Sally Yates says she warned White House that Flynn was a blackmail risk

BY CNN WIRE- MAY 8, 2017

(CNN) — Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates said Monday that she alerted the White House earlier this year that former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn could be “essentially blackmailed by the Russians.”

“We believed that Gen. Flynn was compromised with respect to the Russians,” Yates told a Senate judiciary subcommittee, in a high-profile hearing on Russian meddling into the US election.

Yates told the panel that she had a meeting with White House Counsel Donald McGahn on January 26 to tell him that she had information that statements by Vice President Mike Pence, based on his conversations with Flynn, were false. She was joined in the meeting by a senior career official in the Justice Department.

Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates (R) and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testify on May 8, 2017, before the US Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. / AFP PHOTO / JIM WATSON (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)

“We weren’t the only ones that knew all of this, that the Russians also knew about what General Flynn had done and the Russians also knew that General Flynn had misled the vice president and others,” Yates said, relating the contents of her conversation with McGahn.

Yates was speaking at a hearing led by Sen. Lindsey Graham, who opened the hearing with an implicit rebuke of the President and his alternative explanations for the interference in the election.

The South Carolina Republican said the hacking was not the work of “some 400-pound guy sitting on a bed or any other country,” a reference to a comment Trump has previously made on the matter.

In her opening statement, Yates said that she planned to be as “fulsome and comprehensive as possible” within ethical and legal boundaries.

Yates also warned in her opening testimony that there were some issues she could not address publicly because they involved classified information. Similarly, she said that as a former official she was not authorized to discuss Department of Justice or other executive branch deliberations. It was not immediately clear how those constraints would affect her testimony on the Flynn question. Neither Flynn nor Trump were directly referenced in her opening statement.

“The efforts by a foreign adversary to interfere and undermine our democratic processes — and those of our allies — pose a serious threat to all Americans,” Yates said.

Graham asked Yates whether she had any information about whether there was collusion between members of the Trump campaign and Russia.

“My answer to that question would require me to reveal classified information,” Yates said.

At one point in the hearing Graham asked both Clapper and Yates how information about Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador, that eventually led to his sacking, made it into the newspapers. Trump asked a similar question earlier on Twitter. Both former official said they did not know how that happened.

Lawmakers have been wrangling behind the scenes at the Capitol to bring in Yates ever since it was reported that she warned Trump’s White House counsel, Don McGahn, that Flynn had talked about US sanctions against Russia with the Russian ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak. Officials later confirmed to CNN that Trump transition officials warned Flynn against calling Kislyak, saying that Kislyak was likely being monitored by US intelligence.

Trump went on the offensive on Twitter Monday morning, hours before the hearing began, blaming the Obama administration for Flynn’s security clearance and asking the committee to question Yates over leaking classified information to the media.

“General Flynn was given the highest security clearance by the Obama Administration – but the Fake News seldom likes talking about that,” Trump wrote, adding later, “Ask Sally Yates, under oath, if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to W.H. Council.”

A White House official told CNN that the administration plans to rebut Yates by employing two strategies: Calling into question her objectivity by arguing she is a partisan Democrat and questioning the timeline of events she is expected to present.

The Senate judiciary committee’s crime and terrorism subcommittee also heard from former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who spoke in advance of Yates. He testified that he did not know about the FBI investigation into Russian meddling in the election and whether there were any links to the Trump campaign until its existence was announced in a congressional hearing by FBI Director James Comey in March.

“During my tenure as DNI, it was my practice to defer to the FBI director — both (former FBI) Director (Robert) Mueller and Director Comey — on whether, when, and to what extent they would inform me about such investigations,” Clapper said.

Clapper issued a clarion call for vigilance over Russian election interference before it further eroded US democracy.

“They must be congratulating themselves for having exceeded their wildest expectations,” he said. “They are now emboldened to continue such activities in the future, both here and around the world, and to do so even more intensely.”

