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

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

By Leon Berenger-2017-06-06
The Excise Department is currently rocked with dissent that has led to a turf war between rival groups from the uniform sector and those in the civil administration and at the end of the day it has dwarfed performance resulting in losses of vital revenue to the government.
The entire department has been politicized over the years with political pet poodles calling the shots whenever there is the possibility and to hell with standard procedures.
In addition to all that the department is packed with errant officials allegedly on the take from operators in the liquor industry but is allowed to carry on since they are protected by an equally corrupt bureaucracy at the upper levels of the government.
The honest officials who have bent their back on maintaining the dignity and good character of the department have been constantly overlooked in the case of promotions simply because they have refused to end up as 'hurray boys' for certain politicians and bureaucrats.
In an interview with Ceylon Today the outgoing Commissioner of the Excise Department L.K.G. Gunawardene shares his views for the benefit of the tax payer in particular and the public in general.
?: What is the present situation inside the Excise Department?
A: It is sad. The department is taking a freefall with indiscipline, corruption and meddling by politicians, bureaucrats and other so-called VIPs. Performance has hit an all time low as disillusioned officials are reluctant to perform their duties as required because they feel they have been discriminated at some point or other.
?: What do you suggest that could be done to get matters in order once again?
A: There should be a full revamp of the rank and file in the department where the corrupt elements should be taken out and the deserving cases given their rightful place. However, this will not be possible if there is any kind of political interference. The place has to be flushed out at the very earliest or else it would lead to dire consequences.
?: Earlier you mentioned of a turf war between two groups in the department. Can you elaborate?
A: That is very true. The uniformed personnel are attempting to edge out those in the administration sector and this simply cannot be the case. Those in the administration sector are qualified to handle official work such as filing revenue sheets and other paper work from human resources to data collection and the maintaining of records among other tasks while the uniformed personnel are assigned for field work such as carrying out raids and other related duties. But some persons refuse to understand this and resort to ugly tactics sometimes bordering on sabotage. They have runaway with the idea that they could fit into the administration branches. This has to stop and the relevant authorities must swing the search light inwards before these issues snowball into a larger crisis.
?: But most of these issues, as claimed by you also took place during your watch. Did you take any measures to rectify them?
A: Yes I did and was successful to a certain extent. When I took office in March 2015 there was a huge festering issue relating to an irregular promotion of 43 officials. Those affected by this were fretting in anger and the matter was later settled in Court and the promotions were annulled and those promoted were demoted. It is needless to mention that by such an action I drew a lot of flak, so much so that moves were made to remove me from my post in August last year. Not only that I also initiated raids on upmarket outlets, high society club houses and even distilleries that had violated excise regulations much to the annoyance of many persons. Some of these places are known to have had the cooperation of errant officials in the department.
?: Could you mention some of the special detections?
A: An embassy employee was busted while attempting to trade two dozens of foreign liquor to undercover excise sleuths in the metropolis. Then there was this politico's driver who was nabbed with several kilograms of Cannabis concealed inside a Police jeep and a Buddhist monk turned politician was nabbed while flirting with an imported narcotic substance. Furthermore, two defunct distilleries imported large stocks of ethanol and illegally re-distributed it to other manufacturers. We put them out of business. In 2016, a special Gazette Notification brought the import of all foreign liquor under the control of the Excise Department. That saw an end to the free flow of foreign liquor entering the country and thereby raised the revenue for the State coffers. All this and many more happened under my watch.
