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

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

A child dies in the war-torn country every ten minutes from hunger.






May 3, 2017 

These images of Yemen’s starving children are highly distressing – but need to be seen.




What’s behind Hamas’ new charter?

Members of Hamas in Gaza watch a televised press conference by the movement’s leader Khaled Meshaal, who is in Doha, Qatar, outlining a new political document, 1 May.Mohammed AsadAPA images

Ali Abunimah-2 May 2017

Leaders of Hamas released a document outlining their guiding principles at a press conference in the Qatari capital Doha on Monday.

Much coverage focused on the document’s acceptance of the 1967 boundary as the basis for establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel. The document also includes pronouncements on how Hamas views the roots of the conflict, the role of resistance and its position towards Jews.

Remember the Two-State Solution? Abbas Does.

Remember the Two-State Solution? Abbas Does.

No automatic alt text available.BY EMILY TAMKINROBBIE GRAMER-MAY 3, 2017 - 2:22 PM

An Israeli-Palestinian peace deal has eluded every president in modern history. U.S. President Donald Trump wants to break that pattern — but if the daylight between his meetings with Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas indicates anything, it’s going to be an uphill battle.

On Wednesday, Trump hosted Abbas at the White House, and pledged to move forward. “We will get it done,” he said. “We will be working so hard to get it done.”

Trump has put some of his closest advisors on the issue, including his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his long-time legal advisor and confidante, Jason Greenblatt, who is now the White House’s chief Middle East negotiator.

And less than a month into office and before nearly every other key foreign policy posting, Trump tapped David Friedman, a controversial hardliner on Israel, to be the ambassador in Tel Aviv.

Over the course of his campaign, Trump hinted at dropping the traditional two-state solution past presidents have supported (he also mulled moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the disputed holy city claimed by both Palestinians and Israelis). In his joint press conference with Netanyahu back in February, Trump, when asked whether he favored a one- or two-state solution, said he is “happy with the one that both parties like,” a departure from over a decade of previous U.S. policy. “I can live with either one,” Trump said.

But on Wednesday, Abbas made one thing clear — he is not equally content with a one- or two-state solution. For Abbas and the Palestinians, there is only one solution. “Our strategic option is the realization of a two-state solution,” he said.

And despite Trump’s cadre of Israel hardliners, he struck a cordial tone with Abbas in their Wednesday press conference, and Abbas reciprocated. The Palestinian leader said a peace agreement could be reached under “the courageous leadership of Donald Trump.”

During the press conference, Trump spoke of wanting to work with Palestinians to fight terrorism, foster private sector development and rule of law, and, of course, to establish a peace deal. His remarks weren’t entirely uncritical, however. “Palestinian leaders need to speak in a unified voice against incitement to violence and hate,” he said.

In between thanks and compliments for Trump, Abbas reiterated the importance of establishing a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. Only a two-state solution, Abbas said, would allow Palestinians to focus on fighting terrorism and enable Arab states to establish normal relations with Israel.

In his closing remarks, Trump said he looked to “prove wrong” those who say negotiating a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians is the toughest deal.

Unmentioned in the joint remarks was the thorny subject of Jewish settlements on land Palestinians claim as their own. The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics said the number of Jewish settlers in disputed territory grew from 198,300 in 2000 to 385,900 in 2015. Friedman is a staunch supporter of Israeli settlements.

Also hanging in the air but unstated is the reality that Abbas might not be around for long enough to conclude a peace deal. Abbas’s support at home is dwindling, and a poll last month found nearly two-thirds of Palestinians wanted the 81-year old leader of the Palestinian Authority to step down.

This week, the Islamic militant group Hamas, arch-rival to Abbas’s Fatah party, unveiled a new and more moderated political charter. Experts say Hamas is angling to scoop up more mainstream political support while Abbas’s wanes.

Photo credit: Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty Images

China urges all sides in N.Korea standoff to 'stop irritating' one another

FILE PHOTO - A North Korean flag flies on a mast at the Permanent Mission of North Korea in Geneva October 2, 2014. REUTERS/Denis Balibouse/File Photo
FILE PHOTO - A North Korean flag flies on a mast at the Permanent Mission of North Korea in Geneva October 2, 2014. REUTERS/Denis Balibouse/File Photo

By Ben Blanchard | BEIJING

China on Wednesday urged all parties in the Korean standoff to stay calm and "stop irritating each other," a day after North Korea said the United States was pushing the region to the brink of nuclear war.

