‘Never Trump’ Republicans join call for select committee to investigate Russia and Trump

By Josh Rogin March 14 at 6:00 AM

Democrats in Congress have long argued that the ongoing intelligence committee investigations into Russia’s interference in the presidential election and the Trump campaign’s ties to the Kremlin are unlikely to get to the bottom of the issue. Now a group of “Never Trump” Republicans are planning to pressure GOP leaders to establish a bipartisan select committee to take over the inquiries and settle the matter once and for all.

Stand Up Republic, a nonprofit organization led by former independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin and his running mate, Mindy Finn, is launching a public campaign aimed at building support among Republicans for consolidating the various congressional Russia-related investigations into one empowered and fully funded select committee. The organization’s ad, which goes live Tuesday with a six-figure television ad buy, makes the case that the Russia issue is too important not to investigate fully.

“Trump’s Russia crisis. Secret contacts. Conflicting stories. Mounting signs of hidden ties and shady deals. Fear our president is compromised,” says the narrator. “The values of liberty, justice and honor shaped America. Generations fought for freedom, and presidents of both parties stood against foreign tyrants like Vladimir Putin. Why won’t Donald Trump? Tell Congress to name a bipartisan select committee to get the truth?”

An ad, released by the nonprofit group Stand Up Republic, kicks off a campaign to build support for a select committee to investigate ties between Russia and the Trump administration. (Stand Up Republic)

The goal is to bring public pressure to bear on the White House and Republican congressional leadership to elevate the investigations by taking them out of the hands of the congressional intelligence committees, which don’t have proper resources or support to do the job, according to McMullin. The committees are already strapped for cash, according to some leading Democrats.

[Michael Gerson: Republicans are defining lunacy down]

“Russia’s activities were a major, complex event that requires additional resources to investigate fully,” said McMullin. “I simply don’t believe that congressional Republican leadership are serious about investigating Russia’s activities and Trump and his team’s connections to Russia. Republican leaders are interested in limiting the political costs and limiting the scope and depth of these investigations.”

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Intelligence Committee are investigating Russia’s hacking of political organizations, the Trump team’s interactions with Russian officials and now also President Trump’s accusation that the Obama administration conducted surveillance on Trump and his associates at Trump Tower.

There are questions about the integrity of the congressional investigations, following revelations that the White House worked with Senate committee chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and House committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), asking them to contact reporters to speak on background to knock down news reports about the investigation.

Separately, the Senate Armed Services Committee is planning a series of hearings related to Russia’s mischief both in the United States and around the world. Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) has been calling for a select committee for months but has said that without the support of Republican congressional leadership, it probably won’t happen.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has also been in touch with intelligence agencies related to the Russian interference and could hold hearings as well. Ranking Democrat Benjamin L. Cardin (Md.) introduced legislation in January with other top Democrats that would establish a formal commission similar to the 9/11 Commission, to investigate all aspects of the Russia scandal.

[David Ignatius: A look inside the country’s real-life spy thriller]

“I don’t believe any committee in Congress can conduct a thorough enough and an independent enough investigation, that’s why I’m calling for a special commission,” Cardin said last week.

The likelihood of a special commission being established is very low, considering that Trump would be able to veto Cardin’s legislation if it ever reached his desk. A select committee doesn’t need the president’s approval.

Other lawmakers have called for a special counsel or a special prosecutor to take over the Russia investigation. The FBI is reportedly investigating several aspects of the case, including the Trump Organization’s financial ties to Russian banks, which may or may not be related to Trump’s accusations about wiretapping of Trump Tower. The FBI has never confirmed reports of its investigation.

There are several historical examples of the use of a select congressional committee to investigate a major scandal, according to the Congressional Research Service, including the Watergate Committee investigation into the Nixon administration, the Church and Pike committees’ look into intelligence community abuses, the 1981 select committee inquiry into the ABSCAM scandal, and the 2005-2006 probe into the Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina.

But the select committee model has vulnerabilities as well, as explained by Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes on the Lawfare blog last month. The chief disadvantage is that while a select committee can operate without the consent of the president, its membership is determined by congressional leaders and could become hyper-partisan, as happened with the select committee that investigated the Benghazi attacks.

“It is essential that the committee be chaired by a person whose commitment to a serious investigation is not subject to reasonable question,” they wrote, suggesting Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) for the job. “And it is essential as well to populate the committee with a membership that will act in a bipartisan fashion.”

The idea of a select committee is not a panacea, but if the sheer importance of determining Russia’s interference in the U.S. political process and the Trump team’s murky ties to Russian officials doesn’t warrant such a move, it’s not clear what would.

Pirates Have Hijacked a Sri Lankan-Flagged Freighter!

