Monday, March 27, 2017

Devin Nunes is making it very hard for Republicans to claim they can run an impartial investigation on Russia

House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) apologized to colleagues, March 23, after facing backlash for going to the White House before consulting them about what he said was fresh intelligence about surveillance of the president. (Reuters)

By Amber Phillips March 27 at 5:27 PM

From the perspective of impartiality, one of the problems with Congress investigating Russia’s meddling in the U.S. election and whether President Trump’s circle had anything to do with it is Congress itself.

It’s a political body made up of — well, politicians. That’s not to say these politicians can’t put on their impartial hats to undertake a large-scale investigation about the independence of U.S. democracy from foreign influence. But congressional investigations have a higher threshold of impartiality to meet than, say, an independent investigation outside the confines of Congress.

In recent days, Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is making it very hard for his committee to meet those standards of impartiality.

On Monday, Washington was abuzz with news that Nunes, a Trump ally, was on the White House grounds viewing classified information related to the president’s evidence-less claim that President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign. A day later, Nunes (R-Calif.) announced that he had information that revealed the president’s conversations during the campaign may have been caught up in a broader, unrelated intelligence net. (The president said he felt “somewhat” vindicated by Nunes’s claim even though Nunes flatly said the president’s accusation that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower “never happened.")

We still don’t know who gave Nunes the surveillance information or its significance to the committee’s broader investigation into Russia’s meddling. Nunes publicly said if the president’s name did show up in surveillance, it had nothing to do with Russia. He also told CNN that the president didn’t even know Nunes was at the White House Tuesday.

[Chairman and partisan: The dual roles of Devin Nunes raise questions about House investigation]

But here’s what anyone trying to follow the twists and turns of this Trump-Russia-wiretapping story is left with: A top Republican congressman and Trump ally was at the White House the day before he released information that appeared to somewhat defend the president on his defenseless wiretapping claims.

What’s more, the congressman released this secret information to the president — whose circle is under investigation by the FBI for alleged ties to Russia — before sharing it with his own committee members.

From there, it’s not a stretch for a reasonable person to consider whether Nunes, who served on Trump’s transition team, wants to protect the president. And from there, it’s not a stretch to question the impartiality of the investigation Nunes is leading in the House on Russia meddling in the U.S. election.

("It could very well be the case that Chairman Nunes was briefing members of the administration about an investigation of which they are the subject," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor on Monday as he became the top-ranking Democrat to request Nunes step down from his committee post.)

And that, say ethics and national security experts, is where the real damage in Nunes’s White House trip lies.

"This is really unusual behavior of an oversight committee chairman," said Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow of governance studies at Brookings Institution and editor-in-chief of Lawfare. "And it's hard to understand what could possibly justify it."

“I guess you could say I was gobsmacked by this,” said Norm Ornstein, a nonpartisan ethics scholar with the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. “The integrity of the system is built on the independence of Congress from any investigation involving the executive branch.

“I just think this is so far over the line you can’t even see the line anymore,” he said.

Ornstein’s outrage isn’t just about Nunes going to the White House to give the president a graceful out on his “wrong” wiretapping claim and overstepping norms to advise committee members first. (“Wrong” is how Nunes has described the president’s claims.)

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the Intelligence Committee’s ranking Democrat, addressed the status of the investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia in the Weekly Democratic Address. (Reuters)

The U.S. national security apparatus is in the aftermath of a crisis: It is trying to figure out how to react and respond to the fact that a foreign nation got involved in a U.S. presidential election to try to influence it. Impartial investigations — there’s one at the FBI, there’s one in the GOP-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, there’s one in the GOP-controlled House — are the first step in that process.

“This is a challenge to the foundations of our democracy,” Richard Ledgett, the No. 2 at the National Security Agency, recently told WaPo’s Ellen Nakashima in an interview unrelated to Nunes. " … The idea that another nation state is interfering with that] is a pretty big deal and something we need to figure out. How do we counter that? How do we identify that it’s happening — in real time as opposed to after the fact? And what do we do as a nation to make it stop?”

The lack of answers, Ledgett said, “as an American citizen … gives me a lot of heartburn.”

In other words, the stakes could not be higher that impartial investigations into what Russia did actually stay impartial. Most intelligence officials agree that Russia will probably try to tinker with Western democratic elections again; maybe even that of the United States.