Graham, the leader of Monday’s hearing, also invited former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, to testify with Yates and Clapper, but she rejected the invitation through her lawyer, noting the last-minute timing of the invitation. A source familiar with Rice’s discussions told CNN that when Graham invited her, Rice believed it was a bipartisan overture and was prepared to accept. 

However, ranking Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse indicated to her that the invitation was made without his agreement, as he believed her presence was not relevant to the topic of the hearing, according to the source.

Of the four former Trump campaign aides at the center of the Capitol Hill’s Russia probes — including former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former foreign policy adviser Carter Page and former campaign adviser Roger Stone — Flynn has generated the most heat following a steady stream of revelations.

Investigators on the House oversight committee raised the possibility last month that Flynn may have broken the law by not disclosing payments from RT-TV, widely considered by US officials to be a propaganda arm of the Russian government, on his 2016 national security clearance form. Flynn’s lawyer at the time argued that Flynn had been open about his speech to RT-TV, including briefing the Defense Intelligence Agency on his trip.

Monday’s hearing, which is expected to be dominated by Yates’ warning to the White House on Flynn, is certain to put him back on center stage in the ongoing Russia investigations.

Yates’ appearance itself has been fraught with drama ever since House intelligence chairman Devin Nunes’ delayed her House hearing at the last minute, as part of a chaotic three-week stretch that saw the House Russia investigation almost fall apart and Nunes become the subject of a House ethics probe.

The Washington Post reported at the time that the White House had blocked Yates by asserting executive privilege, which allows the President to stop a former aide from testifying. White House press secretary Sean Spicer vehemently denied the reports at the time and said that the White House actively supports Yates’ testifying in public.

A White House official said last week that the administration still wants Yates to testify in public and reaffirmed Spicer’s comments. Graham and Whitehouse also said they heard of no effort to stop her from coming before them.

Still, Democrats on the House Russia investigation are anxiously watching Monday’s hearing: First, to see if Yates shows up and, second, to see how much she reveals publicly.

This story has been updated and will be updated as news develops.

Yemen's worst criminals escape prison and seek revenge on victims

With pro-government forces focused on the battlefields, prisoners exploit Yemen’s chaos to break out of jail

Yemeni soldiers police a checkpoint in Sanaa in September 2016 (AFP)--Worshippers pray at the mosque where Akram was attacked (MEE)

The prisoners used spoons and spanners to scrape this hole out of the prison wall (MEE)--Military forces accompany a protest march in the Taiz region, diverting prison guard resources (MEE)

Monday 8 May 2017

TAIZ, Yemen - Akram was praying alone, after evening prayers, when the brick hit his head, leaving him bloodied and bruised.

"I did not expect that an idiot would attack me at the mosque," says the imam, recalling the incident in April. "I was praying safely and could not easily understand what had happened. When I looked behind me, I saw the criminal fleeing the mosque. But I could not stop him because I was bleeding."

I called the prison to ask what had happened. They told me that 52 prisoners had escaped that very morning. I cannot believe how it is easy for prisoners to escape

- Akram, victim

Akram, who asked that his real name not be used for his own safety, recognised his attacker. It was not the first time during the past few months that he and his family, who live in the al-Turba area, about 70km from Taiz city, had been victims of his crimes.

Last year, Akram's home was raided by the same man, who first tied his seven-year-old daughter to a column to prevent her from shouting out before stealing valuables including jewellery and cash.

Akram complained about the thief to the pro-government Popular Resistance movement, who caught the offender and took him to the central prison, where he was awaiting sentencing.

But when the imam returned from hospital, he received shocking news: his attacker was free again.

"I called the prison to ask what had happened," he says. "They told me that 52 prisoners had escaped that very morning. I cannot believe how it is easy for prisoners to escape. It is hard to accept."

Fadhl al-Thobhani, a professor of sociology at Taiz University, said the prison break was a key reason for the current crimewave in Yemen, which has risen since war broke out according to local anecdotal reports.

Akram's attacker had already fled Taiz province towards al-Hodeida province, a favoured destination for escaped prisoners, who know that no one can arrest them in the Houthi-controlled area.