Suspected first Somali pirate attack since 2012

(March 14, 2017, Mogadishu, Sri Lanka Guardian) “Somali officials say pirates have hijacked a ship off the coast of the Horn of Africa nation. It is thought to be the first hijacking of a large commercial vessel there in about three years,” the Associated Press has reported.

“One official in the semi-autonomous state of Puntland said the incident occurred on Monday. The official said over two dozen men boarded the merchant ship off Somalia’s northern coast.”

Another official in Puntland said the ship is a Sri Lankan-flagged freighter and was being moved toward the coast. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to the press.

A spokeswoman for the European Union Naval Force operation off Somalia, Flt. Lt. Louise Tagg, confirmed that an incident involving an oil tanker had occurred off the coast of Somalia and an investigation was underway.

Piracy off Somalia’s coast was once a serious threat to the global shipping industry. But it has lessened in recent years after an international effort to patrol near the country, whose weak central government has been trying to assert itself after a quarter-century of conflict.

But frustrations have been rising among local fishermen, including former pirates, at what they say are foreign fishermen illegally fishing in local waters.

Salad Nur, an elder in Alula, a coastal town in Puntland, told The Associated Press by telephone that young fishermen including former pirates have hijacked the ship.

“They have been sailing through the ocean in search for a foreign ship to hijack since yesterday morning and found this ship and boarded it,” he said. “Foreign fishermen destroyed their livelihoods and deprived them of proper fishing.”

A United Nations report seen by the AP in November said it had been almost three years since Somali pirates successfully hijacked a large commercial vessel, but they retain the capacity and intent to resume the attacks and lately have shifted to targeting smaller foreign fishing boats.

The EU force website currently lists no vessels or hostages held by pirates. Concerns about piracy off Africa’s coast have largely shifted to the Gulf of Guinea.

According to the latest report issued by the Ocean Beyond Piracy, “more than 3,000 seafarers have been held hostage by Somali pirates since 2001, with a significant, but unknown, number of seafarers kidnapped in other parts of the world. These seafarers, and their families, have faced fear and uncertainty, and in some cases, direct abuse. In addition to the 41 seafarers who remain in captivity as of the release of this report, the thousands of seafarers who have returned to their regular lives after being held hostage must address the challenges of reintegration and coping with their experiences.”

Meanwhile, London-based risk consultancy Control Risks has issued their report for the state of global maritime security for 2016. The report records that there were a total of 540 incidents worldwide last year and that overall there has been a 21% decrease in global maritime security incidents. Much of this can be attributed to an 83% decrease in maritime hijacks globally in 2016 compared with 2015 which is due to a significant decline in hijackings for theft in South-east Asia and the Gulf of Guinea following improvements in regional law enforcement.

However in stark contrast to the decline in hijacks, maritime kidnaps increased by 44% globally in 2016, driven by an increase in the Gulf of Guinea compared with 2015, and a surge in offshore abductions in the Sulu and Celebes Seas.

Another evolving trend in 2016 was the significant increase in cases where militants or terrorists targeted port infrastructure, naval and commercial vessels or offshore platforms, with Libya and Yemen accounting for most of these. With the continuing conflict between the Saudi and Gulf Arab States and the Iranian-backed Houthi insurgency in Yemen seeing increasingly sophisticated methods being used in attacks on sea going vessels this is liable to be an area of major concern throughout 2017. Sebastian Villyn, Maritime Risk Analyst at Control Risks commented that:

“The trends seen globally in 2016 highlight the dynamic nature of groups engaged in offshore crime. The interplay between sociopolitical developments onshore and the frequency of offshore crime was particularly visible in the Gulf of Guinea, and it was also telling how assailants in different regions are responding to security measures, or lack thereof, for instance in South-east Asia. Despite an overall global decrease in maritime security incidents, high-severity cases of maritime terrorism and kidnaps increased. These trends are likely to continue and pose a significant threat to maritime operators in 2017. Operators should therefore ensure that they have access to reliable and up-to-date information on the current threat landscape.”

Meanwhile in its special report of the Secretary-General of United Nations on the situation with respect to piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia published end of last year ( October 2016) observed that, the navy of Sri Lanka patrolled the exclusive economic zone and the sea lanes of communications south of Sri Lanka to deter acts of piracy. In addition, surveillance activities and the escorting of vessels conducted by other multilateral navies resulted in the high-risk area being shifted westward to the 65th parallel from the 78th parallel. The navy regularly conducted training exercises, including anti-piracy operations, with such navies when ships made port calls to Colombo harbour. Sri Lanka is facilitating the operations of armed sea marshals, on-board security teams of merchant ships, at the outer port limits off Galle and Colombo harbours and providing the sea marshals with safe custody of arms and ammunition, among other things. The operations have complemented other counter-piracy efforts off the coast of Somalia.”