On Monday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said he didn’t think Nunes had created a perception problem with all this: “You can’t ask someone to do a review of the situation and then create an interference because they’re reviewing the situation,” he said, referring to the fact Nunes probably had help from a White House official to review the classified documents in a secret room.

But Congress, by its nature, was already at risk of appearing motivated by partisanship as it looked into these very critical questions. At the very least, Nunes just opened up the door for people to believe the worst about Congress: that its members put politics above all else.

“If we issue a report where Democrats find one thing and Republicans find another, both sides retreat to their respective corners and nothing gets revealed,” Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told The Fix before this Nunes wiretapping news broke.

[Meet Rep. Adam Schiff, the Democrat fast becoming the face of opposition to President Trump]

As I outline here, there are other investigative options besides Congress that could be perceived as more impartial. The FBI confirmed it is looking into alleged Trump connections to Russia. Attorney General Jeff Sessions agreed to step aside from overseeing the investigation after news broke that he met with the Russian ambassador to the United States last year and didn't disclose it in his confirmation hearings before the Senate.

In addition to its Senate and House intelligence committees, Congress could set up a special congressional committee dedicated to investigating this, a la the Republican-majority Benghazi committee. Or it could set up a completely independent investigation outside of Congress, a la the 9/11 Commission. (The latter is what Schiff has called for.)

There’s no immediate sign that Republican leaders would be on board with any of those investigative alternatives. They’re already looking into something their president would rather they leave alone — Russia.

In a statement, AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), said: "Speaker Ryan has full confidence that Chairman Nunes is conducting a thorough, fair, and credible investigation."

But Nunes is making it that much harder for Republicans to argue that.

Who cleared Devin Nunes into the White House?

By Jake Tapper, Anchor and Chief Washington Correspondent-Mon March 27, 2017

Washington (CNN)It has been something of a mystery, the whereabouts of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes on the day before his announcement that he saw information suggesting that communications of then-President-elect Donald Trump and his advisers may have been swept up in surveillance of other foreign nationals.

The California Republican confirmed to CNN in a phone interview Monday he was on the White House grounds that day -- but he said he was not in the White House itself. (Other buildings, including the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, are on the same grounds.)

Nunes went to the building because he needed a secure area to view the information, he told CNN. He said he didn't believe the President nor any of his West Wing team were aware he was there, and the White House said Monday it learned of Nunes' visit through media reports and directed any questions to the congressman.

A former government intelligence official told CNN on Monday that members of Congress, like the general public, must be cleared and escorted into facilities on White House grounds.

"Every non-White House staffer must be cleared in by a current White House staffer," the official said. "So it's just not possible that the White House was unaware or uninvolved."

Trump's press secretary, Sean Spicer, directed all questions Monday about Nunes' source to the chairman.

At a briefing last week, Spicer refused to rule out whether Nunes' source came from the White House but did say during the daily press briefing that "it doesn't really pass the smell test."

"I did not sit in on that briefing," Spicer said. "I'm not -- it just doesn't -- so I don't know why he would brief the speaker and then come down here to brief us on something that we would have briefed him on. It doesn't really seem to make a ton of sense. So I'm not aware of it, but it doesn't really pass the smell test."

Nunes said he was there for additional meetings "to confirm what I already knew" but said he wouldn't comment further so as to not "compromise sources and methods." A spokesman for Nunes said he "met with his source at the White House grounds in order to have proximity to a secure location where he could view the information provided by the source."

A government official said Nunes was seen Tuesday night at the National Security Council offices of the Eisenhower building which, other than the White House Situation Room, is the main area on the complex to view classified information in a secure room.

The official said Nunes arrived and left alone.

Nunes told CNN he had been working on nailing down the surveillance information before Trump's unsubstantiated claim earlier this month that he was wiretapped by President Barack Obama. Last week, Nunes told CNN he was unaware of any evidence to back up Trump's claim.

He told CNN Monday he wanted to "reiterate this has nothing to do with Russia." In a statement, Nunes' spokesman, Jack Langer, said the congressman is "extremely concerned by the possible improper unmasking of names of US citizens."

Two congressional sources said Nunes was with a staff member Tuesday night when he got a message, got out of the car and got into an Uber. Staff did not hear again from him that night.

They next heard from Nunes Wednesday morning, the day he scheduled a news conference before going to the White House. The staff do not know where he went Tuesday night.

Nunes pushed back strongly against an account in The Daily Beast that suggested efforts of subterfuge in his path to his sources that day.