But Akram and his friends still live in terror: they are not certain that he has left the region, amid rumours that he lives in a nearby valley.

"If Allah wrote that destiny is to be killed by this criminal, then I cannot do anything as this is fate," he says. "But I am doing my best to protect my children.

"Last time he tried to kill my daughter and recently he tried to kill me. I do not allow my children to leave the house alone."

How to escape with spoons and spanners

Akram's attacker is but one of many criminals who have made the most of the collapse in law enforcement during Yemen's two-year war.

In June 2015, an estimated 1,200 prisoners fled the central prison in Taiz city after a Saudi-led coalition air strike targeted the facility: only around 200 have been recaptured.

On 18 April 2017, 11 prisoners including members of al-Qaeda escaped from the central prison in Shabwa's Ataq city.

A group of us started to dig a hole in the wall of the prison while others created a noise by singing. Early on the morning of 23 April we were able finish the hole

- Mirwan, criminal

And on 23 April 2017, 52 prisoners – including Akram’s attacker – escaped the central prison in the al-Turbah area.

All of those prisoners had committed serious crimes including murder, attempted murder and house-breaking: some had been sentenced to death.

Victims like Akram are often left to fend for themselves should the criminal come looking for revenge: the pro-government forces are too busy fighting against the rebels.

Escaped prisoner speaks

MEE spoke to the escaped prisoner who attacked Akram and asked that he be known as Mirwan. He does not deny the attack and says that he tried to kill the imam because of extra charges made against him while in prison.

Mirwan remained in the area for three days after the attack at the mosque: none of the residents dared try and arrest him, while pro-government forces could not locate him.

"I only stole some jewellery and YR 80,000 ($320), but when I was in prison, they added accusations of rape and attempted murder," he says, "which in fact I did not commit."

He said that if he had only been accused of stealing then he could have left prison six months ago, but the extra accusations had prolonged his detention.

Mirwan said that he and 53 other prisoners began planning their escape in late March 2017, when they began hoarding spoons and spanners in their pockets to use as tools.

"A group of us started to dig a hole in the wall of the prison while others created a noise by singing," he says. "Early on the morning of 23 April we were able finish the hole. Fifty-two prisoners escaped: only two disabled prisoners remained inside."

After he escaped, Mirwan took revenge on Akram before fleeing. "I will travel to Hodeida where I can live more freely than in Taiz," he says.

The best place for my son is prison. I ask the pro-government forces to arrest him to make it safe for the rest of us

- Father of escaped prisoner 

The father of the escaped prisoner confirmed that his son is a criminal and that he had not seen him at the family home since the breakout.

He put the blame for the escape – and the subsequent attack at the mosque – on the lack of security at the jail.

"My son was in prison and he should not have left it until his trial had ended. But the pro-government forces did not increase the number of guards around the prison. I live in terror myself nowadays, as I am also against my son, who creates terror among residents."

His father said that his son had disobeyed him, broken into more than one home and was prepared to commit any crime.

"The best place for my son is prison. I ask the pro-government forces to arrest him to make it safe for the rest of us."

Crime during wartime

The authorities eventually arrested less than a third of the escaped prisoners and are trying to find the rest.

But it is unlikely: many have already fled Taiz province and the government’s jurisdiction in the war-torn country.

Abdulaziz al-Sofi, a guard at the central prison, said: "We arrested 15 escaped prisoners in two days after they escaped the prison but we could not arrest anyone after that.

"We know that they fled to other provinces, but we are doing our best to arrest them."

Sofi said that more than 20 crimes were committed in the two days after the prisoners escaped, as the criminals sought vengeance on those who had landed them in jail.

"The security forces know how dangerous it is that those prisoners escaped. Most of the guards had left to fight the Houthis, so the prisoners took advantage of that."

'The security forces know how dangerous it is that those prisoners escaped. Most of the guards had left to fight the Houthis, so the prisoners took advantage of that'

- Abdulaziz al-Sofi, prison guard 

al-Thobhani said: "When the criminals see prisoners can escape from prisons, they no longer fear the security forces. They then do what they want in the hope they will be able to escape detention.