?: What were your other achievements?
A: When I took over there was a severe dearth in cadre in many sectors in the department. There were 224 vacancies for drivers, inspectors, IPs and promotions pending for the three Deputy Commissioners. These issues were solved in the proper manner. A special unit for excise crime operations was also set up to crackdown on illegal tobacco products and alcohol. In one raid this unit was able to make the single largest cigarette detection of over 37 million sticks thereby avoiding a loss of Rs 93,990,000 to the government. The composition fees imposed on this was Rs 5,012,500. In addition to that the Unit was also able to earn a sum of Rs 5,696,190 as composition fees on behalf of the government by submitting 35 technical crime reports. During 2015 the unit carried out 54,000 successful raids.
?: At one point during your tenure the Police were making a huge effort to embrace the excise duties and was lobbying the government for approval. How did you tackle this issue?
A: That is correct. We took up the matter in a very strong manner and finally won the day. If this was to be the case the excise personnel would be out of work. The Police claimed that the Excise Department lacked the manpower and logistical infrastructure to effectively carry out raids. To a point that claim is correct. However, the men and women in the Excise Department are committed to their job and if things needed to be improved then the authorities should make arrangements to provide more cadres to the Excise Department.
?: At this point did the trade unions in the department react?
A: Yes they did so to a certain extent. The trade unionists are of little substance. They work to better their personal interests and nothing else. In the case of the Police issue the trade unions came out in force since they too would be affected if the Police had their way.
?: You were known to have concentrated largely on discipline within the rank and file in the department. How did you get around this issue?
A: This needed a diplomatic and studied approach. Steps were taken to inspect Excise Offices throughout the country on a regular basis and to keep the public informed as well. In addition, regular meetings were held between different sections of the rank and file and views were shared. The idea was to inform each and every cadre that their work was needed and equally appreciated. The issue of discipline is an uphill task. It is probably the same case in most public institutions. That is the Sri Lankan temperament.
?: What is the revenue raked in by the Excise Department?
A: The total revenue earned through excise taxes for 2016 was Rs 120 billion from Rs 69 billion in 2014 and Rs 105 billion in 2015. The increase was a result of a continuous crackdown on the import of foreign liquor and raids on errant distilleries that had violated excise regulations.
?: How was your relationship with the Line Ministry?
A: I do not wish to elaborate, but then again there is something that should be mentioned. The Finance Ministry set up a special unit to tackle raids similar to those performed by the Excise Department. It was an indication that we were not performing as expected. Except for an occasional raid or detection this unit has ended up as a white elephant and those attached to it enjoy the fullest perks at public expense.
?: Any regrets after your retirement?
A: No, not at all. I do not think I was appreciated by many in the department owing to my views and disciplinary style. Let me tell you this. The staff had organized a farewell for me at a venue in Colombo which was to include a parade of honour. However, I later found out that this was a trap to humiliate me. Prior to the event I was informed by a trusted employee that the parade was going to be a flop since most of the personnel on the parade had reported sick and they would not turn up. This was apparently planned by those who despised me from the start. Ironically it is the same persons who had planned the farewell ceremony and their intent was to humiliate me in public. They had also invited a section of the media to cover the event, but that was never to be the case.
?: Finally, what are your future plans?
A: I have already received several job offers, but for the moment I need to relax with my family. Perhaps I will take a decision in the next three months.
150 years of Ceylon Tea: 1867-2017