"I was in a cab with staff and we dropped them off before I went to my meeting," he said. "Anything other than that is just false."

'He owes us an explanation'

Nunes' disclosure that Trump's own communications may have been picked up in "incidental" collections by domestic spies -- and decision to speak to the press and White House before informing the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee -- infuriated Democrats and led him to apologize to his colleagues on the panel. Trump has said he feels "somewhat" vindicated by Nunes' findings.

Some Democrats have said Nunes' actions mean he can't conduct an impartial investigation into potential Trump-Russia ties, though House Speaker Paul Ryan said Monday he has "full confidence" Nunes can oversee the probe.

"We still really want this investigation to be non-partisan, and what the chairman did this week makes that very hard," Intelligence Committee ranking member Democrat Adam Schiff told CNN on Friday.

A spokesman for Schiff told CNN Monday the California Democrat was declining to comment for now about Nunes' meeting on the White House grounds.

But Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat who also sits on the Intelligence Committee, accused the White House Monday of "obstructing" the panel's investigation and called for an independent commission to review the matter.

And Rep. Jim Himes, D-Connecticut, told CNN's Kate Bolduan Monday that Nunes' actions were "bizarre" and "loopy," adding that Nunes has told Democrats "nothing" about developments in the investigation.

"Whatever it is he's done, it has been at the White House, it appears to have been in the service of the White House, and so, it is very clear that he owes us an explanation," Himes said on "At This Hour."

This story is being updated.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misstated White House press secretary Sean Spicer's answer Monday to whether Rep. Devin Nunes' source came from the White House. Spicer referred questions about Nunes' source Monday to the House Intelligence Committee chairman.

CNN's Manu Raju, Phil Mattingly, Jeff Zeleny, Tom LoBianco, Theodore Schleifer and Allison Hedges contributed to this report.

White House Rejects Claims Trump Gave Merkel Fake $376 Billion ‘Bill’ For NATO Payments

BY ROBBIE GRAMER-MARCH 27, 2017

The tense Donald Trump-Angela Merkel meeting this month may have been even tenser behind the scenes. Not because of awkward attempts to rebuff a handshake, or poorly-fashioned surveillance jokes, but because of a fake invoice for NATO payments. To the tune of some $376 billion. With interest.
German officials told the Sunday Times the U.S. President handed the German Chancellor a “bill” reportedly amounting to over $376 billion to reflect Germany’s shortfall in defense spending since 2002 as a NATO alliance member. An anonymous German minister told the Sunday Times, which first reported the story Sunday, that the gesture was “ridiculous.”

“The concept behind putting out such demands is to intimidate the other side, but the chancellor took it calmly and will not respond to such provocations,” the minister said. Merkel’s office hasn’t yet publicly responded to the disputed report but White House spokesman Michael Short denied it as “false.”

NATO defense spending became a top sticking point for Trump, who excoriated allies on the presidential campaign trail for “freeriding” off U.S. defense commitments by not footing their fare share of the bill. During his visit to Brussels last month, U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis issued a fuzzy ultimatum that the United States would “moderate” its commitments to NATO if allies didn’t boost their defense expenditures.

After his meeting with Merkel on March 17, full of more public cringe-worthy diplomatic snafus, Trump took to Twitter to say Germany owed the United States money for NATO (but first, of course, he had to bash the media):

German officials and former U.S. officials rebuked the claims, as that’s not how NATO defense spending works. “There is no account where debts are registered with NATO,” German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said in a statement responding to Trump’s allegations.

“The idea that countries ‘owe’ the United States for what they rightly see as a defense posture that serves America’s own direct interests, is considered absurd by many allies,” former U.S. ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder told Foreign Policy.

NATO asks member countries to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense, though only five of 28 members currently meet that requirement — the United States, United Kingdom, Poland, Estonia, and Greece.

Germany currently spends 1.2 percent of its GDP on defense. But it’s also NATO’s second-largest contributor to civil and military budgets after the United States, funding 14 percent of the alliance’s common shared budgets and programs.

Berlin announced in February it would up defense spending by some $2 billion in 2017 and boost the size of its armed forces to 200,000 over the next seven years. But experts and former officials contend Germany’s decision was borne out of new security threats, not Trump’s badgering.

“[Russian President] Vladimir Putin is a far bigger reason defense budgets in Europe are now rising than Donald Trump,” Daalder said.