Issuing  a statement regarding alleged hijacking of Vessel by Somali pirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Colombo says that tThe Ministry is aware of media reports regarding the alleged hijacking of a reportedly “Sri Lankan-flagged fuel freighter” by pirates.

The Ministry is taking action to verify the alleged incident, and initial enquiries have revealed that while the vessel involved is not registered under a Sri Lankan flag, it has a 8 member Sri Lankan crew.

The Ministry continues to remain in touch with the shipping agents, concerned authorities, as well as relevant Sri Lanka Missions overseas to ascertain further information on the matter in order to ensure the safety and welfare of the Sri Lankan crew.

Therefore, as and when confirmed information regarding the alleged incident becomes available, the Ministry will share information in a manner that would not be prejudicial to the safety of the crew.

Nifty hits record high, rupee rallies on Modi's win in Uttar Pradesh

(Changes milestone for rupee to 16-month peak vs dollar from 14-month in first graf)

By Suvashree Choudhury and Arnab Paul | MUMBAI/BENGALURU

The Nifty rose as much as 2.1 percent to a record high while the rupee hit a 14-month peak on Tuesday, as a big win for Prime Minister Narendra Modi's party in a key state election was seen bolstering his economic reform agenda.

The victory by Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party in India's most populous Uttar Pradesh state, announced on Saturday, strengthens his claim to a second term in national elections in 2019. It also re-ignites investors' faith in him after a radical decision to scrap high-value banknotes in November raised deep concerns about economic growth.

The Nifty's record high of 9,122.75 points on Tuesday, the first trading session since the results were announced, surpassed its previous peak of 9,119.20 on March 4, 2015.

The rupee also strengthened to as much as 65.78 per dollar, its strongest level since November 2015, despite the central bank's interventions after markets were closed on Monday for a public holiday.

Analysts now expect Modi will be emboldened to embark on more reforms including reforming the retail sector, easing labour laws, and cleaning up bad debt at banks.

But any further gains will be tempered by concerns about valuations as well as global risks, including how much the U.S. Federal Reserve will raise U.S. interest rates this year.

"The results ensure sustainability of government policies for the next two years without much political noise," said Ashish Vaidya, executive director and head of trading at DBS Bank in Mumbai.

"However, all financial markets will be driven by global factors. We have to also wait and see when domestic private investment picks up as on-the-ground growth hasn't really improved much."

Modi has long held strong appeal for investors after winning overwhelmingly in 2014 by pledging ambitious economic reforms.

The prime minister has already delivered on some measures, including unveiling a national goods and services tax that will be rolled out this year.

But investors will seek more action, especially in reviving private investments and easing the cost of doing business.

Sentiment is also likely to be tempered given the central bank is expected to hold interest rates this year due to concerns about inflation.

Shares were already trading at a price-to-earnings ratio of 19.85 over the next 12 months, compared with their five-year historic average of 17.8.

The Nifty ended up 1.7 percent, giving up some initial gains, while the rupee ended at 65.8150/65.8250 from its close of 66.60/61 on Friday.

Meanwhile, after initial gains, bonds reversed direction, with the benchmark 10-year bond yield ending unchanged at 6.90 percent after data showed higher-than-expected February wholesale inflation.

(Additional reporting by Savio Shetty and Swati Bhat in MUMBAI, and Sujata Rao-Coverley in LONDON; Writing by Rafael Nam; Editing by Randy Fabi and Biju Dwarakanath)

Google’s DeepMind makes AI program that can learn like a human

Program brings artificial general intelligence a step closer by using previous knowledge to solve fresh problems

 The DeepMind AI mirrors the learning brain in a simple way: it reuses what it has learned and applies it to solve new tasks. Photograph: DeepMind

Ian Sample Science editor-Tuesday 14 March 2017

Researchers have overcome one of the major stumbling blocks in artificial intelligence with a program that can learn one task after another using skills it acquires on the way.

Developed by Google’s AI company, DeepMind, the program has taken on a range of different tasks and performed almost as well as a human. Crucially, and uniquely, the AI does not forget how it solved past problems, and uses the knowledge to tackle new ones.

The AI is not capable of the general intelligence that humans draw on when they are faced with new challenges; its use of past lessons is more limited. But the work shows a way around a problem that had to be solved if researchers are ever to build so-called artificial general intelligence (AGI) machines that match human intelligence.

“If we’re going to have computer programs that are more intelligent and more useful, then they will have to have this ability to learn sequentially,” said James Kirkpatrick at DeepMind.