"To keep society safe is more important than fighting. We need the security forces to work to make society safe from criminals."

Akram agrees. "I complained to the security forces about being attacked at the mosque. They said they cannot do anything because they do not know where the criminal is."

• Read more: In Yemen, qat addiction has increased to numb the pain of war

He now accompanies his children to school every day. At noon he takes them back to the house. He does not leave his home after evening prayer.

Akram does not dare stay alone at the mosque.

"I am not going to appeal to the resistance," he says, "but I pray to Allah every time to save us from criminals and keep our society safe. Allah knows everything. I pray Allah not to make us victims of criminals again."

Is China blackmailing Myanmar, like it did with Sri Lanka?

Now, China is financially big enough to first pump its money in small, poor nations and then acquire controlling stakes in organizations as the nations fail to repay, be it the poor or financially weaker nations of Asia or Africa.

 by Sanjay Nirala-May 6, 2017

China is known for territorial expansionism and autocratic rule but its increasing economic prowess has added another dimension to its clout - the economic imperialism. Now, China is financially big enough to first pump its money in small, poor nations and then acquire controlling stakes in organizations as the nations fail to repay, be it the poor or financially weaker nations of Asia or Africa.

That is a deepening line of analysis by the experts. Confirming similar developments, an exclusive Reuters report has claimed that China is expected to take controlling stakes, as high as 85 per cent, in Myanmar's China funded projects, even if the initial agreement for some of them was on a 50/50 basis. According to the report, China has asked for a 70-85 per cent stake in a strategic deep sea strategic on the Bay of Bengal, Kyauk Pyu, and is expected to get it due to the financial constraints of Myanmar. The $7.3 billion project is China funded.

The deep sea port fits in the Chinese narrative of its 'One Belt One Road' initiative under which it is pumping huge sums of money in financially weaker countries like Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, or Myanmar, albeit, at much higher interest rates. If the international line of credit by different organizations or countries for soft loans ranges from 0.1 per cent to 3 per cent, the Chinese lenders charge anything above 6 per cent. In 2015, Japan sanctioned a loan amount of $50 billion with interest rate of 0.1 per cent and a repayment period of 50 years for India's Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train corridor.

CHINA'S HEGEMONIC DESIGNS

In case of Myanmar, the Myitsone dam project is a classic example to see China's hegemonic designs through economic imperialism. The $3.6 billion dam project was financed by China. Built on the Irrawaddy River, the project was doomed from the beginning. After being in making for years, the project was suspended in September 2011 amid democratic reforms as the Burmese Junta government had taken a unilateral decision to allow the controversial project that was expected to bring cultural, environmental and sociological disaster for Myanmar and its people. The ethnic Burman majority of Myanmar is against any dam on the Irrawaddy River as it traces its roots of civilization there.

Add to it the cunning Chinese business model. The project was sold saying the electricity it would produce, 90 per cent of it would be sold to China while 10 per cent was to be given free to Myanmar. Being a power starved country, protests were held against it in Myanmar. Under pressure, China later said Myanmar was the primary market and rest was to be exported. That was when Myanmar is among the countries with lowest electrification rate and no grid structure to connect its cities and town. A World Bank report says only 33 per cent of the country's population has an electricity connection.

Now, China is using this junked project that has displaced thousands of people to leverage its position in Myanmar or we can say, to blackmail the Myanmarese government. If Myanmar finally cancels this project, it would have to return China $800 million that would hit it badly. Or the way China wants it, i.e., "concessions on other strategic opportunities in Myanmar - including the Bay of Bengal port Kyauk Pyu", as the Reuters report says.

CHINA HAS A BAD REPUTATION IN MYANMAR

Another large scale project in Myanmar that is on the radar of China's hegemonic designs is Kyaukphyu Special Economic Zone in one of its poorest regions, Rakhine. This $10 billion project is also China backed. China has also taken a controlling stake in another industrial park. China even owned 80 per cent of Myitsone dam project with Myanmar's share just at 15 per cent. China has a bad reputation in Myanmar, especially about its hegemonic designs and exploitative nature, and large scale protest have been held against it.

