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

Sunday, April 30, 2017

 Here are the highlights from "Daily Show" comedian Hasan Minhaj's speech at the 2017 White House correspondents' dinner. (Nicki DeMarco/The Washington Post)

 

President Trump wasn’t there to roast in person at the White House correspondents’ dinner. But that didn’t stop the evening’s entertainer, Hasan Minhaj. The comedian said at one point that he was told not to go after the president (though White House Correspondents’ Association President Jeff Mason appeared to deny this in an audible aside from the stage). There were plenty of jokes about Trump and his administration — and more than a few at the media’s expense as well.

Here are some of the harshest jokes from Minhaj’s speech.

— “I would say it is an honor to be here, but that would be an alternative fact. It is not. No one wanted to do this. So of course it lands in the hands of an immigrant.”

— “Don Rickles died just so you wouldn’t ask him to do this gig, all right? RIP to Don Rickles, the only Donald with skin thick enough to take a joke like that.”

— “A lot of people in the media say that Donald Trump goes golfing too much. . . which raises a very important question: Why do you care? Do you want to know what he’s not doing when he’s golfing? Being president. Let the man putt-putt! . . . The longer you keep him distracted, the longer we’re not at war with North Korea.”

— “We gotta address the elephant that’s not in the room. The leader of our country is not here. And that’s because he lives in Moscow; it is a very long flight. It’d be hard for Vlad to make it. Vlad can’t just make it on a Saturday! As for the other guy, I think he’s in Pennsylvania because he can’t take a joke.”

— “There was also another elephant in the room, but Donald Trump Jr. shot it and cut off its tail.”

— “Jeff Sessions couldn’t be here tonight, he was busy doing a pre-Civil War reenactment. On his RSVP, he just wrote ‘NO.’ Just ‘no,’ which happens to be his second favorite n-word.”

— “Is Steve Bannon here? I do not see Steve Bannon. I do NOT see Steve Bannon. Not see Steve Bannon. Nazi Steve Bannon.”

— “Betsy DeVos couldn’t be here; she’s busy curating her collection of children’s tears.”

— “Frederick Douglass isn’t here, and that’s because he’s dead. Someone please tell the president.”

— “Mike Pence wanted to be here tonight, but his wife would not let him because apparently one of you ladies is ovulating. So good job, ladies. Because of you we couldn’t hang out with Mike Pence.”

— “Even Hillary Clinton couldn’t be here tonight. I mean, she could have been here, but I think someone told her the event was in Wisconsin and Michigan.”

— “[Sean Spicer] has been doing PR since 1999. He has been doing this job for 18 years. And somehow, after 18 years, his go-to move when you ask him a tough question is denying the Holocaust. That is insane! How many people do you know that can turn a press briefing into a full-on Mel Gibson traffic stop?”

— “Donald Trump is liar-in-chief. Remember, you guys are public enemy number one. You are his biggest enemy. Journalists, ISIS, normal-length ties.”

— “It is amazing to be among the greatest journalists in the world, and yet, when we all checked into the Hilton on Friday, we all got a USA Today. Every time a USA Today slides underneath my door, it’s like they’re saying, ‘Hey, you’re not that smart, right?’ USA Today is what happens when the coupon section takes over the newspaper. Is this an article about global warming or 50 cents off Tide? Either way, the pictures are so pretty!”

— “The news coming out of the White House is so stressful, I’ve been watching ‘House of Cards’ just to relax. Oh man, a congressman pushed a journalist in front of a moving train? That’s quaint!”

See photos from the White House correspondents’ dinner


Celebrities, journalists and politicians gather in Washington, D.C., for the annual dinner that will not be attended by President Trump.

New world, New policy: Overcoming the Burden of Foreignness

The “burden of foreignness” is daunting, and we should commend and support those who take on this challenge to drive beneficial US exports. In many ways, we all depend on it.

by Michael Czinkota-
( April 29, 2017, Washington DC, Sri Lanka Guardian) Why should we worry about misaligned participations in trade? According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, less than 1 percent of U.S. firms export. Tens of thousands of small-business manufacturers and service sector firms could export their goods and services, but do not. These companies face challenges in going overseas due to their lack of local knowledge, what I term the “burden of foreignness.” Policymakers need to help these prospective exporters overcome this burden and access new opportunities overseas.
Trade has a great impact on the U.S. economy. Virginia created more than 90,000 jobs with exports 2014. Larger growth in imports than in exports has resulted in long-term trade deficits. In 1983, annual imports of products into the United States exceeded exports by more than $70 billion. The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services had risen above $502 billion in 2016. Annual trade deficits in this range are unsupportable in the long run. Since these deficits add to the U.S. international debt, which must be serviced and, perhaps, eventually repaid.
Exporting is not only good in the international trade picture, but a key factor in increasing employment. The US Department of Commerce has estimated that $1 billion in exports supported the creation, on average, of 5,800 jobs in 2014. Due to productivity increase, this number has declined during the past years. Advanced technology reduces the input of labor and therefore the employment effects of trade. Overall, goods exports supported 7.1 million jobs in 2014. Services exports supported a record 4.6 million jobs in 2014.
Imports, in turn, bring a wider variety of products and services into a country. They exert competitive pressure for domestic firms to improve their quality, service and price. Imports, therefore, expand the choices of consumers and improve their standard of living. Exports, in turn, are the crucial factor that makes imports possible and sustainable in the long run. Not all nations participate to the same degree, some of them over export, others under export.
Not all nations participate to the same degree, some of them over export, others under export. For example, Australia exports over $1000 more per capita than it imports, thanks to its vast natural resources and modest population. The United States, on the other hand, exports a little less than two thirds as much as it imports. Countries that under-export are not reaching their potential on the world market and are leaving more on the table.
Participation in international business can help firms achieve economies of scale that that go beyond success achieved in domestic markets. Addressing a global market greatly adds to the number of potential customers. Increasing production lets firms ride the learning curve more quickly and therefore makes goods available more cheaply at home. Finally, and perhaps most important, international business permits firms to hone their competitive skills abroad by meeting the challenge of foreign markets and products. By going abroad, firms can learn from their foreign competitors, challenge them on their ground, and translate the absorbed knowledge into productivity improvements back home. Firms that operate only in the domestic market are at risk of being surprised by the onslaught of foreign competition and seeing their domestic market share threatened.
The “burden of foreignness” is daunting, and we should commend and support those who take on this challenge to drive beneficial US exports. In many ways, we all depend on it.
Professor Michael Czinkota (czinkotm@georgetown.edu) teaches international marketing at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business in Washington D.C. and the University of Kent at Canterbury, U.K. His key book (with Ilkka Ronkainen) is International Marketing, 10th ed., CENGAGE