The ability to remember old skills and apply them to new tasks comes naturally to humans. A regular rollerblader might find ice skating a breeze because one skill helps the other. But recreating this ability in computers has proved a huge challenge for AI researchers. AI programs are typically one trick ponies that excel at one task, and one task only.

The problem arises because of the way AIs tend to work. Most AIs are based on programs called neural networks that learn how to perform tasks, such as playing chess or poker, through countless rounds of trial and error. But once a neural network is trained to play chess, it can only learn another game later by overwriting its chess-playing skills. It suffers from what AI researchers call “catastrophic forgetting”.

Without the ability to build one skill on another, AIs will never learn like people, or be flexible enough to master fresh problems the way humans can. “Humans and animals learn things one after the other and it’s a crucial factor which allows them to learn continually and to build upon their previous knowledge,” 

said Kirkpatrick.

To build the new AI, the researchers drew on studies from neuroscience which show that animals learn continually by preserving brain connections that are known to be important for skills learned in the past. The lessons learned in hiding from prey are crucial for survival, and mice would not last long if the know-how was erased by the skills needed to find food.

 Illustration of the learning process for two tasks using the new AI program. Photograph: DeepMind

The DeepMind AI mirrors the learning brain in a simple way. Before it moves from one task to another, it works out which connections in its neural network have been the most important for the tasks it has learned so far. It then makes these harder to change as it learns the next skill. “If the network can reuse what it has learned then it will do,” said Kirkpatrick.

The researchers put the AI through its paces by letting it play 10 classic Atari games, including Breakout, Space Invaders and Defender, in random order. They found that after several days on each game, the AI was as good as a human player at typically seven of the games. Without the new memory consolidation approach, the AI barely learned to play one of them.

In watching the AI at play, the scientists noticed some interesting strategies. For instance, when it played Enduro, a car racing game that takes place through the daytime, at night, and in snowy conditions, the AI treated each as a different task.

Writing in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers describe how the new AI solved problems with skills it had learned in the past. But it is not clear whether drawing on past skills made the AI perform better. While the program learned to play different games, it did not master each one as well as a dedicated AI would have. “We have demonstrated that it can learn tasks sequentially, but we haven’t shown that it learns them better because it learns them sequentially,” Kirkpatrick said. “There’s still room for improvement.”

One reason the AI did not nail each game was that it sometimes failed to appreciate how important certain connections were for its playing strategy. “We know that sequential learning is important, but we haven’t got to the next stage yet, which is to demonstrate the kind of learning that humans and animals can do. That is still a way off. But we know that one thing that was considered to be a big block is not insurmountable,” Kirkpatrick said.

“We are still a really long way from general-purpose artificial intelligence and there are many research challenges left to solve,” he added. “One key part of the puzzle is building systems that can learn to tackle new tasks and challenges while retaining the abilities that they have already learnt. This research is an early step in that direction, and could in time help us build problem-solving systems that can learn more flexibly and efficiently.”

Peter Dayan, director of the Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit at University College London, called the work “extremely nice”. He said that for computers to achieve AGI, they will need to learn how one task relates to another, so that past skills can efficiently be brought on bear on new problems.

Alan Winfield, at the Bristol Robotics Lab at the University of the West of England said the work was “wonderful”, but added: “I don’t believe it brings us significantly closer to AGI, since this work does not, nor does it claim to, show us how to generalise from one learned capability to another. Something you and I were able to do effortlessly as children.”

Russian Environmental Activist on Engaging People Under Putin

BY EMILY TAMKIN-MARCH 13, 2017

“Russia, it’s not Putin. It’s normal people who want to live in a normal country.”

So said Evgenia Chirikova, Russian environmental activist. Chirikova has lived (on a Russian passport) in Estonia since 2015. Prior to that, she lived in Khimki, outside of Moscow, and worked against the construction of a motorway from Moscow to St. Petersburg that would cut through Khimki forest — and, through French company Vinci and offshore accounts, allegedly to enrich Arkady Rotenberg, personal friend of Russian President Vladimir Putin. She is one of a surprising number of Russians, given the stakes in Russia today and limited attention and support from abroad, who attempt to stand up to the state.

Chirikova was ultimately unable to halt the construction of the motorway (although, in 2010, Dmitri Medvedev, then president of Russia, issued a temporary moratorium on the project). But in the process of trying, Chirikova and her group, Save Khimki Forest Movement, brought thousands out to protest and collected tens of thousands of signatures, and found that, contrary to popular western belief, Russian grassroots run deep.