Photo credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Future of the human costs of nuclear war!

by Wakana Mukai-Mar 27, 2017

( March 27, 2017, Tokyo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Even though nuclear powers and countries that fall under their security umbrella are expected to resist efforts to ban nuclear weapons, talks begin in New York on March 27 towards an international treaty that does just this. A second round of negotiations is slated for June 15 to July 7.

On December 23, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution (113 in favour, 35 against, and 13 abstaining) to launch negotiations on a treaty that prohibits nuclear weapons.

Two out of three categories of weapons of mass destruction – biological and chemical weapons – as well as landmines and cluster munitions already have strict conventions that largely ban them. The starting point for these conventions was the humanitarian impact; these weapons are so devastating that they should never be used.

But strictly speaking, the use of nuclear weapons – arguably the most destructive of them all – is currently not necessarily prohibited under international law. And countries that do not possess nuclear weapons, together with NGOs, have wanted to have them banned for a long time.

The human cost

The international community witnessed the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons as early as 1945 with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the destruction wrought on these cities by what are by today’s standards very basic nuclear bombs did not lead to their prohibition.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which came into force in 1970 and was indefinitely extended in 1995, merely prohibits the spread of such weapons. But Article IV of the document does call for parties to the agreement to negotiate “a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”.

Unfortunately, the dynamics of the Cold War meant that nuclear weapons remained a part of international politics and national security. Only since the end of the Cold War have questions about the use of nuclear weapons and their devastating consequences started to be seriously contemplated.

In 1996, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on the threat or use of nuclear weapons. This stated that it “would generally be contrary” to “the principles and rules of humanitarian law”.

And in 1997, a group of concerned lawyers, scientists, physicians, former diplomats, academics and activists drafted a model Nuclear Weapons Convention. Initiated by international NGOs, such as the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), the model was ultimately submitted to the UN General Assembly by Costa Rica that same year.

It was revised in 2007 to include key developments since 1997 and was again submitted by Costa Rica and Malaysia to the UN General Assembly that year. It was then circulated as an official document in 2008.

In 2010, the president of the International Commission of the Red Cross highlighted the importance of humanitarian considerations in his statement about nuclear weapons in Geneva. And, at the NPT Review Conference the same year, governments officially expressed in the final document their “deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons”.

States, international organisations and civil society convened conferences in 2013 and 2014 that focused on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.

But although the “Humanitarian Pledge” issued in 2014 emphasised that nuclear weapons are simply too dangerous for us to permit their existence, none of the countries that possess nuclear weapons endorsed the idea. Neither did US allies protected under the country’s nuclear umbrella.

Opposing positions

In 2016, three sessions of the UN’s Open-ended Working Group taking forward nuclear disarmament negotiations were held for a total of 15 days. These led to more than 100 countries supporting the start of negotiations on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons.

That, in turn, resulted in a UN General Assembly resolution advising states to pursue multilateral negotiations towards banning nuclear weapons in the next year. Not surprisingly, none of the countries that have nuclear weapons participated in any of the meetings. All of them will presumably not be attending the latest round of talks either.

Meanwhile, two opposing positions became apparent among countries that do not possess nuclear weapons, adding another divide to the existing gap between states that possess nuclear weapons and those that do not.

The first group of countries are those that want a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons based on the common understanding that the humanitarian consequences of their use cannot be ignored. Several members of this grouping have called for the creation of a nuclear weapons convention, while others have called for a stand-alone prohibition or a so-called “ban treaty”.

The second group consists of countries that depend on extended nuclear deterrence. They are calling for “progressive approach” that seeks non-legal and legal measures as “building blocks” towards a nuclear ban. These include reducing the risks of accidental and unauthorised use of nuclear weapons and bringing into force the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

According to their plan, only after a vision of a world free of nuclear weapons becomes a reality would a ban treaty be actually feasible to pursue.

While the first group emphasises the importance of negotiating a ban treaty, nuclear-armed states and those that fall under their umbrella are seeking to slow the process. And the gap between these two attitudes is the critical challenge for the process.

Non-state actors

Alongside state-to-state negotiations, civil society has also been playing crucial roles on the road to negotiations. The importance of civil society groups and NGOs is recognised in Article 71 of the UN Charter.

Civil society has been active in the moves towards prohibiting nuclear weapons with strong support by grassroots movements such as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a coalition of prominent and active NGOs.

In the end, governments will make the decisions on the actual wording, demands and breadth of any ban treaty. They will also decide whether to sign and ratify it. But pressure from civil society will contribute the atmosphere for moving forward.