Earlier this week, an Indian publication, The Economic Times, had come up with a report that "how China was putting some South Asian countries on the road to debt trap under its One Belt One Road initiative". The report was focused on Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The report showed that how Chinese firms are pumping up money in these countries at unusually higher interest rates. When countries see that they are not able to repay, they convert their debt into equity and that literally translates into the ownership of the lender, i.e., China here.

This is already happening in Sri Lanka where Hambantota Port and Mattala Airport, both strategically important, especially for India, have gone into China's control. Sri Lanka took Chinese loans for these projects and could not repay. Like Myanmar, even in Sri Lanka, violent protests were held when Hambantota went to China.

And experts say Pakistan is going to meet the same fate. Everyone in Pakistan nowadays talks of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) like a panacea for Pakistan's every misery. China has promised a $50 billion line of credit for the CPEC that is expected to bring economic miracle in China. But the truth is, as per the experts, Pakistan is borrowing heavily from China and at much higher interest rates. Anyone can expects the future if CPEC fails.

And all these countries are in India's neighbourhood. So, India has a valid reason to get worried, especially after the historically hostile attitude that China has harboured against India. China has always tried to encircle India by increasing its presence in the South Asian countries.

India has vocally opposed the CPEC and has been apathetic toward the One Belt One Road initiative. And now even Bangladesh and Nepal are realizing the Chinese designs. Bangladesh has backed out from an international summit that China is holding on the One Belt One Road initiative while Nepal has decided to send its deputy prime minister in place of its president.

China: Body cameras on ‘chengguan’ officers to boost public image

 Chengguan officials have a messy reputation, pockmarked by significant instances of excessive violence. Source: K.Y. Cheng via Peace and Freedom

 8th May 2017

IN an unusually transparent move, the government Beijing has ordered urban management officers to be equipped with body cameras in a push back against accusations of violent treatment.

Urban management officers, otherwise known as “chengguan”, are given the authority to act as enforcers in non-police circumstances, such as protecting public property, or ensuring the sanitation of sidewalks and drains.

The chengguan officials have a messy reputation, pockmarked by significant instances of excessive violence, often deviating far and away from their original purpose. Comments from the Sichuan Daily (as reported by the Wall Street Journal) note stories of chengguan officers assaulting ordinary citizens is “practically a part of everyday vocabulary”.

Though chengguan violence is not new, there have been no large-scale investigations into the incidences.

Human Rights Watch, in a 2012 report, noted: “There is no overarching national regulatory framework laying out the permissible scope of chengguan duties, no uniform training requirements or code of conduct, and no systematic monitoring and investigation of alleged chengguan abuses.”

In some cases, officers are trained to avoid visible evidence of abuse: “In dealing with the subject,” said a 2009 Beijing chengguan training manual that circulated online,

“take care to leave no blood on the face, no wounds on the body, and [ensure that] no people [are] in the vicinity.”

The force came under heavy scrutiny when they were involved in the death of a watermelon farmer, Deng Zhengjie, in 2013, following a brawl. Other instances of violent retaliation against urban dwellers have made chengguan officers the focus of public ire, which has only been compounded by the increased live-streaming and recording capabilities in the social media-smartphone era.

Social media has not been kind to the chengguan in the court of public opinion. The widespread use of social media platforms such as Sina Weibo and WeChat, coupled with China’s live-streaming boom, has empowered witnesses to collect evidence and recordings of chengguan violence and post them on the Internet where they are seen and watched by million in an instant.

SEE ALSO: Viral video: China demolition crew shown beating villagers with batons

The rise of public dissemination of such information has fed public outrage and blown up reports of chengguan violence. Countless resources including photos, videos and articles can be found across the Internet when searching the term “chengguan beating people”.

“In my dear motherland, every brand-new street has seen the brutality of urban management officers,” wrote blogger Li Chengpeng in a widely circulated essay, which was translated by Helen Gao in the Telegraph.