Grassroots activism, Chirikova explained in an interview with Foreign Policy between sips of her very sugary coffee, is very different from NGOs. It’s thousands of people coming together to fight for issues that directly impact their lives, and it’s evidenced not only in Khimki, but all over Russia. Offering examples of environmental activism alone, Chirikova pointed to Karelia, where pensioners protested in 2016; to Chelyabinsk, where a group of activists, foresters, and bloggers came together to prevent planned construction in the summer of 2010; to Moscow, where the capital’s citizens protest loss of green space, and, in particular, their Friendship Park just last summer.

They are also protesting corruption, as Chirikova herself was. It is widely believed that construction projects, particularly in places that make construction difficult, are meant to enrich Putin’s inner circle. “Each problem in Russia,” she said, be it environmental or social, “is a question of corruption.”

Corruption has the added benefit of being something the average person can understand. “Corruption is a winning issue for opposition-minded activists,” Timothy Frye, head of Columbia University’s political science department, told FP. The population may not be swayed by high-minded ideals that they see as divorced from their everyday life, but corruption, which permeates everyday life, they can understand. And, contrary to popular belief, “all the survey evidence suggests that Russians really don’t like corruption very much,” Frye said.

Still, activists struggle to get their message out. “It’s really very difficult to work against Putin’s propaganda,” Chirikova conceded, particularly given the difference in resources between Russian grassroots activists and the Kremlin.

There have been some slow, hard-won gains. Some members of Chirikova’s Khimki group are now deputies in local councils. (Frye notes activists are in local councils even in Moscow, although their abilities to actually enact change are limited). And, from Estonia, where Chirikova moved after authorities threatened to take her children away, she runs a site intended to raise awareness on grassroots activism, give Russian activists resources based on her experiences, and to connect people all over Russia. She has also, from a distance, found perspective on those who support Putin.

“In Russia, I was very aggressive against people who support Putin. Against propaganda. And I was angry,” she said. “I think that when you’re angry, you cannot understand any people. You cannot support these people. And I think that propaganda, it’s like poison. And it’s not the problem of people they take this poison. It’s the problem of Putin regime.”

Now, she says, “I only pity these people.” Which, she concludes, is better — and more productive — than hate.

Photo credit: NATALIA KOLESNIKOVA/AFP/Getty Images

Burma seeks to ‘expel’ Rohingya Muslim minority

Lee addresses a news conference after her report to the Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, on March 13, 2017. Source: Reuters/Denis Balibouse

14th March 2017

BURMA (Myanmar) may be using bureaucratic means to get rid of its Rohingya Muslim minority after a security crackdown against them caused an international outcry, the UN human rights investigator on Burma said on Monday.

The UN human rights office said last month the campaign of killings and rapes probably amounted to crimes against humanity and possibly ethnic cleansing.

UN special rapporteur Yanghee Lee told the UN Human Rights Council Burma was still making Rohingya’s lives difficult by dismantling homes and conducting a household survey.

“Conducting a household survey – where those absent may be struck off the list that could be the only legal proof of their status in Myanmar  – indicates the government may be trying to expel the Rohingya population from the country altogether. I sincerely hope that is not the case,” she said.

SEE ALSO: Burma: Full UN probe on Rohingya abuse unlikely after EU fails to seek one

Burma’s military launched the crackdown in the north of Rakhine state after nine policemen were killed on Oct 9.

Some 75,000 Rohingya have since fled to Bangladesh, where Lee said she had heard “harrowing account after harrowing account”.

“I heard allegation after allegation of horrific events like these – slitting of throats, indiscriminate shootings, setting alight houses with people tied up inside and throwing very young children into the fire, as well as gang rapes and other sexual violence,” she told the council.

Lee visited Burma twice in the past year, including Rakhine state. But she was blocked at the last minute from Kachin state, another area of ethnic violence.

“I must confess there were times I had seriously questioned the nature of the cooperation,” she said.

Burma’s ambassador Htin Lynn called the allegations of crimes against humanity unverified and one-sided.

He said security operations in Rakhine had stopped and the curfew was eased earlier this month.

SEE ALSO: Burma: Army defends Rohingya crackdown, denies abuses

“The situation in Rakhine state is very complicated in nature and thus requires complicated answers. It also requires greater understanding by the international community,” he said.

Human rights challenges could not be solved within a year, he said, referring to the year-old government led by Aung San Suu Kyi.

But Lee said Burma‘s number of political prisoners had doubled to 170 in that time.

UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al Hussein has said treatment of the Rohingya merits a UN commission of inquiry and review by the International Criminal Court.