North Korea's state media published a rare, strong, criticism of China on Wednesday, saying Chinese state media commentaries calling for tougher sanctions over Pyongyang's nuclear program were undermining relations with Beijing and worsening tensions.

The United States has urged China, North Korea's only major ally, to do more to rein in its neighbour's nuclear and missile programs, which have prompted an assertive response from the Trump administration, warning that an "era of strategic patience" is over.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Wednesday that Washington was working on more sanctions against North Korea if Pyongyang takes steps that merit a new response. He also warned other countries their firms could face so-called secondary sanctions for doing illicit business with Pyongyang.

Tillerson said the Trump administration had been "leaning hard into China ... to test their willingness to use their influence, their engagement with the regime."

Diplomats said this week Washington was negotiating with China on a possible stronger U.N. Security Council response - such as new sanctions - to North Korea's missile tests.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said on Wednesday U.N. resolutions were clear that further measures would be taken in the event of more nuclear or missile tests.

The United States has sent a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to Korean waters and a pair of strategic U.S. bombers flew training drills with South Korea and Japan in another show of strength this week.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang called the situation "highly complex" and sensitive.
"The urgent task is to lower temperatures and resume talks," he said.

"We again urge all relevant parties to remain calm and exercise restraint, stop irritating each other, work hard to create an atmosphere for contact and dialogue between all sides, and seek a return to the correct path of dialogue and negotiation as soon as possible."

The bomber flights coincided with U.S. President Donald Trump raising eyebrows when he said he would be "honoured" to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in the right circumstances, and as his CIA director landed in South Korea for talks.

North Korea said the bombers conducted "a nuclear bomb dropping drill against major objects" in its territory at a time when Trump and "other U.S. warmongers are crying out for making a preemptive nuclear strike."

"The reckless military provocation is pushing the situation on the Korean peninsula closer to the brink of nuclear war," North Korea's official KCNA news agency said.

A commentary on KCNA on Wednesday took aim at China and state media articles it said had attempted to shift the blame to Pyongyang for "deteriorated relations" between China and North Korea and U.S. deployment of strategic assets.

It also accused China of "hyping up" damage caused by North Korean nuclear tests to China's three northeastern provinces and said the program was needed for the "existence and development" of the country and "can never be changed nor shaken."

Tension on the Korean peninsula has been high for weeks, driven by concern that North Korea might conduct its sixth nuclear test in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

CHINA OPPOSES THAAD

U.S. officials told Reuters the U.S. military's THAAD anti-missile defence system had reached initial operational capacity in South Korea, although it would not be fully operational for some months.

China has repeatedly expressed its opposition to the system, whose powerful radar it says can reach inside Chinese territory, even as Trump has praised Chinese President Xi Jinping for his efforts to rein in North Korea.

Trump has urged other Asian countries to help pressure North Korea and spoke last weekend with the leaders of Thailand, Singapore and the Philippines.

He drew criticism on Monday when he said he would be "honoured" to meet North Korea's young leader.

"If it would be appropriate for me to meet with him, I would absolutely, I would be honoured to do it," Trump told Bloomberg News.

Trump did not say what conditions would be needed for such a meeting or when it could happen, but White House spokesman Sean Spicer said "clearly conditions are not there right now."

Washington has said any future talks on North Korea must based on its willingness to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

Trump warned in an interview with Reuters on Thursday a "major, major conflict" with North Korea was possible, while China has said the Korean situation could slip out of control.

In a telephone call with his Philippine counterpart Rodrigo Duterte, Xi urged all sides to return to talks as soon as possible, Chinese state radio reported.

North Korea on Saturday conducted its fourth successive failed missile launch since March. It has conducted two nuclear tests and dozens of missile tests since the beginning of 2016.

The U.S. ambassador to Indonesia, Joseph R. Donovan, told reporters Indonesia was among several countries Washington was urging to take a "fresh look" at their North Korea ties.

Trump also spoke on Tuesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin and discussed "how best to resolve the very dangerous situation in North Korea", the White House said.