Germany Has an Arrogance Problem

One country’s moral evangelism is the rest of the world’s intolerable smugness.
Germany Has an Arrogance Problem

No automatic alt text available.BY PAUL HOCKENOS-APRIL 27, 2017

O One year ago, Germany was named the “best country” in the world, according to a poll by the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. The poll relied on criteria measuring entrepreneurship, power, public education, and quality of life, among others. But for a growing number of Germans, the important thing was that it offered confirmation of their own self-image. Their country slipped to fourth in this year’s poll, behind Switzerland, Canada, and the United Kingdom, but that seems unlikely to do much to dim the self-confidence of a country enjoying a surging economy and growing international cachet.

Whether the field is migration or manufacturing, fiscal policy or renewable energy, Germans increasingly believe that they, and they alone, know best, at least judging from the attitude newly on display everywhere from newspaper columns to parliamentary speeches to barroom chats over beer. In German the phenomenon is summed up in one word: Besserwisserei, a know-it-all attitude, which the Germans themselves admit is somewhat of an engrained cultural trait.
But it’s increasingly clear that one country’s allegedly evidence-based Besserwisserei is another country’s intolerable smugness.
But it’s increasingly clear that one country’s allegedly evidence-based Besserwisserei is another country’s intolerable smugness. Just ask Germany’s European neighbors, and others, including the United States, where resentment of Germans has been percolating for years, under constant threat of bubbling over.

Resentment is only one part of the problem posed by Germany’s self-satisfaction. The other is the growing threat that cultural vanity will begin to shade into self-defeating political egotism. Besserwisserei may be a cultural trait that reaches back centuries, but Germany wields more power in Europe today, particularly in the European Union, than at any time in recent memory. And the Germany of Chancellor Angela Merkel hasn’t hesitated to throw it around. The rest of Europe certainly notices that things are increasingly done Germany’s way, even when the German way arguably — or as some of the country’s critics suggest, plainly — isn’t best. The big question for the future of Europe might be whether Germans will notice, too.

The charges of egotism and high-handed behavior are relatively new. In the 1949-to-1990 Bonn Republic, West Germany was a humble subordinate of the Western alliance. Its meekness and rock-solid commitment to the good of the EU, in which political power was more widely distributed than it is today (mostly in the direction of Paris), stemmed from the World War II crimes committed by Nazi Germany.

The postwar country’s sovereignty was held in check by the Western allies (and in the east by the Soviet Union), and its leaders fought to loosen the corset bit by bit through benevolent deeds. The West Germans were on their best behavior so as not to look aggressive or power hungry. Unification was a taboo topic, while national pride was shunned. And it was playing the good Germans (and the good Europeans) that paved the way to German unification in 1990. By then, most — but not all — of Europe trusted Germany, understanding it as a democracy willing to sacrifice its immediate interests for a European community that returned Germania to the family of normal countries.

The difference, explains Sir Paul Lever, a former British ambassador to Germany and author of Berlin Rules, is that Germany is in the driver’s seat. “Germany is more powerful than ever, especially within the EU, not because it chose to be, but because there’s no one else there capable of leading right now,” he says, pointing to France’s weakened position in the union. But Lever’s not of the opinion that the Germans are conceited, rather “they’re simply following their own self-interest because now they can,” he says, noting that other European countries have freely chosen to fall into line.

German high-handedness is eliciting angry charges of “moral imperialism” from Hungary, and its central European neighbors, including Slovakia, Poland, and Croatia, largely concur. Meanwhile, during the first round of the French presidential election, candidates from more than one party chastised Merkel for dictating a German eurozone policy. “We order it, you obey, and tout suite,” is how the German publisher Wolfram Weimer critically summed up Germany’s new modus operandi during the bailout negotiations in an article titled “Virtuous Totalitarianism”. U.S. economist Paul Krugman repeatedly blasts Germany for “moralizing” on European fiscal policy, namely Germany’s obsession with budget discipline, which he considers entirely counterproductive. Since Germany’s setting of the onerous terms for the eurozone’s recovery packages, beginning in 2011, surveys in Europe show that many fellow Europeans consider Germans arrogant, insensitive, and egotistical (while, strangely, praising their dependability and influence in Europe).

What’s ignited the latest storm of unhappiness with the Germans is the country’s whopping trade surplus ($271 billion in 2016), which balloons from year to year with no apparent end in sight. The problem with this is that Germany’s surplus leaves many of its trading partners, such as the United States but also France and southern Europe, with unbalanced current accounts in their bilateral trade with Germany, which exacerbates their (in some cases, chronic) export-import imbalances. At worst, a sustained negative trade balance adversely affects growth, stability, and employment. Germany’s surpluses have grown so large that even the International Monetary Fund takes it to task for the sin.

There’s wide agreement, among German economists too, that the country’s export prowess is in large part the product of a low euro, low oil prices, and relatively low wages in Germany. Indeed, German exports benefit immensely from a euro that, for Germany, is undervalued. (The value of the one-size-fits-all common currency has to fit, as best as possible, every economy in the 19-member eurozone. The compromise rate is thus comparatively high, say, for Greece, Italy, and even perhaps France, while disproportionately low for Germany.) Critics, such as the IMF, claim that Germany, at the very least, has to rectify the imbalances by spending more and raising wages. The balance-negative eurozone countries say Germany has to give back, too — not just take.