But Burma is unlikely to face international scrutiny because a Human Rights Council resolution drafted by the EU would leave the country itself to investigate. – Reuters

New drug for one in five breast cancers

By Michelle Roberts-14 March 2017

• Many more women could be helped by a new type of breast cancer drug, say experts
• Biological therapies are currently only available as part of clinical trials, but hold great promise
• Experts estimate as many as one in five patients might benefit

Around 10,000 women a year in the UK might benefit from a new type of breast cancer treatment, say scientists.

Biological therapies can help fight breast cancers caused by rare, inherited genetic errors like the BRCA one actress Angelina Jolie carries.

Now a new study by experts at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute suggests these targeted drugs may also work in many other women who do not have these risky genes.

The drugs could be effective in one in five breast cancers, say the researchers.

Image captionHollywood star Angelina Jolie had a mastectomy after discovery she had inherited high risk cancer genes

That's 20% of patients - far more than the 1 to 5% who develop the cancer alongside having faulty BRCA genes.

One biological therapy or PARP inhibitor, called olaparib, is already used on the NHS to treat advanced ovarian cancer.

It is not yet approved as a breast cancer drug, although some UK women are taking it in clinical trials.

For the latest work, published in the journal Nature Medicine, the researchers looked at the genetic make-up of breast cancer in 560 different patients.

They found a significant proportion of them had genetic errors or "mutational signatures" that were very similar to faulty BRCA.

Given the close similarity, these cancers might be treatable with biological therapies too, they reasoned.

They recommended clinical trials to confirm this.

Baroness Delyth Morgan, from Breast Cancer Now, called the early results "a revelation".

"We hope it could now lead to a watershed moment for the use of mutational signatures in treating the disease," she said.

One of the researchers, Dr Helen Davies, said there was also the potential to treat other types of cancers with these drugs.

Biological therapies have already had some promising results for treating prostate cancer.

They change the way cells work and help the body control the growth of cancer.

High-risk genes

Carrying certain gene mutations, like faulty BRCA, increases a woman's risk of developing breast cancer, although it does not mean she will definitely go on to get cancer.

Some women - like Angelina Jolie - opt to have surgery to have their breasts removed to lower their lifetime risk.

Image captionVicki Gilbert was 47 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer

Vicki Gilbert, 54 and from Swindon, found out she was carrying high-risk genes - but only after she developed breast cancer.

"I had been thinking about getting tested anyway because there was quite a lot of cancer on one side of my family. But then I was diagnosed with breast cancer out of the blue, before I even had a chance to go for the genetic screening."

She says finding out, even after the event, was helpful.

"When you get cancer you do think 'Why me?' I don't know for sure if it was because of the genes that I inherited. That would be impossible to say. But, for practical reasons, it is useful to know that I carry these genes."

Vicki has been free of cancer for around seven years, but still has regular checks because of her increased genetic risk.

Women can lower their lifetime risk of breast cancer by exercising regularly, eating a good diet, maintaining a healthy weight, avoiding cigarettes and limiting how much alcohol they drink.

‘Security Forces in Sri Lanka Continue to Operate With Impunity’

Expose` : Good governance commander in chief completes two years but MR ‘s control still within army !

2017-03-14

Yasmin Louise Sooka, the Executive Director of the Foundation for Human Rights in South Africa and the International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP) spoke to ‘The Wire’ about Sri Lanka’s transitional justice process, the sequencing of judicial mechanisms for the same and the role other countries can play.   
Yasmin Sooka is regarded as a leading human rights lawyer, activist and an international expert in the fields of transitional justice, gender and international war crimes. She previously served on the UN Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on Sri Lanka.  

Security Forces in Sri Lanka Continue to Operate With Impunity.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Realistic assessment needed of international intervention as an option in Sri Lanka

By Jehan Perera-March 13, 2017

In a change from the past the ongoing session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva is no longer generating political passion at it did in the past. There is a sense amongst most people that the present government is on good terms with the international community unlike the previous government. Therefore they see no real threat emanating from Geneva. This has enabled the government to engage in a flurry of legislative activities that have not attracted so much of public interest. The government has drafted legislation to amend the Office of Missing Persons (OMP) Act and a gazette notice has been issued in this regard. The draft legislation will be presented in Parliament shortly. The government has also presented a Bill to parliament to ratify and implement the 'International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance'. Sri Lanka became a signatory of this Convention in December 10, 2015.

In the past, the resolutions passed by the UN Human Rights Council on Sri Lanka have generated huge amounts of political controversy. Beginning with the first in 2009, a few weeks after the end of the war, they were directed against the former government for having fought the war in the way it did, with high levels of civilian casualties and human rights violations. These resolutions were strenuously resisted by the government, which also utilized the resolutions as yet another opportunity to mobilize popular sentiment in its favour. Prior to 2015, every session of the UNHRC in Geneva was an occasion for a whipping up of a sense of national crisis and accompanying nationalism. There was certainly a lot of sympathy for the government within the country, when it made its case that it was being unfairly persecuted for ending the military threat to the unity of the country from the LTTE.