(Additional reporting by David Brunnstrom, Yeganeh Torbati and Steve Holland in WASHINGTON and Tom Allard in JAKARTA; Writing by Nick Macfie and David Brunnstrom; Editing by Robert Birsel and Grant McCool)

A Trump Meeting with Kim Jong Un! Why Not?

by Laksiri Fernando -
( May 3, 2017, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) US President, Donald Trump, speaking to Bloomberg News (1 May) has said ‘he would consider meeting with Kim Jong-un, if the circumstances permit.’ This is not a bad idea at all, given the disastrous consequences that any future war in Korea would entail. Writing from Australia, the disaster of a war in the region is more real than writing from Sri Lanka. Trump earlier said, ‘Kim is a smart cookie, he must be having a tuff time with his generals.’
About Turns
According to some, and also to me, this could be a reflection of Trump’s predicament as well. When he came to power, he appeared wanted to focus more on fixing the American economy and national policy than going after any ‘ideals’ or ‘interests’ outside the borders.
But then he took a dramatic turn, almost 90 degrees, and started pouncing on other countries. Sending Carl Vinson (Armada) to the Korean peninsula, and undertaking quite provocative military exercises in the demilitarised zone, with South Korea were part of this pouncing. Of course, the provocations were equally characteristic of the North Koreans in recent times. But on the part of Trump, this was a clear deviation from his declared policy, except calling names for China. China policy softened, while the Korean policy toughened. This is at least superficially.
‘Unpredictability’ or ‘erratic personal behaviour’ cannot be sufficient explanations for Trump’s about turns. As the events since the alleged CIA killing of John F. Kennedy, up until the dramatic changes of Barak Obama’s overseas policies signify, there is a strong State/Military Establishment behind many of the Presidents’ foreign policies. Obama’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ also was part of this establishment influence.
A major facet of this influence is to ‘take the enemies serious,’ ‘go after them,’ and ‘pounce on them as much as possible,’ to ‘teach them good lessons.’ Although Obama appeared one of the soft and liberal minded President’s that America has ever produced, preparations for “The Coming War on China” became intensified under Obama administration. What I have quoted above is the title of John Pilger’s recent documentary film on the subject, and that is also one of Pilger’s main arguments.
The Reasons
When Trump made dramatic turns in his foreign policy utterances, some even speculated whether the establishment has defeated his ‘populist-nationalist’ revolt? I also speculated on the same. Of course, it happened in practical terms, when the Courts turned down many of his executive orders on ‘travel ban’ or ‘border controls.’ But we in Sri Lanka or in Australia should be more worried about the other side of the coin.
He himself turned down his policies in the foreign affairs sphere. His best foreign-buddy, Vladimir Putin, during the election campaign, became a virtual enemy thereafter on issues in Syria. Not that we have any sympathy for Putin, but if the rapprochement continued, there was much hope for world peace and particularly in the Middle East. He somewhat denounced NATO as obsolete during elections, but in office recently, he openly announced that it is not the case.
James George Jatras (writing to the Journal of the Strategic Culture Foundation, 27 April) wondered whether this is only tactical, ‘one step forward, two steps back.’ Because Trump does not seem to have a firm grip on the government apparatus yet. He has to tread slowly, as the whole establishment beyond the state-apparatus is in a full fury against him. Jatras said, one of Trump’s closest advisors, Steve Bannon, is a ‘Leninist.’ Trump once called him “alt-left.”
That is anyway not our major concern, tactical or not. For world peace, what Trump has expressed as his readiness to meet with Kim is a welcome gesture, if it is genuine. The following what he exactly said on Monday.
If it would be appropriate for me to meet with him, I would absolutely…I would be honored to do it. If it’s under … the right circumstances. But I would do that. Most political people would never say that… But I’m telling you under the right circumstances, I would meet with him.”
Over the weekend, he has also made a complementary remark of Kim Jong-un saying he is ‘a smart cookie.’ Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, explained the praise: “He’s [Kim] obviously managed to lead his country forward. He is a young person to be leading a country with nuclear weapons.”
The UN?
Previously, Trump also asked the UN to intervene and do more about North Korea (24 April). But not in the sense that we were suggesting (“Where is the UN? Korean Crisis is Aggravating,” 17 April). He was suggesting more and strong UN sanctions. That was typical of a ‘Western’ government or a state leader. There was no suggestion of ‘a carrot’ or negotiations or a meeting. During the height of the tensions, the UN Secretary General should have visited or approached the two countries and regimes (the North and the South). Or at least phoned. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the UN? But that didn’t happen. It is still appropriate since a meeting of the two leaders, Trump and Kim, would be far-fetched at the moment.
It is possible that Kim might respond positively in some manner for the suggestion of a meeting, but not his Generals. This is the same in the case of the US, particularly the establishment. Already, backtracking from Trump’s statement has started. It is possible even he himself might say ‘a meeting is not appropriate or possible! Day by day, tensions are mounting in the Korean peninsula.
Urgency for World Peace
It is important to resolve the Korean nuclear/missile crisis in a peaceful manner. World public opinion is of utmost importance at this stage. Lionel Bopage has also suggested that Australia should play a mediating role in resolving the crisis through peaceful means (“No war Against North Korea!” CT, 27 April). China in recent days has played a positive and a peaceful role, already trying to mediate at least some issues. China and especially her President, Xi Jinping, has earned President Trump’s favor since their meeting in early April. While I write, China has also welcomed Trump’s offer for a meeting with Kim.
Why not, therefore, President Xi mediating a meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un, perhaps in Beijing? If it is achievable, the world would definitely enter into a new era of peaceful negotiations, if not full peace or harmony. Why not on the other hand, somebody in the White House phoning Pyongyang and appeasing their fears of an ‘imminent US nuclear war against them.’ According many experts, there are genuine and/or exaggerated fears of an imminent US war against them, in North Korea.
No one is going to benefit, not even the promoters, from most of the conflicts or war at national or international level. This is a general statement. Ordinary people are the main losers everywhere. The effort should not only be to achieve peace in the Korean peninsula but all over the world. A completely nuclear free world should be the ultimate target of these efforts. If the exorbitant money spent on nuclear and other destructive armaments are diverted/donated to good purposes such as poverty alleviation and environmental protection, the world would be a safe place for the new generations to live.
Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala.) spoke of her support for the Working Families Flexibility Act on May 2, which allows private-sector employees to choose to receive compensatory time instead of overtime pay for extra time worked. It passed the House of Representatives largely along party lines, with opponents saying it doesn't protect workers enough. (Reuters)
 