“The reason why Germany is so successful in exports,” David McAllister, a leading German Christian Democrat, told Foreign Policy, “is that its products are highly competitive, of very high quality. We carried out hard reforms to make this happen,” he says, referring to measures streamlining the welfare state and unshackling the labor market. McAllister, a believer in balanced budgets, acknowledges the disapproval going around, but responds, “Those countries criticizing Germany might like to ask themselves why they aren’t as successful, and instead of complaining look at why Germany is, and learn from that.”

In other words, do it our way and shut up about it.
The surplus is just one place where the
Germans tend, in the eyes of their peers, to wax pedantic and treat economic policy as a moral cudgel.
Germans tend, in the eyes of their peers, to wax pedantic and treat economic policy as a moral cudgel. There is no better example than Merkel’s famously lecturing the indebted countries of southern Europe to run their economies like the typical Swabian hausfrau, who is industrious, penny-pinching, resourceful. The implication, which some German politicos expressed out loud, was that in contrast with the Swabian housewife, the southerners were lazy and spendthrift. Moreover, Germany has managed to impose its fiscal conservatism on Greece and the other southern European economies: austerity, debt reduction, tight loan repayment schedules.

It’s not just that Germans seldom acknowledge the economic misery that many of their European neighbors are forced to endure. Germany, for example, boasts an all-time low youth unemployment rate of 6.6 percent, while in Greece and Spain 48 and 42 percent, respectively, of young people are out of work.
It’s also that German conservatives feel inclined to crow about their newfound influence — a little too loudly. In 2011, in front of the Bundestag, Christian Democrat Volker Kauder announced, “Now all of Europe is speaking German!” — referring to the budget discipline that all eurozone countries have signed up to now, some of them against their better judgment.

Not everyone agrees that this amounts to arrogance. Philosopher Wolfram Eilenberger denies that any apologies are in order. “Even when Germany does something obviously decent and generous, like taking in so many refugees, it’s accused of arrogance and unilateral behavior,” he says. “We can’t be as humble as we were in the Bonn Republic, because Germany has more responsibility now that it can’t shirk. There’s a new Germany that’s not aggressive or intolerant.”

Of course, another reason German smugness can get under the skin is the fact that Germany simply isn’t nearly as universally superlative as it might prefer to think. A close corollary of Besserwisserei has always been hypocrisy. So Germany may browbeat other countries about their deficits today, but other Europeans remember that in the 2000s, when the German economy was in the dumps, and again during the financial crisis, Berlin consistently ran budget deficits in excess of eurozone rules — and avoided penalties for it. The deficits were critical for Germany to get its economy going again.

Meanwhile, Germany insists that other countries follow its lead on climate change, shutting down nuclear power stations and switching to clean energy generation. But Germany is Europe’s biggest burner of dirty coal (seventh in the world), and it’s not on track to hit the Paris Agreement’s reduction targets for 2020. Its best-selling export is big, expensive, gas-guzzling luxury automobiles, including diesels. The Dieselgate scandal caught Volkswagen and other German car manufacturers cheating on emissions tests.

And it’s no accident that the scandal was uncovered in the United States, far from the reach of German political and cultural power — nor that Germany’s discussion about the scandal has been just as focused on how the German auto companies in question can be saved rather than about the financial or moral atonement they might owe. “It’s obvious that the EU should take over emissions testing and that the commission should impose huge fines on Germany,” Lever says. “But it won’t, because it’s Germany, that’s why. It shows how much power Germany has now.”

Photo credit: THOMAS LOHNES/Getty Images

‘Jihadists were going to burn it all’: the amazing story of Timbuktu’s book smugglers

In 2012, ​tens of ​thousands of ​artefacts from the golden age of Timbuktu were at risk in Mali’s civil war. This exclusive extract describes the race to save them​ from the flames – and how lethal attacks could still threaten the town’s treasures

A damaged manuscript in Timbuktu in January 2013. Photograph: Benoit Tessier/Reuters-Abdel Kader Haidara showing rescued manuscripts in Bamako in 2015. Photograph: Charlie English
President Hollande in Mali in February 2013. Photograph: Fred Dufour/AFP/Getty Images--A restoration expert with one of the manuscripts in 2016. Photograph: Thomas Imo/Photothek via Getty Images--

-Sunday 30 April 2017

One hazy morning in 2012 in Bamako, the capital of the west African state of Mali, an ageing Toyota Land Cruiser picked its way to the end of a concrete driveway and pulled out into the busy morning traffic. In its front passenger seat sat a large man in billowing robes and a pillbox prayer cap. He was 47 years old, stood over 6ft tall, and weighed around 14st, and, although a small, French-style moustache balanced jauntily on his upper lip, there was something commanding about his appearance. In his brown eyes lurked a sharp, almost impish intelligence. He was Abdel Kader Haidara, librarian of Timbuktu, and his name would soon become famous around the world.

Haidara was not an indecisive man, but that morning, as his driver piloted the heavy vehicle through the clouds of buzzing Chinese-made motorbikes and beat-up green minibuses that plied the city’s streets, he was caught in an agony of indecision. The car stereo, tuned to Radio France Internationale, spewed alarming updates on the situation in the north, while the cheap mobile phones that were never far from his grasp jangled continually with reports from his contacts in Timbuktu, 600 miles away. The rebels were advancing across the desert, driving government troops and refugees before them. Haidara had known when he left his apartment that driving into this chaos would be dangerous, but now it was beginning to look like a suicide mission.