“Over time, we have become desensitised. But if you insist on looking for an ironic twist, look no further than the dead body of the watermelon vendor.”

The government hopes to use that same technology to bring some accountability to the problem. The policy was put into action last week and requires chengguan forces across the country to maintain recordings of enforcement actions in order to weed out any discrepancies and clear up post-incident uncertainty.

According to a chengguan officer in Henan province, the footage collected by palm-sized body camera officers wear strapped to their uniform cannot be deleted or edited. Cameras can film for four hours on a single charge.

“It’s great,” the officer said to the Wall Street Journal. “If you’re on duty and there’s a conflict, at least now you have evidence,” she said.

WSJ reports chengguan officers defended themselves against public accusations by arguing the scuffles are usually caused by members of the public, rather than the officers themselves. Some say they are the victims and should not be persecuted for the actions of others, with others noting they wore a Google Glass during duty hours.

Shanghaiist.com@shanghaiist

Street vendor stabs chengguan officer in throat with candied fruit skewer http://shst.me/eiw 

The recording policy marks the most significant action on the part of the government to curb incidents such as Deng’s death, and is markedly similar to the actions of US enforcement agencies responding to the rising instances of police shootings of black men.

The economic slowdown and increasingly urban population of China have led to the rise of chengguan groups, but it’s those same forces that have pushed the Communist Party to address public discontent and “reclaim its reputation as a defender of the poor”, the WSJ reported.

The chengguan is the most visible and openly engaged of all of China’s enforcement groups, and as a local force, not managed by the Public Security Ministry. The force came into being in the 1990s, in response to a growing urban population and China’s swelling economic fortunes.

SEE ALSO: Living with the chengguan: China’s most notorious law enforcement agents

The ensuing explosion of street commerce, homelessness and unlicensed street vendors resulted in cities forming these forces to maintain public property, monitor street peddlers and beggars. Eventually, the strongman approach of the chengguan led to a souring of relations between them and the public.

Odds are, the government’s sudden sympathy for and action against chengguan violence come at a time when public opinion of the Communist Party is strained due to a flatlining economy and mounting criticism of human rights abuses.

“Violence on the street against an ordinary individual that goes viral dents the credibility of the government much more than the hidden torture of dissidents,” HRW researcher Maya Wang told WSJ.

Yet, other urban locals have noted the force has become somewhat gentler in their enforcement, perhaps in response to the increasing number of cameras pointing their way. It won’t be surprising if many remain skeptical though – after all, having a body camera and its recordings are not the same as taking action.

Venezuela opposition boycotts meeting on Maduro assembly, clashes rage

An opposition supporter throws a petrol bomb into an air base while rallying against President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas, Venezuela, May 8, 2017. REUTERS/Marco Belltr--Opposition supporters clash with riot police during a rally against President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas, Venezuela, May 8, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins

Military police take position at an air base as opposition supporters clash with them while rallying against President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas, Venezuela, May 8, 2017. REUTERS/Marco Bello

 Tue May 9, 2017 

Venezuela's opposition boycotted a meeting on Monday to discuss President Nicolas Maduro's plan for a new popular assembly, preferring to protest in the streets where they were again blocked by security forces firing tear gas.

In familiar scenes from five weeks of unrest, youths with gas masks and makeshift shields faced off with police and National Guard troops in Caracas, after hundreds of demonstrators were stopped from reaching government offices.

In Venezuela's second city Maracaibo, a crowd of about 300 protesters shouting "Maduro Out!" and "No to Dictatorship!" was dispersed with multiple volleys of tear gas.

Decrying Maduro as an autocrat who has wrecked the OPEC nation's economy, Venezuela's opposition is demanding elections to resolve Venezuela's grave political crisis.

The 54-year-old successor to Hugo Chavez says his foes are seeking a coup with U.S. support. He is setting up a "constituent assembly" super body with power to rewrite the constitution and shake up public powers.