On Tuesday afternoon, the House voted to pass a bill that Republicans have promoted since the Newt Gingrich era, one that would allow private-sector employees to exchange overtime pay for “compensatory time" off, electing to accrue extra hours off rather than extra pay in their wallets. The bill passed 229 to 197, largely along party lines.

The bill -- which supporters say would add flexibility to hourly workers' schedules while opponents worry that it wouldn't do enough to protect employees -- is not a new idea. It seeks to take a similar provision that has been available to government workers since 1985 and extend it to private-sector employees, making it legal for them to choose between an hour and a half of paid comp time and time-and-a-half pay when they work additional hours.

Similar bills have been introduced multiple times over the past two decades, passing the House three times before failing in the Senate. Although its fate is unclear in the Senate this year, the White House said Tuesday that it supports the bill, saying in a statement that it would “help American workers balance the competing demands of family and work by giving them flexibility to earn paid time off."

Under the proposed changes, eligible employees -- if their employer decides to offer the option -- would be able to voluntarily choose to receive comp time they can bank and use at a future date in lieu of immediate overtime pay in their paychecks. If they change their minds and want the pay after all, employees would have the option of “cashing out," with the employer required to pay the overtime within 30 days.

Proponents of the bill suggest the change would improve flexibility for overtime-eligible employees -- often lower-wage hourly workers who don't have the same access to paid time off as their salaried counterparts -- to take care of their families.

“Ask any parent just how precious their time is," Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala.), who introduced the measure, said during debate on the House floor Tuesday. The bill, she said, “provides flexibility for working moms and dads who need more time to spend taking care of their family responsibilities."

Some employer groups are big supporters. “It's our strong belief that we ought to make this option available," Lisa Horn, director of Congressional affairs for the Society for Human Resource Management, which represents employers, said in an interview. “The bill has built-in protections to make sure employees aren’t coerced into choosing comp times."

But opponents worry those protections aren't strong enough. Though the bill includes language that bans employers from “directly or indirectly intimidating, threatening, or coercing or attempting to intimidate, threaten, or coerce an employee" to choose comp time over pay, many Democrats and advocates for workers say they are concerned that people will feel pressure to opt for the comp time and may not have the resources to seek legal help if they are coerced.

“Under current law, if an employee wants to work overtime, put the money in the bank where it can earn interest and use it to cover the cost of taking some time off later with the permission of the employer, he can do that today -- without this bill," Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (Va.), the ranking Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, said on the House floor Tuesday.

House Republicans voted to pass a Newt Gingrich-era bill concerning worker overtime. (J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press) 

Although employees have the choice of whether to take comp time or extra pay, opponents warn that it is their bosses who make the schedules that offer the extra hours many low-wage workers depend on.

