said Tom Goldsmith, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, in a statement.
Steven Mufson contributed to this report.