0102
03The future should not be an extension of the past

logoWednesday, 7 June 2017

While we celebrate a significant milestone in the history of Ceylon Tea this year, it is timely and critically important for Sri Lanka to consider whether we can afford to carry on managing its affairs and concerns in the same way we have been doing in the past century and a half. I quote from a book written by D.M. Forrest and published for the centenary year of Ceylon Tea, published in 1967. He makes an apt remark 50 years ago:
Disaster was man-made

 -Dr. Nishan Sakalasooriya -2017-06-07


In a discussion with Dr. Nishan Sakalasooriya, Senior Lecturer in Geography and Development Studies attached to the Department of Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Kelaniya, special emphasis was made to assess the situation caused by the recent weather calamity, its causes and the disaster management that was undertaken by the authorities. The excerpts:

Several weeks ago, we experienced severe drought and unbearable heat in our country. This was followed by incessant rains. Earlier when experiencing this type of weather pattern, we considered it was a normal cycle that a dry season followed by a wet season. What is the cause for the sudden changes that we experience now?  

Israeli fire kills Palestinian near Gaza border


Israeli soldiers opened fire on demonstrators throwing stones near the border fence in the Gaza Strip
Palestinian protesters watch fellow demonstrators clashing with Israeli security forces over the blockade on the Gaza Strip on June 5, 2017. (AFP)

Tuesday 6 June 2017
Israeli soldiers opened fire at Palestinians who were throwing stones near the border fence in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, killing one man and wounding seven others, residents and hospital officials said.
An Israeli military spokeswoman said dozens of Palestinians had gathered at the fence and were trying to damage it. Soldiers on the Israeli side of the border fired warning shots in the air after their calls to halt were ignored.
Residents in the enclave, run by Islamist Hamas group, said the protesters were throwing stones near the fence when the Israeli troops shot at them. Hospital officials in Gaza said a 25-year-old man was killed.
The Israeli spokeswoman said the military was looking into reports of a Palestinian fatality.
At least 248 Palestinians and one Jordanian citizen have been killed since a wave of sporadic violence began in 2015 in Israel and the Palestinian Territories.
Israel says at least 167 of those killed were carrying out stabbings, shootings or car-ramming attacks. Others died during clashes and protests.
Thirty-seven Israelis, two American tourists and a British student have been killed in the violence, which has slowed in recent months but not stopped.
Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005. The Palestinians hope to to establish an independent state including the enclave and the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, territories Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war.
Peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian leadership have stalled.
An Israeli panel approved plans on Tuesday for the first new Jewish settlement in the West Bank in two decades, Israeli media reports said, drawing Palestinian condemnation and defying repeated international appeals to avoid such measures. 

Israel backs Saudi Arabia in confrontation with Qatar


President Donald Trump and King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh, 20 May. Trump’s endorsement of Saudi-led anti-Iran alliance may have emboldened Saudi Arabia’s move to isolate Qatar.Shealah CraigheadWhite House Photo

Ali Abunimah-6 June 2017

Israeli officials have gleefully endorsed the position of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in a growing confrontation with Qatar, the most public acknowledgment yet of the deepening alliance between certain Gulf states and Tel Aviv over their common enmity towards Iran.

Meanwhile, evidence has emerged of close cooperation between the United Arab Emirates and a key Israel lobby group to pressure Qatar over its support for the Palestinian resistance organization Hamas.

On Monday, Saudi Arabia and several of its satellite states, including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, broke off diplomatic relations with Qatar and imposed a blockade, cutting land, sea and air links to the country.

Regional media reported that shelves in stores in Qatar, whose only land border is with Saudi Arabia, were quickly emptied as residents feared a prolonged closure could lead to food shortages.

Justifying its decision, Saudi Arabia has accused Doha of “grave violations” such as “adopting various terrorist and sectarian groups aimed at destabilizing the region,” including the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State, also known as ISIS, and al-Qaida.

Israel’s “opportunity”

Israeli officials were quick to offer their support to Saudi Arabia.

“New line drawn in the Middle Eastern sand,” Michael Oren, Israel’s deputy minister for diplomacy, proclaimed on Twitter. “No longer Israel against Arabs but Israel and Arabs against Qatar-financed terror.”

Israeli defense minister Avigdor Lieberman declared that the crisis was an “opportunity for cooperation” between Israel and certain Gulf states.

“It is clear to everyone, even in the Arab countries, that the real danger to the entire region is terrorism,” Lieberman claimed. He added that the Saudi-led bloc had cut ties with Qatar “not because of Israel, not because of the Jews, not because of Zionism,” but “rather from fears of terrorism.”
Chagai Tzuriel, a top official in Israel’s intelligence ministry, told The Times of Israel that Qatar was a “pain in the ass” to other “Sunni” Arab states allied with Israel.

Israel’s former defense minister Moshe Yaalon also expressed backing for the Saudi-led sectarian coalition. “The Sunni Arab countries, apart from Qatar, are largely in the same boat with us since we all see a nuclear Iran as the number one threat against all of us,” he said at a ceremony celebrating the 50th anniversary of Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syria’s Golan Heights.