“Whether it’s overt coercion, which language in the bill prohibits, or just a preference, there's going to be strong incentives to giving overtime hours to workers choosing to take comp time," said Vicki Shabo, vice president for the nonprofit advocacy group National Partnership for Women & Families.

She adds: “When you’re thinking about low-wage workers who need these jobs, the appetite to pursue [legal] remedies is going to be quite low."

Others suggest the limitations requiring workers to give “reasonable notice" and not “unduly disrupt" the workplace with their requests for time off give employers plenty of latitude to say no.

“The reality is that it significantly shifts the balance of power and really puts the decision into the hands of the employer instead of the employee," said Jocelyn Frye, a senior fellow at the left-leaning think tank Center for American Progress. “It doesn’t provide any level of assurance that the person will actually be able to use the leave for the purpose they need it."

Democrats in the House sounded similar concerns Tuesday. “The choice between overtime pay and comp time is a false choice for workers," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). “We know what happens in the reality of the workplace. The vague promise of time off in the future is often never realized."

Horn, the SHRM executive, said she doesn't see that as a concern. Employers who are “going to go to this trouble of setting up this program -- I think it's highly unlikely they're going to turn around and forbid the worker from using it," she said. She also notes that the penalties in the bill for coercion are “stiff" and should help deter employers from it.

Jonathan Segal, a partner in the employment group of the law firm Duane Morris, agreed. Penalties such as double damages to employees, he said, mean “there's a material disincentive for employers to do the wrong thing," he said.

Still, opponents said GOP rhetoric has suggested that comp time programs could be an alternative to family-friendly policies such as paid sick leave, which have been gaining ground at the state and local levels in recent years. They argue that low-wage workers should not have to make the choice, as well as that sick or family leave needs often don't come with “reasonable notice."

“It sets up a false narrative," Frye said. “The notion you somehow have to trade off your pay for flexibility is certainly not the way it works for higher paid employees."

Todd Stacy, a spokesman for Roby, said such remarks are “frustrating" and noted that the current bill is not a mandate, as well as that it prohibits even indirect coercion and lets workers cash out their accrued time if they and their employer can't agree on when the comp time is taken. “It's not for every employer and it's not for every employee," he said. “It's simply meant as an option, to legalize it in the private sector."

The bill now faces the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) hasn't shared his plans on the issue, according to a report in Bloomberg News. In 2013, however, he did support a version of a similar bill.

If it does ultimately become law, employers will have to decide whether to offer it. Horn says that of SHRM's 285,000 members, “I probably have just as many who would like to offer the comp time as those who would never want to pursue this option. It is a lift for employers," she said, meaning it requires planning, expense and logistics. “There's the tracking of hours, and they carry the liability on their balance sheet in case there's a cash-out. Some employers are just like 'I would rather pay the straight option.' "

Media Are Our Best Hope On World Press Freedom Day


The persistent application of national security laws to punish media or further tighten limitations on freedom of expression has sent a chill through global newsrooms.