While the former government was able to use the successive Geneva resolutions of 2012-14 to consolidate its nationalist credentials amongst the general population, it lost the sympathy of the international community, especially the countries aligned to the Western bloc. Sri Lanka was repeatedly defeated when it tried to contest those resolutions. As a result, Sri Lanka’s image as a post-war society that respected human rights took a dip. Some of the Western countries even had travel advisories that described the country as risky to travel to. This had repercussions on the country’s economic development. It made it more difficult for Sri Lanka to attract the foreign investments it needed to boost the economy.

UNHELPFUL LEGACY

The present government has had to deal with this unhelpful legacy of the past. At the end of 2014 it appeared that Sri Lanka was heading in the direction of economic and political sanctions. It had already lost the GSP Plus tariff concessions from the EU. There was concern that there could be other countries applying unilateral sanctions. The government’s decision to co-sponsor rather than acquiesce or oppose the UNHRC resolution of 2015 helped it to become a partner to the new resolution. This led to a downscaling of demands placed on the country from the international community. But it also created expectations on behalf of the war affected people that their problems would be resolved soon due to the partnership between the Sri Lankan government and the international community. This time around, in 2017 too, Sri Lanka is planning to co-sponsor the latest UNHRC resolution. But this time the expectations are much less.

The government has requested a two year extension to meet the commitments made in the co-sponsored resolution of 2015. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid bin Ra'ad Zeid al-Hussein has pointed in his report on Sri Lanka’s performance to many unfulfilled promises. These include the main components of the transitional justice process—truth seeking, accountability, reparations and institutional reforms. The government has not yet operationalised the four mechanisms it promised in October 2015—the truth seeking commission, the office of missing persons, the office of reparations and the special courts. Although an Office of Missing Persons was passed into law by Parliament in August last year, it has yet to be operationalised. Despite these significant failures, it appears that the extension sought by the government will be granted by the UNHRC.

The new government’s readiness to stop confronting the international community on the issue of UNHRC resolutions reflects the change that has taken place at its highest levels. There has been a change of direction in which one of the most commendable changes is that ethnic and religious minorities are no longer singled out for hostile propaganda and violent action by government leaders. The hate campaigns go on at the local level, which are difficult to snuff out immediately, but they have no support from the highest levels of the polity. Therefore the hate campaigns currently lack the energy to burst forth as mass campaigns. They have been localized. On the other hand, those at the receiving end of the hate campaigns are often dismayed by the lack of leadership given by the government leadership to suppress the hate campaigns and their campaigners. Similarly the victims of the war are greatly distressed at the slowness of implementation of their basic grievances, such as not knowing where their missing family members are, and seeing their lands continuing to be occupied by the Sri Lankan military.

TIME FRAME

At the root of the problem is a basic fact that Sri Lanka continues to be an ethnically divided society. This is not a new phenomenon. This division existed even prior to Independence from the British in 1948, as manifested in the Pan Sinhala Board of Ministers in 1936 (that had no Tamils or Muslims) and the 50:50 demand of 1939 (which sought to equalize the numbers of Sinhalese and minority MPs in parliament). While the top government leadership today can be considered to be liberal and non-racial minded, their vision of what political form a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society should take is not clear. They have yet to spell out their vision. This is evident in the stalled constitutional reform process where the government leadership has yet to set out its own position. In the absence of a clear vision they will not champion the cause of a multi-ethnic and multi-religious polity and combat the ethnic and religious polarizations in society.

There is a dichotomy between the North and East and the rest of the country on the issue of the UNHRC resolution. Although the ongoing session of the UNHRC is not exciting much public passion in the rest of the country, in the former war zones of the North and East, and amongst the Tamil Diaspora, the passion still continues. Many of the people living there have been direct victims of the war that lasted nearly three decades. They look to the process unfolding in Geneva to obtain justice for them and for their kin. They are hopeful that international intervention will resolve their problems and bring justice to them. The problem with their hopes is that there are many countries that are far worse than Sri Lanka in terms of human rights violations where the international community has done little or nothing.

A Joint Appeal made by Tamil Civil Society Organisations, Political Parties and Trade Unions calls on the UNHRC to deny the government the time it seeks and to conduct an independent international investigation instead. They see a repetition of broken promises by successive Sri Lankan governments where it concerns political solutions to the ethnic conflict. However, Sri Lanka is likely to get another two years. While agreeing to this two year extension, the Global Tamil Forum, a leading diaspora organization led by Fr S J Emmanuel, has requested the UNHRC to formally ensure that Sri Lanka makes a time bound delivery commitment to implement requirements of resolution 30/1 in full, without any exceptions. Whether or not this is included in the new resolution of the UNHRC, as a confidence building measure and an expression of its commitment, the government can set itself a plan and timeframe with regard to the implementation of its promises.