On Tuesday, Saudi Arabia continued to escalate the situation, suspending the license of Qatar Airways and ordering its banks to sell the Qatari currency.

Who supports “terror”?

While Saudi Arabia offered no evidence for its charges against Qatar, the accusations are rich coming from a regime that has been one of the biggest sources of funding to so-called jihadi groups going back decades.

But like Saudi Arabia, Qatar too has been accused of financing or allowing money to flow to ISIS and al-Qaida-affiliated groups in Syria.

Israel has also had no problem with al-Qaida linked groups, and even ISIS, in Syria, offering them various kinds of cooperation and material support.

So the source of Saudi ire must lie elsewhere. Qatar has for years, along with Saudi Arabia, been part of the counterrevolution to thwart or reverse the so-called Arab Spring uprisings.

Qatar was taking part in the Saudi-led war on Yemen, before being kicked out of the coalition this week.

The two-year bombing campaign in Yemen has killed thousands of civilians and brought the impoverished country to the brink of famine.

But Qatar has often found itself backing different horses: Doha supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, while Riyadh has backed the regime of Abdulfattah al-Sisi, the army chief who led the 2013 military coup that overthrew the elected Muslim Brotherhood president in Cairo.

These differences had soured relations between Qatar and Saudi Arabia for years.

But Saudi Arabia may have been emboldened to act now, after US President Donald Trump gave full endorsement to strengthening a Saudi-led anti-Iran alliance during his visit to Riyadh last month.

Targeting Hamas and Iran

Qatar has continued to host the leaders of the Palestinian resistance group Hamas and has been under pressure to expel the group’s officials – Israeli media claims that Qatar did expel two officials are unconfirmed.

But the biggest difference appears to be that Qatar has not been willing to fully sign up to the Saudi-Israeli alliance against Iran.

A deal in April in which Qatar allegedly paid about $700 million in ransom to release members of its royal family abducted by an Iran-affiliated group in Iraq reportedly enraged officials in other Gulf states.

Qatar also reportedly paid about $300 million in ransom to several al-Qaida linked groups in Syria, according to The Financial Times.

Also in April, Qatar lifted a self-imposed ban on developing a major maritime natural gas field it shares with Iran, which would necessitate cooperation between the two countries, according to the Tel Aviv newspaper Haaretz.

Things came to a head around the time of Trump’s visit and his summit with regional leaders.

Qatar’s national news agency published comments attributed to the country’s leader Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, calling Iran “a regional and Islamic power that cannot be ignored” and asserting that “it is unwise to face up against it.”

Tamim also purportedly said his country’s relations with Israel were “good.” Qatar has flatly denied the statements are real, claiming that the news agency’s website and social media accounts were hacked.

But the Qatar-based network Al Jazeera has cited the fake comments as a trigger for the crisis, accusing Saudi Arabia and its allies of using them as a pretext to move against Qatar.

UAE embraces Israel

Another factor is the close relationship between the United Arab Emirates and Israel.

Hacked emails published by The Intercept reveal coordination between the Emirates ambassador in Washington, Yousef Al-Otaiba, and the neoconservative pro-Israel think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

The emails reveal “a remarkable level of backchannel cooperation” between the Emirates and the think tank, which is funded by billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a close ally of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to The Intercept.

The email exchanges included complaints from the Israel lobby group about Qatar’s support for Hamas “terrorists.”

An agenda for a meeting between leaders of the Israel lobby group and Emirates ambassador al-Otaiba scheduled for this month includes such items as “Qatar support for radical Islamists”
including Hamas, Qatar’s “destabilizing role in Egypt, Syria, Libya and the Gulf” and the role of the Qatar-backed Al Jazeera network.

It also includes ways to reduce the influence Qatar gains from hosting a major US air base.
One of the items on the agenda is “Political, economic, security sanctions.”

The agenda is evidence that the Foundation for Defense of Democracies – a key player in Israel’s anti-Palestinian propaganda – was gearing up to deliver in Washington the anti-Qatar message coming from Riyadh and the United Arab Emirates.