Andrew Heslop-01/05/2017
The 2016 media freedom report card makes for uncomfortable reading.
Impunity for those who kill journalists continues to undermine attempts by legal systems worldwide to deliver justice and ensure the rule of law. Read alongside rising numbers of physical attacks and an increasingly hostile online space, we remain far from guaranteeing a safe environment for media professionals, across any domain.
The persistent application of national security laws to punish media or further tighten limitations on freedom of expression has sent a chill through global newsrooms. The redlines are thickening, in many cases multiplying around so many stories; for journalists to navigate them all requires more than a cursory understanding of the law and how it is applied. According to CPJ's annual prison census, the world's jails were home to some 259 journalists in 2016, the highest number on record.
Just how many stories never make it into the public record as a result we shall never know. The evidence we do have suggests silence is spreading, the imperative to think twice before publishing more commonplace than ever. With the intertwining complexity of commercial interests and the precarious financial situations of media houses, those redlines are becoming more like red boxes into which so much is dumped, labelled 'off limits' to journalism. When the consequences of running a story can be so drastic, potentially deadly, it is far from surprising that so many choose, however unwillingly, to kill a story to be sure of surviving another day.
2016 is consistent in that it fits the pattern of decline seen in recent years, an erosion of basic freedoms reflected in evermore-pessimistic '3 May' op-eds year in, year out. As we mark another World Press Freedom Day and make the habitual – yet highly necessary - condemnations of all of the above, we must also acknowledge the efforts to counteract the slide. It is perhaps the one positive in an otherwise bleak 12 months for media freedom.
Pressures on journalists and media organisations are designed to reduce transparency and accountability in society. Usually it means powerful interests have something to hide from public view. Ultimately, media need to do more to convince public opinion that such targeting is an attack on common values and will not be tolerated.
In the meantime, media are obliged to advocate on their own behalf. The organisations, institutions, NGOs and support agencies designed to help in this are vital, but they are not enough. They are not effective unless media themselves are actively participating in defining the issues, steering the agenda, implementing the goals, and mobilising together to tackle the issues that directly affect them. This is as much of a job within the news- or boardroom as it is out in the public sphere, meaning that many challenges come from within the media itself.
Paradoxical as this may sound, we must own our faults – act to change the disproportionate lack of women in senior positions and address the way many newsrooms treat young people of both sexes; arrest the decline in desirability of taking a job in media; create the conditions and flexibility that attract – and retain – the brightest and best talent; make our editorial standards the most rigorous and our business operations worthy of the deepest trust. There are versions of these – and many more - arguments playing out in newsrooms across the globe; it is simply common sense to suggest a strong profession has more chance of fighting off the epidemic it faces if first its own house is in order.
But we cannot wait; simultaneous efforts to address those internal and external challenges go hand in hand. Providing meaningful skills training that educates the individual and raises the overall standard within the organisation is a start; as a profession, we should aim to say we have done everything that it is within our power to do when it comes to addressing internal challenges. We need to be irreproachable in every respect, and that begins at our desks, in our own workplace, with our own values and practices exposed.
This self-critique will breed self-confidence. Because of the competition to attract and maintain audiences, we demand of ourselves the highest standards in business and editorial: so why not in terms of our rights, our safety, and the conditions necessary to effectively carry out our roles? Simply knowing your rights and knowing the legal limitations that have been placed on your freedom as a journalist is a vital starting point; educating ourselves, so that we may educate others to be stronger professionals, better informed of the options we have, of the support that is out there, is crucial.
But most importantly, it is about being aware of the power of collective action, of mobilising as professionals, for professionals, on whatever issue is put in our path. WAN-IFRA works directly with media organisations in over 20 countries to support these dual efforts. Beyond sensitisation of the importance of a free press, media in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East are taking concrete steps to ensure they are at the forefront when it comes to advocating their own freedoms – in their newsrooms, among peers, and in the communities in which they operate.
Our Media Freedom Committees are empowering media to lead advocacy on each continent. Coordinated and run by media professionals, they set their agenda and define what they as a collective body can achieve – in partnership with existing initiatives, or as a body unique unto themselves. A year into the experiment, we're already seeing how the strategy can provide a way forward.
In Uganda, a network of over 250 journalists are connected country-wide to discuss safety, good practice, offer advice, and identify where colleagues need support and training to raise the standard of the profession in the public eye. In Egypt, our Committee is conducting public research into just why society is turning away from media, offering suggestions as to how the profession can reverse this trend. In Indonesia, collaboration between nine leading news organisations brought the Jakarta-centric news industry to the outlying province of Papua to expose issues the local media felt received little or no coverage in the national agenda.
In Ecuador, the media is leading calls for reform with the new government after initiating public consultations on redrawing the notorious media laws. In South Africa, our partner newsrooms have designed and undergone their own advanced digital safety training curriculum, recognising that they all need access to the latest skills to survive in an increasingly controlled online environment.
In Palestine, Botswana, Malaysia, Colombia, Zambia, Cambodia, Kenya and a dozen other countries, WAN-IFRA is ensuring media are in control of similar advocacy efforts that will impact the overall state of freedom of expression, so that maybe next year, or in five years, or beyond, the opinion pieces published on 3 May won't make for such grim reading.
We are better equipped, more empowered and more likely to succeed – and keep on succeeding – if we know we have the support of colleagues and peers. That is the strength of our profession. That is the approach WAN- IFRA is advocating on this World Press Freedom Day.
​WAN-IFRA is the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers.