HRC 34: NO NEW COMMITMENTS ARISING FROM THE HIGH COMMISSIONER’S REPORT IN THE SRI LANKA RESOLUTION

Image: Sri Lanka FM Samaraweera and Ambassador to UNHRC Ariyasinghe at GoSL side event held on 01 March at UNHRC. ©s.deshapriya.

13/03/2017

Sri Lanka’s  Ministry of External Affairs (MEA)  says that the Sri Lanka Resolution to be adopted at the UNHRC  will not include taking on any new commitments arising from the High Commissioner’s Report to the Council at its current 34th Session.

Issuing  a statement to clarify certain media reports MEA further says that “what Sri Lanka will undertake at the current 34th session, is a two-year extension of the timeline for fulfilment of commitments made in Resolution 30/1, and that there will be no additional or new commitments arising from the High Commissioner’s Report to this current 34th Session.”

The statement quotes the Sri Lanka Ambassador to the UNHRC thus:  “We are studying all their reports carefully and we will, at a suitable time, share our views and observations on the issues raised in the High Commissioner’s latest Report, after consultation with all parties concerned, and also provide updates.”

Full text of the statement follows:

Clarification by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: misleading report in The Island newspaper of 8 March 2017

The Ministry’s attention has been drawn to a misleading report carried in The Island newspaper of 8 March 2017, titled ‘UN resolutions not binding on Sovereign Nations – Govt., ..but commitments will be honoured in keeping with Sri Lankan laws’, misquoting the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Harsha de Silva.

The Ministry wishes to state the following, clarifying misperceptions that have arisen as a result of this erroneous news report:

-During the Government headed by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, the Human Rights Council, on 27 March 2014, adopted Resolution 25/1 titled ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’, requesting the High Commissioner, inter alia, to undertake a comprehensive investigation into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both parties in Sri Lanka during the period covered by the LLRC, and to establish the facts and circumstances of such alleged violations and of the crimes perpetrated with a view to avoiding impunity and ensuring accountability, with assistance from relevant experts and special procedures mandate holders.

-Following this request of the Council, the High Commissioner launched the OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL), a first of this nature carried out by an external entity on matters pertaining to Sri Lanka. Moreover, further international action was being envisaged on Sri Lanka as a result of the Government’s inaction on matters pertaining to rule of law, reconciliation, and governance, at the time the Presidential Election was held on 8 January 2015.

-Following the Presidential election on 8 January 2015, the National Unity Government of Sri Lanka, under the leadership of President Mathripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, took steps to take ownership of reconciliation, rule of law, accountability, human rights and governance issues.

-As a result, when the OISL Report and the High Commissioner’s Report were presented at the 30th Session of the Council in September 2014, the Human Rights Council, having paid heed to the responsible manner in which the Unity Government had embarked on handling matters pertaining to reconciliation, accountability, human rights, rule of law and governance, adopted Resolution 30/1 on 1 October 2015, co-sponsored by Sri Lanka as well, clearly placing the Government of Sri Lanka in-charge of handling matters pertaining to these areas, and thus shifting all action to the domestic realm. As called for by the Resolution, the High Commissioner will be presenting a comprehensive report on the implementation of the Resolution to the Council on 22 March 2017. This Report has been made available in advance to the public.

-The Resolution that Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Ravinatha Aryasinha committed to co-sponsor at the current 34th Session of the Council, making a statement to this effect at the informal consultation held in Geneva on 7 March 2017, is one that provides for a two-year extension of the timeline for fulfilment of commitments made in Resolution 30/1. While “the views, observations and recommendations of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special Procedures”, as stated by Ambassador Aryasinha, “are constructive and meaningful for Sri Lanka as we strive to strengthen, promote, and protect human rights, good governance, and the rule of law in Sri Lanka”, the Resolution will not include taking on any new commitments arising from the High Commissioner’s Report to the Council at its current 34th Session. As stated by Ambassador Aryasinha, “We are studying all their reports carefully and we will, at a suitable time, share our views and observations on the issues raised in the High Commissioner’s latest Report, after consultation with all parties concerned, and also provide updates.”

– What the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs set out to explain and clarify is that what Sri Lanka will undertake at the current 34th session, is a two-year extension of the timeline for fulfilment of commitments made in Resolution 30/1, and that there will be no additional or new commitments arising from the High Commissioner’s Report to this current 34th Session.