No one in the world can argue against the idea of a world without nuclear weapons or the total elimination of nuclear weapons. And it is not just legal provisions and measures that are important. The norms and atmosphere created by the establishment of a ban treaty, or at least efforts towards concluding one, will be a vital part of the mix.

The humanitarian consequences of using nuclear weapons play a central part in the international nuclear disarmament initiative now starting. It goes beyond traditional strategic thinking about nuclear policy and appeals to the core of mankind. After all, a single nuclear detonation may set off a chain of events that could become the harbinger for the end of the world as we know it. Clearly, none of us wants to see that.

Wakana Mukai, Assistant Professor at the Security Studies Unit of the Policy Alternative Research Institute, University of Tokyo

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Seven dead in worst attack on aid workers since South Sudan war began

UN condemns ‘heinous murder’ of humanitarian staff from Unicef partner and calls on ‘all those in a position of power’ in South Sudan to end the violence

Relatives of the six aid workers who were ambushed and killed grieve outside the morgue in Juba, South Sudan. Photograph: AP

Karen McVeigh and agencies-Monday 27 March 2017

Six aid workers and their driver have been killed in South Sudan in the worst single attack on humanitarian staff in the country’s three-year civil war.

The aid workers, from a Unicef partner, Grassroots Empowerment and Development Organisation (Gredo), which works to support children released from armed groups, were in a vehicle marked as belonging to an NGO when they were attacked on Saturday. Four of the dead were South Sudanese and three were Kenyans.

They were killed as they drove from the capital, Juba, to the town of Pibor, according to the UN. The territory, which is remote and under government control, is beset with militia and armed groups. The UN called the attack a “heinous murder of six courageous humanitarians”.

The South Sudanese government said it was too early to say who was to blame for the ambush. Akol Paul Kordit, the deputy minister of information, told Reuters in Juba: “It will be counterproductive at this stage for anybody to rush for judgment without first allowing the truth to be established.”

Rebel fighters loyal to the former vice-president, Riek Machar, said the government should be held accountable as the killings happened on its territory.

“We don’t have forces in that area. Instead, it’s the government forces and militias who control that area,” said the spokesman for the rebel SPLM-IO forces, Lam Paul Gabriel.

The UN called on “all those in a position of power” in South Sudan to stop the violence and Unicef urged the authorities to investigate and hold the perpetrators to account.

“Unicef is deeply shocked by the senseless killing of staff belonging to our partner organisation, the Grassroots Empowerment and Development Organisation,” a Unicef spokesman said in a statement on Monday.

“The humanitarian workers were travelling in a car that was clearly marked as belonging to a non-governmental organisation, including NGO number plates. We are appalled that humanitarians working to improve the lives of the vulnerable in South Sudan were so brutally targeted and call on the authorities to find and hold accountable those responsible.”

Gredo works in South Sudan on community-based reintegration programmes, including supporting children released from armed forces.

Eugene Owusu, the UN’s humanitarian chief in South Sudan, said: “These attacks against aid workers and aid assets are utterly reprehensible. They not only put the lives of aid workers at risk, they also threaten the lives of thousands of South Sudanese who rely on our assistance for their survival.”

At least 79 aid workers have been killed in the country since December 2013. The latest killings come after two other attacks, one fatal, on aid workers this month. A humanitarian convoy was attacked in Yirol East on 14 March, while responding to a cholera outbreak in the area, resulting in the death of a health worker and a patient. On 10 March, local staff of an international aid organisation were detained by armed rebels in Meyendit town for four days before being released.

UN leaders have condemned President Kiir and rebel leaders for squandering a peace deal in a country that has collapsed into a brutal ethnic war, involving massacres, starvation and rape.

Famine has been declared in parts of the country.

The war began as a dispute between President Kiir, who is Dinka, and former vice-president Machar, who is Nuer.

Putin critic Navalny jailed after protests across Russia

Putin critic jailed for anti-graft protests

By Andrew Osborn and Svetlana Reiter | MOSCOW-Mon Mar 27, 2017

Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny was handed a 15-day jail sentence on Monday for his part in a big anti-government protest in Moscow which buoyed the liberal opposition's morale a year before a presidential election.

Sunday's protest and others like it across Russia were estimated to be the largest since 2012 and foreshadow a presidential election which Vladimir Putin is expected to contest.