Brazil in the short Strikes – the ultimate price of welfare

by Luísa Monteiro-
(May 3, 2017, Vienna, Sri Lanka Guardian) April 28th will be a date to remember. Even though some of the great media claim that there were only demonstrations around the country, it is to assume that, by a consensus or not, what happened here was a strike. A general strike, the first in 20 years, one of the biggest in the History of the country, highly cited in the social media (figuring the trending topics in the whole world for hours), spread over the 26 states and the Federal District. Barely any buses or trains in the city of São Paulo. Diverse unions like the teachers’ and the bankers’ and the two main popular fronts were not only present, but also organised the event.
The reason for that? Not Mr. Temer’s government, specifically; not this time. But the new measures and reforms he has emphatically worked on since the end of last year, that happen to surprise and worry – to say the least – the average Brazilian worker.
The outraged atmosphere, however, comes way before today and takes a brief economic explanation to understand.
Old, but not gold
The last general strike happened in 1996, during Mr. Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s government, another neoliberalist. One of the points in common is the fight against turning the workers’ rights more flexible. At the time, Mr. Cardoso even claimed that ‘strikes don’t create jobs’, as the protesters also manifested against the high unemployment rates.
It is natural that a moment of economic instability creates some sort of friction amongst the workers and the government. The late conjunction of that with a huge political crisis under the stigma of corruption is perfectly combined with strict measures from Mr. Temer and creates a dangerous mixture.
One of the most controversial acts proposed by the new president concerns the pension reforms. The original project aimed to stablish a common age for retirement, being that valid for men, women, being them urban or rural workers – 65 years old, against the current 55 for women and 60 for men. Also, the minimum working time for retirements with a full pension (starting with 70% of its value and progressively evolving to 100%, according to the years of extra contribution) would be of 49 years, against the current 25 years for urban workers and 15 for the rural ones. Since it was not accepted nor tolerated, some changes were made to be voted again in the Parliament – yet, the amount of people impacted by the reform will be enormous, and the time they need to work until they retire will increase. The country, Mr. Temer says, cannot afford for the current system and some austerity must be shown, even in such a delicate matter.
It is clear as Malthus could foresee that times of prosperity and abundance do not last forever, but one must make no mistake and believe that any reform should be accepted. Indeed, the Brazilian pension system works as a pyramid – the ones who start working pay for those who have already stopped. This pyramid, following the global tendency, is becoming inverted and finding solutions for that is more than an obligation. Mr. Cardoso, and also Mrs. Rousseff created some formulas for calculating the ideal age for retiring and, until now, workers were to choose which one would fit them best. The clash came with a proposition of a questionable redistribution – which might have come as a demand from the president’s supporters – that would ultimately harm the Brazilian workers’ rights.
Work, work, work
Those, however, were not the only plans of the PMDB, Mr. Temer’s party, government. On Wednesday (27), a late voting session at the Lower House showed an articulation of a worried president for the approval of a reform of working laws before the pickets that would happen the next day. This reform would change some important aspects for workers, like the possibility to work as third parts, maybe causing more instability; the prevalence of employer-employee agreements over the law, which may bring poorer working conditions, and the end of the obligation of yearly paying the union, being the latter clearly one of the reasons why the unionists were so heated.
The other side
The day after the general strike, Mr. Temer went to the television. He had already discreetly positioned himself by saying that the workers were in their right to protest, but that he would keep the discussion where it was due: the Congress.
But what he and most of the citizens could take from the acts on Friday was that 1) protesters and non-protesters, especially he low-income ones, were terrified with the idea of reforms that 2) they could not fully understand.
Therefore, on April 29th, the president appeared on a popular TV show, in which he was interviewed by a charismatic TV host, and had about half an hour to assure the mentioned workers that ‘the reforms would be totally positive, no one would lose their rights’. He also took time, through simple metaphors, to explain the contention measures and how some economic measures – like the now allowed withdrawals from inactive accounts from the Guarantee Fund for Length of Service and a R$5000.00 budget for renovating the houses of low-income families – would inject money in the country again and create jobs.
Mr. Temer, this time, tried a clever movement in hopes of becoming more popular and clearly rejected the populism present in the ‘late governments’. He even reaffirmed his position in a brief 2-minute video shared on the government’s official social media about the Workers Day, but the consequences of this effort will only be felt as time passes and his propositions are negotiated in the Legislative sphere.
On May 1st, many spots of entertainment, militancy and discussion were organised by the unions, where many celebrated and protested during the holiday. What was clear to see were the significant fewer voices from politicians and an official letter from those institutions, in which they claimed to be still fighting for the workers’ right and considering, if necessary, a new date for strikes.
“If history … was ever on holiday, or seemed retired, it looks as re-employed now.” – professor Anis Bajrektarevic – discussing state, rights and ideology – recently wrote in his luminary essay on Europe.
The next days will be decisive. The country lives a moment of increasing turmoil and, in times of Car Wash operation and increasing legit criticism against the people’s representatives, no change will be easy. Mr. Temer appears to be determined, but his government shows a history of rethinking policies and measures. Until now, one can only try to interpret the facts – so far, unemployment rates rose to 13,7% and, even though inflation fell from 10,71% to 4,5%, so did his approval rating, which was 4% in April – and hope for, if not innovative, feasible solutions for the puzzle Brazil has become.
About the Author : Luísa Monteiro is a bachelor in Social Communication and is a senior editor at Modern Diplomacy. She is also taking a Master’s degree in Communication and Politics at PUC São Paulo. Her researches are closely linked to the studies of internet as a democratic agora and her latest academic production correlates the (offline) social movements and their exposure on the net.