But no representatives of the opposition Democratic Unity coalition went to the Miraflores presidential palace on Monday despite an invitation from Education Minister Elias Jaua who is leading the constituent assembly process.

"It's a trick to keep themselves in power," said Julio Borges, leader of the National Assembly legislature where the opposition won a majority in 2015.

"The only way to resolve this crisis is with a free vote."

The unrest has killed at least 37 people since early April, including protesters, government sympathizers, bystanders, and security forces. Hundreds have also been hurt and arrested.

Local rights group Penal Forum said 1,845 people had been detained since April 1 over the protests, with 591 still behind bars. Opposition leaders said 200 of those were being processed by military tribunals in Carabobo state.

Perhaps to justify the use of those military tribunals, officials say they are now facing an "armed insurrection". Red-shirted Maduro supporters also rallied in Caracas on Monday.

(Reporting by Andrew Cawthorne and Corina Pons in Caracas, Isaac Burrutia in Maracaibo; Editing by Tom Brown)

Philippines senator tells UN reports of drug war killings are 'alternative facts'

Ally of Rodrigo Duterte employs Trump-speak to deny that president’s policy has resulted in more than 7,000 being killed by death squads and vigilantes

Sme 7,000 people have died at the hands of vigilantes and state sanctioned death squads in the Philippines since Duterte came to power. Photograph: Francis R. Malasig/EPA

Guardian staff and agencies-Tuesday 9 May 2017

There has been no new wave of killings prompted by the Philippines’ war on drugs, and reports to the contrary are “alternative facts”, an ally of President Rodrigo Duterte has told the UN Human Rights Council.

Duterte has received widespread condemnation in the west for failing to curtail the killings and address activists’ allegations of systematic, state-sponsored murders by police of drug users and dealers, which the authorities reject.

Senator Alan Peter Cayetano said there had been 11,000 to 16,000 killings per year under previous administrations. He said a change in the definition of extrajudicial killings by the Philippine Commission on Human Rights and other critics of Duterte’s policies had deceived the public.

“There is no new wave of killings in the Philippines, just a political tactic of changing definitions,” Cayetano told a UN review in Geneva of the Philippines’ human rights record.

“Make no mistake, any death or killing is one too much. However, there is a deliberate attempt to include all homicides as EJKs [extrajudicial killings] or killings related to the campaign against criminality and illegal drugs, and that these are state-sponsored, which is simply not true.”

Since Duterte took office 10 months ago promising an unrelenting campaign to rid the Philippines of drugs, there have been 9,432 homicide cases, including 2,692 deaths from “presumed legitimate law enforcement operations”, Cayetano said.

Any such death was presumed legitimate under the law, but it was automatically investigated, and Duterte had a zero tolerance policy towards abuse of police power, Cayetano said.

Epimaco Densing, assistant secretary of the department of the interior, told Reuters that 236 police officers had been suspended and were under investigation and about 17 had been dismissed from their jobs and jailed.

Philippine authorities say police have only killed in self-defence during anti-drugs operations. They say the thousands of mysterious murders of drug users are the work of vigilantes or rival drugs gangs.

That is rejected by human rights groups, who say most of those killings followed the same pattern and allege they were carried out by police or hired assassins, while executions were often presented as police killings in self-defence.

“The government’s denial and deflection of criticism shows it has no intention of complying with its international obligations,” said John Fisher, Geneva director at Human Rights Watch.

The UN scrutiny is likely to add to pressure on Duterte. The authorities strongly reject allegations of wrongdoing.

Advertisement

Cayetano told the council public opinion had been swayed by “alternative facts” spread by critics of Duterte.

The police had arrested 64,917 “drug personalities”, Cayetano said. “Arrested, your excellencies, not killed.”

China’s ambassador Ma Zhaoxu congratulated Duterte’s administration on its “remarkable achievements” in protecting human rights and said Beijing supported his “holistic campaign” against drugs.

A US diplomat at the Council called on the Philippines to respect international human rights laws and strengthen criminal justice.

The phrase “alternative facts” was coined by Kellyanne Conway, a senior aide to Donald Trump.