US role

The leaked documents reveal that the Saudi-led bloc is troubled by the influence Qatar gains by hosting the massive American al-Udeid air base.

But this is precisely why the US, the overall imperial power, has no interest in a squabble among states that it views as vassals.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson affirmed the importance of US ties with all the states involved and offered to mediate, urging the feuding rulers to “remain unified.”

The US military lauded Qatar for its “enduring commitment to regional security” and affirmed it had “no plans to change our posture in Qatar.”

Qatar has taken these messages as signs of strong US support, but as ever Trump was quick to throw everything into doubt.

“During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!” Trump tweeted on Tuesday, appearing to directly endorse the Saudi-led campaign against Doha.

“So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off,” he added. “They said they would take a hard line on funding extremism and all reference was pointing to Qatar.”

“Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism,” the president asserted. More likely, Trump is pouring gasoline on an already burning region.

A long-term goal of Israel has long been to divide Arab powers against each other, to “let them bleed,” as the official Israeli doctrine on Syria goes.

Whatever happens next, Israel will continue to benefit from the chaos and divisions that only strengthen its hand.
As Trump lashes out, Republicans grow uneasy

 President Trump's travel ban is facing multiple court battles, and his tendency to tweet about it isn't helping his lawyers. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

 

President Trump, after days of lashing out angrily at the London mayor and federal courts in the wake of the London Bridge terrorist attack, faces a convergence of challenges this week that threatens to exacerbate the fury that has gripped him — and that could further hobble a Republican agenda that has slowed to a crawl on Capitol Hill.

Instead of hunkering down and delicately navigating the legal and political thicket — as some White House aides have suggested — Trump spent much of Monday launching volleys on Twitter, unable to resist continuing, in effect, as his own lawyer, spokesman, cheerleader and media watchdog.

Trump escalated his criticism of London Mayor Sadiq Khan, incorrectly stating that Khan had told Londoners to not be “alarmed” about terrorism. He vented about the Justice Department, which he said pushed a “politically correct” version of his policy to block immigration from six predominantly Muslim countries, which Trump signed before it was halted in court. He also complained that Senate Democrats are “taking forever to approve” his appointees and ambassadors.
Inside the White House, top officials have in various ways gently suggested to Trump over the past week that he should leave the feuding to surrogates, according to two people who were not authorized to speak publicly. But Trump has repeatedly shrugged off that advice, these people said.

“Not that I’m aware of,” White House principal deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Monday at a news conference when asked if the president’s tweets were being vetted by lawyers or aides.

A look at President Trump’s first year in office, so far


Sadiq Khan: ‘We shouldn’t roll out carpet to Trump’


- 5 JUN 2017Presenter
Responding to criticism from President Trump on Twitter after the London Bridge killings, London Mayor Sadiq Khan says he doesn’t have time to respond to his tweets. On the President’s proposed state visit to the UK, he says the carpet should not be rolled out for him.
Top US diplomat in China quits over Trump climate policy

Trump refers to amounts of temperature change as he announces his decision that the US will withdraw from the landmark Paris Climate Agreement, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, on June 1, 2017. Source: Reuters
teeny-940x580  rex  rex  teeny-940x580
Tillerson is among the only State Department’s senior officers currently left, alongside Sullivan and Shannon. Source: Reuters

6th June 2017

DAVID RANK, the chargé d’affaires of the United States Embassy in Beijing, has left the State Department over the Trump administration’s decision to quit the 2015 Paris agreement to fight climate change, a senior US official said on Monday.

A State Department spokeswoman confirmed Rank’s departure, but said she was unable to verify Twitter posts that said he resigned as he felt unable to deliver a formal notification to China of the US decision last week to quit the agreement.

“He has retired from the foreign service,” said Anna Richey-Allen, a spokeswoman for the department’s East Asia Bureau.
“Mr Rank has made a personal decision. We appreciate his years of dedicated service to the State Department.”
Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, President Donald Trump’s pick as the next ambassador to Beijing, is expected to take up the post later this month.