Opinion polls suggest Navalny, who hopes to run against Putin, has little chance of unseating the Russian leader, who enjoys high ratings. But Navalny and his supporters hope to channel public discontent over corruption to get more support.

Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny attends a hearing after being detained at the protest against corruption and demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, at the Tverskoi court in Moscow, Russia March 27, 2017. REUTERS/Tatyana Makeyeva

Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny is escorted upon his arrival for a hearing after being detained at the protest against corruption and demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, at the Tverskoi court in Moscow, Russia March 27, 2017. REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov

Navalny, who will appeal the court's verdict, was found guilty of disobeying a police officer at Sunday's Moscow protest and sentenced to 15 days in jail. He was also fined for organising the protest, which the authorities said was illegal.

Navalny told reporters in the Moscow courtroom that he and his allies would not give up.

"You can’t detain tens of thousands of people," he said. "Yesterday we saw the authorities can only go so far."

Police detained more than 1,000 protesters across Russia on Sunday as crowds took to the streets, at Navalny's urging, to demonstrate against corruption and demand the resignation of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.

Medvedev's spokeswoman has dismissed corruption allegations against him as "propagandistic attacks".

Navalny said Russians would keep protesting for "as long as people see tens of billions of dollars being stolen by top officials".

The Kremlin dismissed the protests as an illegal provocation and rejected U.S. and European Union calls to free detainees like Navalny.

"We can't agree with these calls," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call, saying the police had been professional and properly enforced Russian law.

He said the Kremlin had no problem with people expressing their opinions at protest meetings, but the timing and location had to be agreed with authorities in advance, something he said had not been done in large part on Sunday.

"We can't respect people who deliberately misled minors - in essence children - calling on them to take part in illegal actions in unsanctioned places and offering them certain rewards to do so, thus putting their lives at risk," said Peskov.

A Reuters reporter saw Navalny being loaded into a van after his court appearance. It was surrounded by supporters holding placards reading" "We believe" and "Alexei, we are with you." Police then detained the group of around 20 young people.

(Editing by Andrew Roche)

Foreign journalists given 4-day pass to investigate Rakhine violence 2017-03-15T113531Z_1677175651_RC1209C44450_RTRMADP_3_MYANMAR-ROHINGYA-CLEANSING-940x580

2017-03-15T113531Z_1677175651_RC1209C44450_RTRMADP_3_MYANMAR-ROHINGYA-CLEANSING-940x580

A Rohingya refugee girl carries a baby inside a refugee camp in Sitwe, in the state of Rakhine, Myanmar March 4, 2017. Source: Reuters/Soe Zeya Tun

27th March 2017

BURMESE (Myanmar) state media has announced a trip for local and foreign journalists to visit Rakhine State, where the country’s military has been accused of human rights abuses against the Rohingya.

According to government-owned newspaper The Global New Light of Myanmar, a team of 20 foreign and local media groups will be permitted to “freely investigate” in the Maungtaw District, northern Rakhine state between March 28 and April 1. The delegation will be led by general manager U Ye Naing from the Information Ministry.

The article refers to Rakhine state as “the site of violent attacks in October on border police outposts that prompted months of security clearance operations,” referencing an assault on police officers in the volatile region which left nine police officers dead and led to a brutal clampdown on Rohingya.

The United Nations has claimed more than 1,000 Rohingya have been killed in the army’s operations in Rakhine, and at least 70,000 Rohingya have fled to neighbouring Bangladesh since late 2016. The country’s leader Aung San Suu Kyi has been widely criticised for her failure to speak out on the plight of the Rohingya.

On the “excursion” to Rakhine State, the government said journalists are expected to cover “the fleeing and resettlement of families, damage and reconstruction of areas destroyed by fire, the resulting decline of the fishing industry of the district, immigration and trading of merchandise near the border.”

No mention of military violence against the Rohingya population is mentioned.

SEE ALSO: Meet Anwar, news editor of the world’s first Rohingya channel

The newspaper report also notes that some foreign and local press were granted access to the Maungtaw District on Dec 19, 2016. At that time, however, the Associated Press and BBC were both barred and the junket was widely criticised as a controlled exercise in propaganda.

Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Myanmar secretary Thitsa Hla Htway told Voice of America that the December trip was “just for show … the government’s intention is to exploit them only.”

The same month, Burma’s Religious Affairs and Culture Ministry announced it was working on a treatise at proving the Rohingya community are not indigenous to the country.