Responsable is a French noun whose meaning is easy to guess at in English. There were few better words to describe the librarian then than as a responsable for a giant slice of neglected history, the manuscripts of Timbuktu, a collection of handwritten documents so large no one knew quite how many there were, though he himself would put them in the hundreds of thousands. The manuscripts contained some of the most valuable written sources for the so-called golden age of Timbuktu, in the 15th and 16th centuries, and the great Songhay empire of which it was a part. They had been held up as proof of the continent’s vibrant written history. Few had done more to unearth the manuscripts than Haidara. In the months to come, no one would be given more credit for their salvation.

In person, the librarian was an imposing man with a handshake of astonishing softness, a drive-by of a greeting that left a hint of remembered contact, no more. He was well versed in the history and content of the documents, but appeared not so much a scholar as a businessman who controlled his affairs in a variety of languages via his mobile phones, or in person from behind a desk the size of a small boat. He was not the only proprietor of manuscripts in the city, but as the owner of the largest private collection and founder of Savama, an organisation devoted to safeguarding the city’s written heritage, he claimed to represent the bulk of Timbuktu’s manuscript-owning families.

Sitting in his car on the morning of 31 March, Haidara knew there was only one place he should be. The cumbersome Land Cruiser made a U-turn once again, and headed north-east, toward Timbuktu and the war.

Northern Mali had long been a rough neighbourhood, a refuge for bandits, smugglers and revolutionaries. In 2011, an extra ingredient had been added to the simmering stew. That year, a rebellion in Libya, backed by Nato jets and cruise missiles, toppled the Gaddafi regime, and hundreds of Malian Tuareg who had been employed in the dictator’s armies returned home with all the weapons and ammunition they could carry. In Mali, they joined forces with a political movement that had been campaigning for an autonomous Tuareg state called Azawad, and the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) was born. The MNLA declared war on the Bamako government and, with the aid of its al-Qaida allies, inflicted a string of humiliating defeats on Mali’s demoralised military. In mid-March 2012, a group of disaffected Malian army officers launched a coup, and in the political chaos that followed, the rebels took their opportunity, sweeping across the north as the army retreated in disarray. The jihadists of al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) were not far behind. They took over Timbuktu and governed it for almost a year.

Haidara stayed in jihadist-occupied Timbuktu for a month, covertly organising the hiding of his manuscripts in family houses. He then returned to Bamako, where he began to consider moving them south. As a Timbuktien, he didn’t yet have an office in the city but his American friend Stephanie Diakité did. By October 2012, Haidara and Diakité had become a team: in future months they would describe themselves as a “consortium”, consisting of Haidara’s NGO Savama and Diakité’s development organisation, D Intl. Fundraising was central to their operation, and Diakité, in particular, had contacts among the foreign governments and foundations she knew from her career in development. It was these organisations that would end up donating the largest quantities of cash.

One of them was an Amsterdam-based foundation, the Prince Claus Fund, named for the husband of Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands. This fund, which was supported by the Dutch government and the Dutch national lottery, even had a “cultural emergency response” programme, set up in the wake of the Taliban’s destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001. Deborah Stolk, the programme’s coordinator, had never met Haidara and Diakité, but she felt he, in particular, “seemed to have a good track record”. At the start of October, the information Stolk was receiving from Bamako via email, phone and Skype was increasingly alarming. In particular, Diakité told her the city’s occupiers had implemented a “search-and-seize” policy in private homes and businesses, and Haidara was growing concerned that manuscripts would become the target.

On 8 October, Stolk received an email from Diakité informing her that the manuscript-owning families of Timbuktu wanted Savama to evacuate their collections. A lack of checks on the road south had provided a window of opportunity. Diakité gave details of how it would work: the documents would be taken to Bamako in lockers, each of which would contain 250 to 300 documents, via two overland routes. Each shipment would be accompanied by couriers recruited from the manuscript-owning families, and there would be “supervisory and security personnel” camped out all along both routes, ready to give “indirect support services” and help in case of emergency. For extra security, each courier would check in eight times a day, Stolk was told. Once in Bamako, the precious manuscripts would be hidden in safe houses. 

All that was missing was funding.

Stolk was convinced. She knew there was a risk involved in evacuating the manuscripts, and that it might not succeed, but since there was clearly an imminent threat, this seemed the best option.

On 17 October, the Prince Claus Fund signed a contract for the evacuation of 200 lockers of manuscripts. The cost to the Dutch fund would be €100,000, or roughly €500 a locker. The money wasn’t just for transportation, but for “overall coordination, transportation costs, couriers, mobile phones to be used during evacuation, stipendium for families/safe houses” and so on, according to Stolk. According to a later report of the evacuation in The New Republic that was fact-checked by Diakité, the first shipments started to leave Timbuktu the day after the Prince Claus contract was signed: “On 18 October, the first team of couriers loaded 35 lockers on to pushcarts and donkey-drawn carriages, and moved them to a depot on the outskirts of Timbuktu where couriers bought space on buses and trucks making the long drive south to Bamako.”

That trip would be repeated daily for the next several months, according to The New Republic, sometimes many times a day, as the teams of smugglers passed hundreds of lockers along the same well-worn route to Bamako.

The manuscripts’ journey south was fraught, and barely a day went by without a courier ringing in with what Haidara described later as “petits problèmes”, which ranged from mundane breakdowns to ransom demands and dangerous run-ins with the jihadists. By the end of 2012, however, Savama informed the German embassy in Bamako that between 80,000 and 120,000 manuscripts had been successfully evacuated from Timbuktu.

At this time, the Malian crisis was entering a far more dangerous phase. In early January, the rebels began to advance south, taking Konna, 40 miles inside government territory, and on the morning of Friday 11 January, France’s president, François Hollande, announced that his country was going to war. Operation Serval, the French offensive to retake the north of Mali, was about to begin.

Haidara had been warned by heritage experts that the end of the occupation of Timbuktu would be the most dangerous period for the manuscripts: “People told me that the day they leave they are going to burn everything. They are going to sabotage it all.”