Reuters contributed to this report

FactCheck Q&A: does Macron’s victory mark the death of right-wing populism?

By Martin Williams-8 MAY 2017

Emmanuel Macron’s French presidency win has been hailed as a victory against the “populist revolution,” that was behind Brexit and Donald Trump. The pro-EU centrist easily defeated Marine Le Pen, of the far-right Front National.

The Guardian said his win was “a welcome remedy to the populist fever,” while the Reuters said that populism “may have faded on the shores of France”.

It comes as some commentators have declared Ukip “dead”, after it took a hammering in last week’s local elections.

So should the liberal establishment be breathing a sigh of relief after a turbulent year? Let’s dig into the detail a little deeper.

How decisive is Macron’s victory?

On the surface, he won a landslide. Macron won 66 per cent, against Le Pen’s 34 per cent. But the full election data paints a more complicated picture.

Turnout was the lowest for decades, with almost a quarter of registered voters abstaining. That compared to a fifth of voters who abstained in the last election, and just 16 per cent in 2007.

What’s more, of those who voted, around 12 per cent (four million people) spoiled their ballot papers or left it blank.

That means, out of everyone who was registered to vote, Macron only managed a victory of 43.75 per cent. That would be impressive by British standards – in 2015, only 24 per cent of those registered voted Conservative. But in France, this is a poor result. Compare it to ten years ago, when Nicolas Sarkozy won with around 54 per cent of registered voters, or Hollande who got 52 per cent in 2012.

What’s more, Macron was helped greatly by anti-Le Pen sentiment. Many who would never count themselves as supporters voted for him in order to keep the far-right candidate out. His vote share in the first round of elections was just 24 per cent.

So although Le Pen’s National Front has been defeated for now, it’s a stretch to say that Macron’s election represents a glowing endorsement of him, or the more liberal, pro-EU establishment.

Populism across Europe

There is nothing inherently controversial about populism. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it simply as “political ideas and activities that are intended to get the support of ordinary people by giving them what they want”.

But it is the particular strain of nationalist, right-wing populism that has disturbed establishment politics so much recently, pushing forward policies against immigration and globalisation. And many of the issues that politicians like Le Pen and Trump campaign on remain unchanged.

We need to be careful, however, not to lump everything in together. They may be part of the same wave of populism, but anti-EU policies are, of course, very different from extremist parties like Le Pen’s, with its former leader convicted as a racist.

Across Europe, populist parties of different types have seen their support strengthen. According to a Harvard research paper, they have more than doubled their average share of the vote since the 1960s.

In January, leaders from far-right and anti-EU parties gathered in Germany to “outline the Europe of tomorrow”. They included Le Pen, Frauke Petry of the AfD party in Germany, and Geert Wilders who was once dubbed the “Dutch Trump”.

Wilders was soon after defeated in the his country’s parliamentary elections, after winning just 13% of the vote.

Elsewhere, Austria’s far-right Freedom Party was also defeated in December. But they did incredibly well. The party’s presidential candidate, Norbert Hofer, won the first round of voting and only lost the final found by around 7 percentage points.

The next major test for Europe will be the German elections in September, where the established parties will hope to quash opposition from the AfD. The party was only founded in 2013 but has quickly risen in popularity by opposing Angela Merkel’s refugee policy.

Reports say the party is being “flooded by the far far right” but has recently suffered a big slump in support after controversial comments made by one of the party’s leaders.

The future?

The election of Macron shows that established politics still has a stronghold over Europe. The switching of allegiances among many voters, to ensure Le Pen was defeated, is a reflection of how deeply unpopular the Front National is among most voters.

But it’s far too early to declare the end to the wave of populism. And, so long as the perceived factors that drive populism stay the same (whether economic, cultural, political or social), it seems likely that populist leaders will find it easy to drum up support.

Macron may have blocked the populist far-right, but he has not yet provided a solution to counter it. Just days before his election, UKIP leader Nigel Farage predicted: ”If Le Pen does not win this Sunday, she will become the French president in 2022.”