Trudeau must help Saudi blogger Raif Badawi: Amnesty


Rights group calls on Canadian prime minister to urge Saudi Arabia to free jailed activist Raif Badawi, who is nearing five years of imprisonment
Justin Trudeau
Justin Trudeau
Jillian D'Amours's picture
Jillian D'Amours-Wednesday 3 May 2017

TORONTO, Canada – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau must personally call on Saudi Arabia to release jailed human rights defender Raif Badawi, Amnesty International has urged.
In an open letter released on Wednesday, the human rights group said Ottawa must “renew and intensify efforts” to push Riyadh to free Badawi, who was arrested almost five years ago, on 17 June 2012.
Canada is particularly well placed to lobby on Badawi’s behalf because his wife and three young children reside in the province of Quebec, and have been granted permanent residency in Canada, Amnesty International said.
“Canada is well positioned to urge Saudi officials to release Mr. Badawi on humanitarian grounds so that he can reunite with his family. In fact there is no other country with a stronger responsibility to champion Mr. Badawi’s case,” the group said in the letter.
Badawi ran a website in Saudi Arabia called Free Saudi Liberals, which called for freedom of expression and encouraged a debate on human rights and religious issues in the Gulf Kingdom.
After his arrest, Badawi was charged with insulting Islam online, among other things. He was eventually sentenced to 10 years in prison, a hefty fine, a travel ban, and 1,000 public lashes, to be meted out over a period of 20 consecutive weeks.
He received the first 50 lashes in January 2015 in Jeddah, but subsequent flogging sessions were postponed due to health concerns and an international outcry.
Badawi has remained in prison in Saudi Arabia since that time.
“I have the impression that his soul is being crushed, literally. This prison has crushed his soul,” said Elham Manea, a spokesperson for the Badawi family, who told Middle East Eye that she feared Badawi would be released as a shadow of his past self.
“From that perspective, it’s very urgent” that he be released as soon as possible, she said.
“It’s about time. Five years are more than enough. His family has suffered enough. He has suffered enough. He’s really going through a very bad time in the prison,” Manea said.
She explained that it was ironic that Badawi remains behind bars when some of the reforms he previously called for have begun to be implemented in Saudi Arabia.
This includes limiting the powers bestowed to the Saudi religious police, and offering more music, theatre, and other entertainment events within the country.
“One sees a certain kind of readiness; one has the impression that within Saudi Arabia things are moving in a different direction,” Manea said, adding that she hoped Badawi would soon be pardoned.
“We’re hoping that Canada will play an important role… But we all understanding that, [in] the end, the decision will be with the Saudis themselves,” she said.
Canadian officials have raised Badawi’s case with their Saudi counterparts over the last few years.
Last October, Canada’s former Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion said the government was using diplomatic channels to lobby for his release.
“The Canadian government invites, indeed, insists that the Saudi Arabian government and the king show clemency and permit Mr. Badawi to join his family here in Canada," Dion said at the time.
But the Saudi ambassador to Canada publicly rejected the minister’s request. “Mr. Badawi is a Saudi citizen, [and] has nothing to do with the relations between Canada and Saudi Arabia,” Naif Bin Bandir Al-Sudairy said, according to local media reports.
Still, Amnesty International is pressing Canada, and the prime minister himself, to intervene this time.
“But as the disheartening fifth anniversary of his arrest draws closer, we urge you to make this case an even higher priority, including through your own personal, public call in support of Mr. Badawi’s release,” the group said.