He and Diakité now renewed their energetic fundraising. On Tuesday 15 January, Diakité pitched up at the Dutch embassy in Bamako for a meeting with the embassy’s head of development aid, To Tjoelker. She told Tjoelker the problem. “They said we would like you to help us because there are still 180,000 manuscripts left in Timbuktu and we can’t get them out without extra money,” the diplomat recalls. In particular, Tjoelker was informed, the jihadists had threatened to burn the manuscripts on the day of Mawlid, the celebration of the prophet’s birthday, which fell on 24 January. “After the battle of Konna, the AQIM fighters who were occupying Timbuktu became very angry,” she recalls. “They said: ‘OK, we will show you. We will do a big auto-da-fé on the day of Mawlid.’”

Tjoelker had no budget for saving culture, but Diakité had come knocking at an opportune moment: the Dutch foreign minister, Lilianne Ploumen, had just sent a note to the embassy asking what the government could do to help Mali, and Tjoelker was convinced this was it. By 17 January, Ploumen had given her blessing to the operation. The project had to remain confidential: “I said to [Ploumen]: ‘You can’t tell anyone about it, it has to be kept really secret because, if it becomes public al-Qaida will react ... It is top secret and you can only get the publicity after four or five months but not now, you have to keep quiet.’”

Embassy staff took this entreaty so seriously they even marked down the money they gave the book smugglers as being for school exercise books in their own accounts.

The Dutch foreign ministry allocated €323,475 to Savama and that afternoon, Tjoelker began to make arrangements. On Saturday 19 January, she took the contract to the librarian for him to sign, meeting him in the Bamako lockup where the manuscripts were being received and dispatched to the safe houses. He looked unwashed, she remembered, and “so tired”, and to cheer him up she told him the work he was doing was “important for all humanity”. The contract stipulated that he would evacuate 454 lockers, or 136,200 manuscripts, which meant the cost of transporting each had now reached a whopping €660, though this included storage for a year, the making of an inventory, at €212 for each locker, and a 10% “management fee” for Savama and for D Intl.

The manuscripts would now be moved by boat, Tjoelker was told, since the French advance meant it was too dangerous to drive to Timbuktu. “That weekend, a large numbers of boats – around 20 – were already starting to leave Timbuktu,” she says. These travelled 250 miles upriver, across the inland delta and Lake Debo, to Mopti, where they turned south up the Bani river for a further 70 miles to Jenne, where the lockers were transferred to bush taxis that took the manuscripts the last 350 miles to Bamako by road.

Once or twice during the operation, the Dutch ambassador, Maarten Brouwer, asked how things were going, and recalled being told of difficulties on the route: “We got some stories about [lockers] full of manuscripts that were transported by pirogues [dugout canoes] and that it was done during the night, and they had a lot of problems on the way because there was the police, there were rebels, and so on,” he says. He had heard that boats had been kidnapped or that people had threatened to set manuscripts on fire. “It was the people on the ground that solved those issues.”

As the lockers reached Bamako, Haidara took Tjoelker to see them. “He really made me part of the reception of all those boxes. Every box had a number and the name of the funder on it so they knew who had paid for what.” Brouwer accompanied Tjoelker on one of these visits. He counted roughly 500-600 containers in the room, easily enough for Savama to have fulfilled its contract with the Dutch government, and was told there were more elsewhere. “I looked at To [Tjoelker] and I said: ‘This is a lot. Are these all full?’ They said: ‘Yes, they are all full.’”

To be doubly sure, he even singled out one chest-deep in a stack at the back of the stockroom and said: “OK, show me that one.”

When the locker was opened, he saw it was piled to the brim with manuscripts.

Postscript: On 2 February 2013, after Operation Serval had succeeded in recapturing northern Mali, François Hollande stood in Timbuktu as the city’s hero and liberator. French troops kept Mali secure for a short time, but the situation has long since deteriorated. Once again, innumerable armed groups of different beliefs and ethnicities are fighting for a slice of the country’s future.

According to the Malian journalist Ousmane Diadié Touré, who frequently travels to Timbuktu and the north, security is now as bad as ever. “All the forces have had time to reorganise and are now pursuing different strategies,” he says. Though some al-Qaida commanders were killed in 2013, many of those who led the rebellion are still in business. In January this year, more than 70 soldiers died and 100 were injured in what is described as the most lethal terrorist attack in the country’s history, on a military base in Gao. The jihadist insurgency also seems to be spreading: since 2015, a new group, the Macina Liberation Front, has brought terror to the centre and south of the country.

Timbuktu town itself is still secure, with a UN blue helmet force regularly patrolling the streets. However, the wider political situation has had a significant effect on the economy, since the tourists who provided a substantial portion of Mali’s income no longer come. Business is going “very badly for the librarians”, says Abdoulwahid Haidara, the proprietor of the town’s Mohamed Tahar manuscript library.

Four years after Timbuktu’s liberation, many of its manuscript libraries remain in the south and only two libraries are now open in the city itself, he says. He hopes his own Mohamed Tahar library will reopen its doors in a month’s time, when renovation work by Unesco is complete.

Extracted from The Book Smugglers of Timbuktu by Charlie English, published by William Collins on 6 May. The book is published the US by Riverhead, under the title The Storied City.

Analysis - Global pension funds warm to India's solar power ambitions

Workers carry a damaged photovoltaic solar panel at the Gujarat solar park under construction in Charanka village in Patan district in Gujarat, April 14, 2012. REUTERS/Amit Dave/Files--Workers carry photovoltaic solar panels for installation at the Gujarat solar park under construction in Charanka village in Patan district in Gujarat, April 14, 2012. REUTERS/Amit Dave/Files
A worker installs a solar powered lamp in a public park in Chennai, April 11, 2017. REUTERS/Stringer/Files--Workers install photovoltaic solar panels at the Gujarat solar park under construction in Charanka village in Gujarat, April 14, 2012. REUTERS/Amit Dave/Files

By Devidutta Tripathy and Sudarshan Varadhan | MUMBAI/NEW DELHI- Sun Apr 30, 2017

Some of the world's biggest pension funds, seeking long-term returns on green investments, are scouting for deals in India's solar power sector, where Prime Minister Narendra Modi is targeting $100 billion in investment in the next five years.

Power demand in Asia's third-largest economy is set to surge as the economy grows and more people move into the cities. India estimates peak electricity demand will more than quadruple in the next two decades to 690 gigawatt (GW), which would require rapid growth in generation and transmission capacity.

That potential, helped by cheaper solar material costs and government efforts to curb pollution, is drawing global investors, including Canada's top pension fund managers - Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ), and Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan (OTPP).

Investors' focus is primarily on solar power generation, funding large-scale solar parks.

CDPQ, which has C$270.7 billion ($199 billion) in net assets, says it plans to invest in India's solar sector with Azure Power, a New York-listed firm with about 1 GW of solar capacity under various stages of development.

"We plan to do more with them. Our approach is really to pick the right partner and then build a platform that can be sustained over several years," said Anita George, CDPQ's South Asia head, adding she wouldn't rule out investing in other solar ventures in future.

Other international investors have already entered India's renewable energy sector, such as Dutch fund manager APG, Canada's Brookfield Asset Management, the private equity arms of Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley, and European utilities EDF, Engie and Enel.

APG Asset Management, which last year agreed to jointly invest $132 million with India's Piramal Enterprises into solar power, is looking for more deals.

"We expect to be able to announce another investment in the Indian renewable energy sector in the coming months," said Hans-Martin Aerts, APG's infrastructure head for Asia Pacific.

Alok Verma, an executive director at Kotak Investment Banking, which has advised companies on renewable deals, said he expects at least 5 GW of solar power to be added from next year, most of it supported by overseas funds.

AIMING HIGH

Solar power generation capacity in India has more than tripled in less than three years to over 12 GW, helped by lower module prices and borrowing costs, and a government drive - but that is still only around 4 percent of total power capacity of about 315 GW.

China, the world's biggest solar producer, more than doubled its capacity last year, to 77.42 GW.
Suyi Kim, Asia Pacific head at CPPIB, Canada's largest pension manager, said solar appears more attractive in India than wind power. "In India, my impression is that solar seems to be more attractive. 

But it's case by case," she said.

India typically logs more than 300 days of sunshine a year.

Kim declined to comment on any specific investment plans, but two people with knowledge of developments said CPPIB was scouting for deals.

Funding and M&A in India's solar sector amounted to around $1.6 billion in January-March, says research firm Mercom.

While deal sizes have been relatively small, some companies such as Japan's SoftBank, along with partners, have pledged to invest $20 billion in Indian solar power generation projects.

SoftBank said the timeline for investments would depend on state and central governments. "We remain committed to building a GW-scale portfolio of solar projects in India," said Raman Nanda, CEO of SB Energy, a joint venture of SoftBank, Foxconn Technology Group and Bharti Enterprises. "We will do this through strategic partnerships."

NOT ALL SUNSHINE

None of this comes without risk, of course.

Investors could face payment delays from India's heavily-indebted power distribution firms, and some experts note that the bidding for projects in government auctions is too aggressive, with per unit prices slumping more than 70 percent since 2010.

"Getting returns on investments ... and getting paid by distribution companies are the major risks being assessed by foreign investors," said Sumant Sinha, CEO at ReNew Power, a renewable energy firm backed by Goldman.

Intermittency - power is only produced under bright sunlight - is another issue, as there are additional costs for using inverters or diesel generators to use solar power at night.

"Based on current market conditions and policies, I see a path to 65-70 GW (solar capacity) by 2022, but not more," said Mercom CEO Raj Prabhu.

That's still some way short of the government pledge for 100 GW by 2022.

"To reach 100 GW by 2022, distribution company finances need to improve drastically, power demand has to increase quickly, and transmission infrastructure needs to keep up," Prabhu said.

(Additional reporting by Promit Mukherjee and Euan Rocha in Mumbai; Editing by Henning Gloystein and Ian Geoghegan)

Smartphone 'orders' body to treat diabetes


Smartphone controls mice cells
Scientists have used a smartphone to control the activity of the living cells inside an animal.
BBCBy James Gallagher-29 April 2017
The fusion of biology and technology was used to control blood sugar levels in mice with diabetes.
The idea, described in Science Translational Medicine, could be applied to a wide range of diseases and drug treatments.
And the Chinese researchers say the approach could pave the way for a "new era" in medicine.
The first step was to turn normal cells into living factories.
They were genetically engineered to manufacture drugs that control blood sugar levels such as insulin - but only in response to light.
The technology is called optogenetics and these cells would kick into gear when exposed to specific wavelengths of red light.
Then comes the tech - a set of wirelessly powered LEDs and a smartphone app to control them.
Researchers at East China Normal University in Shanghai implanted the system into mice and were able to control diabetes with the tap of a touchscreen.
Mouse with implant
J SHAO-The device was implanted under the skin
The team said the findings "could pave the way for a new era of personalised, digitalised and globalised precision medicine".
The scientists needed to take tiny drops of blood to know how high the blood sugar levels were so they could calculate how much drug to release inside the animal.
Their ultimate goal is a fully automated system that both detects sugar levels and then releases the right amount of therapeutic chemicals.
This idea is clearly at an early stage, but it is not limited to diabetes. Cells could be engineered to manufacture a wide range of drugs.
Prof Mark Gomelsky, a molecular biologist from the University of Wyoming, said the study was an "exciting accomplishment".
He added: "How soon should we expect to see people on the street wearing fashionable LED wristbands that irradiate implanted cells engineered to produce genetically encoded drugs under the control of a smartphone?
"Not just yet, but the work provides us with an exciting glimpse into the future of smart cell-based therapeutics."

“காணி­களை உரி­மை­யா­ளர்­க­ளுக்கு வழங்­க­வேண்­டி­யது அவ­சியம் முடி­யா­விடின் ஏற்­றுக்­கொள்­ளத்­தக்க நட்­ட­ஈடு வழங்­கப்­ப­ட­வேண்டும்“

 by Priyatharshan on 2017
பாதிக்­கப்­பட்ட மக்­களின் காணி­களின் உரிமை தொடர்­பான செயற்­பா­டுகள் அடை­யாளம் காணப்­பட வேண்டும். அதன் பின்னர் அந்தக்  காணிகள் உரி­மை­யா­ளர்­க­ளுக்கு வழங்­கப்­பட வேண்­டி­யது அவ­சியம். அவ்­வாறு காணி­களை மீள வழங்க முடி­யா­விடின்  காணி உரி­மை­யா­ளர்­க­ளுக்கு நட்­ட­ஈடு வழங்­கப்­பட வேண்டும். இதுவே ஐக்­கிய நாடுகள் சபையின் நிலைப்­பா­டாகும்  என்று   ஐக்­கிய நாடுகள் சபையின் இலங்­கைக்­கான வதி­விடப் பிர­தி­நிதி உனா­மெக்­குலே தெரி­வித்தார். 
நல்­லி­ணக்க செயற்­பா­டு­களை அடை­யாளம் காணும் விட­யத்தில் இலங்கை அர­சாங்­கத்­துடன் ஐக்­கிய நாடுகள் சபை செயற்­பட்டு வரு­கி­றது. அந்­த­வ­கையில் நல்­லி­ணக்க செயற்­பா­டு­களில் காணி­களை விடு­விக்கும் கார­ணி­யா­னது மிகவும் முக்­கி­ய­மான ஒன்­றாகும். அதா­வது சமூ­கங்­க­ளுக்கு மத்­தியில் நம்­பிக்­கையை கட்­டி­யெ­ழுப்­பு­வதில் இந்தக் காரணி  முக்­கிய பங்­காற்றும்   என்றும்  ஐ.நா. வின்  இலங்­கைக்­கான வதி­விடப் பிர­தி­நிதி உனா­மெக்­குலே சுட்­டிக்­காட்­டினார்.  
வடக்கு மாகா­ணத்தில் காணி­களை இழந்த மக்கள் அவற்றை மீள பெற்றுக் கொடுக்­கு­மாறு வலி­யு­றுத்தி தொடர் போராட்­டங்­களை நடத்தி வரு­கின்­றமை தொடர்பில் ஐக்­கிய நாடு­களின் இலங்­கைக்­கான வதி­விடப் பிர­தி­நிதி உனா­மெக்­கு­லே­யிடம் பிரத்­தி­யே­க­மாக கேசரி வின­வி­ய­போதே அவர் மேற்­கண்­ட­வாறு குறிப்­பிட்டார்.
ஐ.நா.வின் வதி­விடப் பிர­தி­நிதி உனா­மெக்­குலே இந்த விடயம் தொடர்பில் மேலும் குறிப்­பி­டு­கையில், 
எந்­த­வொரு சமூ­கத்­திலும் ஆர்ப்­பாட்டம் நடத்­து­வ­தற்­கான உரிமை உறு­திப்­ப­டுத்­தப்­பட வேண்டும் என்­பதே எனது கருத்­தாகும். இலங்­கையைப் பொறுத்­த­வ­ரையில் காணிப் பிரச்­சி­னை­யா­னது ஒரு பாரிய விவ­கா­ர­மாக காணப்­ப­டு­கி­றது. இது நீண்­ட­காலப் பிரச்­சி­னை­யாக இருக்­கின்­றது. காணி­களின் உண்­மை­யான உரி­மை­யா­ளர்கள் அவை எப்­போது தமக்கு கிடைக்கும் என்­பதை தெரிந்து கொள்­வ­தற்­கான உரி­மையை கொண்­டுள்­ளனர். 
இந்த காணி விவ­காரம் தொடர்பில் கலந்­து­ரை­யா­டல்கள் இடம்­பெ­று­வ­தாக நாங்கள் நினைக்­கின்றோம். இந்த வாரம்­கூட ஒரு கலந்­து­ரை­யாடல் இடம்­பெற்­ற­தாக அறிந்தோம். அந்த கலந்­து­ரை­யா­டல்­களின் முடி­வுகள் அல்­லது விளை­வுகள் என்­ன­வென்­பதை அறிந்து கொள்ள நாங்கள் ஆவ­லாக இருக்­கின்றோம். 
கேள்வி பொது மக்­களின் காணி­களை விடு­விக்­கு­மாறு ஐக்­கிய நாடுகள் சபை அர­சாங்­கத்­திற்கு அழுத்தம் பிர­யோ­கிக்­குமா?
பதில் ஐக்­கிய நாடுகள் சபை இலங்கை  அர­சாங்­கத்­துடன் பணி­யாற்றி வரு­கி­றது. அதா­வது நல்­லி­ணக்க செயற்­பா­டு­களை அடை­யாளம் காணும் விட­யத்தில் இலங்கை அர­சாங்­கத்­துடன் ஐக்­கிய நாடுகள் சபை செயற்­பட்டு வரு­கி­றது. நல்­லி­ணக்க செயற்­பா­டு­களில் காணி­களை விடு­விக்கும் கார­ணி­யா­னது மிகவும் முக்­கி­ய­மான ஒன்­றாகும். அதா­வது சமூ­கங்­க­ளுக்கு மத்­தியில் நம்­பிக்­கையை கட்­டி­யெ­ழுப்­பு­வதில் இது முக்­கிய பங்­காற்றும் கார­ணி­யாகும்.
காணிகள் விடு­விக்­கப்­பட்­டதும் நாங்கள் உள்­ளூ­ராட்சி மன்­றங்­க­ளுடன் இணைந்து செயற்­பட்டு மக்­க­ளுக்­கான தேவை­களை பூர்த்தி செய்ய நட­வ­டிக்கை எடுப்போம். அந்த மக்­களின் வாழ்க்­கையை இயல்பு நிலைக்கு கொண்­டு­வ­ரு­வ­தற்­காக அர­சாங்­கத்­துடன் இணைந்து செயற்­ப­டுவோம். காணி­களின் உரிமை தொடர்­பான செயற்­பா­டுகள் அடை­யாளம் காணப்­பட வேண்டும். அதன் பின்னர் காணிகள் உரி­மை­யா­ளர்­க­ளுக்கு வழங்­கப்­பட வேண்­டி­யது அவ­சியம். அல்­லது காணி உரி­மை­யா­ளர்­க­ளுக்கு நட்­ட­ஈடு வழங்­கப்­பட வேண்டும். 
கேள்வி ஆனால் போராட்டம் நடத்தும் பாதிக்­கப்­பட்ட   மக்கள் தங்­க­ளுக்கு நட்­ட­ஈடு வேண்டாம் என்றும் தமது காணி­களே வழங்­கப்­பட வேண்டும் என்றும் கூறி வருகின்றனர். இதனை ஐக்கிய நாடுகள் சபை எவ்வாறு பார்க்கிறது? 
பதில் மக்களின் பக்கம் இருந்து பார்க்கும்போது அந்த தர்க்கத்தில் நியாயம் இருப்பதை நாங்கள்  ஏற்றுக் கொள்கிறோம். அதில் ஒரு பொருள் உள்ளது. ஆனால் உலகில் எந்த அரசாங்கமாக இருந்தாலும் காணிகள் அரச தேவைக்காக பெறப்பட்டால் அவற்றுக்கு நட்டஈடு வழங்கலாம் என்பதும்  பெறுமதியானதொரு தர்க்கமாகும் என்றார். 

Sri Lanka’s Crumbling Credibility


Colombo Telegraph
By Kumarathasan Rasingam –April 29, 2017
Kumarathasan Rasingam
The credibility of Sri Lanka in relation to the settlement of the 60 year old ethnic problem of Tamils can be judged from the fate of several pacts, agreements and undertakings which were made from 1956 to 2009 and the Sri Lankan Governments unwillingness to comply with the implementation of its own undertakings:- LLRC [Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission] recommendations: The August 1 2015 UNHRC Resolution 30/1 and its delaying tactics in implementing the recent similar Resolution in March 2017.
This article tries to detail the failing credibility of Sri Lanka since then particularly after the Human Rights Resolution on October 1st 2015. This was a resolution adopted with the blessings of United Nations Human Rights Council and sponsored by USA with Sri Lanka being a co-sponsor. By co-sponsoring the resolution Sri Lanka unequivocally and fully committed itself to implement all the recommendations mentioned in the Resolution. Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe defended the Resolution and even vigorously justified the “establishment of a Sri Lankan Judicial Mechanism including the Special Counsel’s Office of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorised prosecutors and investigators.”
These recommendations can be described as the corner stone of this resolution aimed to fulfill the targeted commitments of “accountability, justice and reconciliation”. Earlier Sri Lanka successfully killed the proposal mooted by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights who recommended a “Hybrid court integrating foreign judges etc” and get the international mechanism with foreign jurist’s participation.
Having fully committed to implement this Resolution Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and President Sirisena defended all the recommendations and PM Ranil even stated that there have been instances where foreign lawyers have participated and contributed their skills and knowledge in the legal proceedings in Sri Lanka like the appearance of Mr. Quass, QC in the former Prime Minister Bandaranaike assassination case in 1960. There were instances when eminent Sri Lankan lawyers have served as judges in foreign countries particularly in Africa. It is to be stated that the Sri Lankan constitution does not in any of its section prohibit the participation of any foreign judges. What is not prohibited can be allowed provided the modalities of appointments are followed involving the President and/or Judicial Service Commission as required.
It is relevant to quote the confusing and conflicting statements made by Government Ministers including the Prime Minister and the President in relation to the judicial mechanism and investigation.
On January 11th 2015: Rajitha Senevaratne – The Government Spokesperson stated: “That Sri Lanka’s new Government will not hand over anyone to an international inquiry investigating allegation of war crimes”.
On February rd3, 2015: Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera- In an interview to ‘Swarajya’ said “We hope to have technical assistance from United Nations even perhaps judges from Commonwealth”.
On June 7th 2015: Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe – Vowed to set up a credible domestic mechanism.
On August 24th 2015: Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe – In an interview with Hindu stated that “There is no legal basis for international investigation within Sri Lanka adding that any accountability mechanism has to be domestic in nature.”
On January 29th 2016: President Sirisena – In an interview with Al-Jazeera stated that “We definitely do not need outsiders. He also insisted that Sri Lanka was not being investigated for war crimes, but rather allegations of human rights”.
On January 31st: Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said: If we are to permit foreign judges to sit in judgement then our constitution has to be amended with the consent of the people at a referendum” [News Radio US]
On February 20th 2016: Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe – While in India at Guruvayur stated that “We may not have the full expertise to identify the exact factors that led to the casualties, so international participation is welcome for determining such cases”.
On February 2016: foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera – In an event at US Institute of Peace in Washington said that “The previous statements of the Prime Minister Ranil and the President Sirisena was their opinion and the final decision would be taken after wide consultation with all stake holders”
On July 8th 2016: President Sirisena – Stated that “As long as I am the President; I will not allow foreigners or organizations to interfere in the internal affairs”. [Ceylon News]
On July 15th 2016: General Sarath Fonseka – said that “Government had agreed to allow foreign monitors and obtain international technical assistance and the government was not in favour of including foreign judges”. [Daily Mirror]
On January 6th 2017: Minister of Justice – said that “He had no confidence in the Consultation Task Force [CTF] which called for a judicial mechanism with foreign involvement”. [Daily Mirror]
On January 7th 2017: State Minister Laxman Yapa – said “Only logistical and technical assistance would be obtained.” [Daily Mirror]
President Sirisena commenting on Consultation Task Force [CTF] expressed his disapproval of most of its recommendations including hybrid court and independent investigations into war Crimes.