A tweet from China expert John Pomfret quoted unnamed sources as saying Rank had resigned as he could not support Trump’s decision last week to withdraw from the Paris agreement.

Another tweet from Pomfret said Rank called a town hall meeting to announce his decision to embassy staff and explained he could not deliver a diplomatic note informing the Chinese government of the decision.

A senior US official confirmed the account given in the tweets, but said after Rank announced his intention to retire on Monday in Beijing, he was told by the State Department to leave his post immediately. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.

On June 1, the US State Department accepted the resignation of its top personnel officer, who had been among its few remaining senior Obama administration political appointees, another US official said.


Arnold Chacon had served as the director-general of the foreign service and director of human resources.

The official said Chacon had tendered his resignation when Trump was inaugurated on Jan 20, along with all presidential appointees, who serve at the pleasure of the president and secretary of state.

The acceptance of Chacon’s resignation was first reported by the DiploPundit website.
It was not immediately clear whether he would be offered another post at the department.
Other than Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, his deputy John Sullivan and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Tom Shannon, the third-ranking US diplomat, most of the State Department’s senior posts are currently vacant or filled by acting officials.

Chacon and Rank, a career foreign service officer who took over the post of deputy chief of mission in Beijing in January 2016, could not immediately be reached for comment.
The embassy’s economics councillor Jonathan Fritz would serve as chargé in his place, Richey-Allen said.

Rank had been with the department for 27 years and served as the political councillor at the US Embassy in Afghanistan from 2011 to 2012.

Trump’s announcement on Thursday that he would withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord, saying the agreement would undermine the US economy and cost jobs, drew anger and condemnation from world leaders and heads of industry. – Reuters

The Republicans who urged Trump to pull out of Paris deal are big oil darlings

Twenty-two senators wrote a letter to the president when he was said to be on the fence about backing out. They received more than $10m from oil, gas and coal companies the past three election cycles

James Inhofe: climate change’s biggest enemy in the Senate, and the co-author of the letter. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

 in New York and  in Washington-Thursday 1 June 2017

A withdrawal by Donald Trump from the Paris climate accord would go down as a hallmark of his presidency. It would be unilateral, reckless and splashy – trademark Trump. The president has said he will announce his decision at 3pm ET (8pm BST) on Thursday.

But while Trump has often stood on a range of issues as a maverick outlier from mainstream Republican politics, on climate change he is at the centre of the party’s orthodoxy. Trump’s disbelief in climate change and imminent decision on whether to support the Paris agreement reflects an area of unusual agreement between the president and elected Republicans, whose track record of climate change denialism is plain and long.

Unmissable behind the elected Republicans stand other interests: the oil, gas and coal industries, which together are some of the most influential donors to Republican candidates.

The big-money supporters got a return on their investment last week, when 22 Republican senators whose campaigns have collected more than $10m in oil, gas and coal money since 2012 sent a letter to the president urging him to withdraw from the Paris deal.

Trump had been said to be on the fence about the deal. Members of his inner circle, including his daughter, were reported to favor staying in.

“We strongly encourage you to make a clean break from the Paris Agreement,” read the letter, drafted by Wyoming’s John Barrasso, chairman of the Senate committee on environment and public works, and Oklahoma’s Jim Inhofe, a longtime climate change denier and senior member of that committee.

The letter argued that the Paris deal threatened Trump’s efforts to rescind the clean power plan, an Obama-era set of regulations and guidelines that include emissions caps and other rules deemed onerous by the fossil fuel industries.

It was not as if Trump wanted for advisers urging him to withdraw from the Paris deal even before the letter was sent. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt and chief strategist Stephen Bannon urged withdrawal, while energy secretary Rick Perry favored renegotiation.
Public opposition to the deal from almost two dozen senators just as the president prepared to make his decision, however, demonstrated the extent to which the opponents of the Paris deal were organized, ready to strike and to offer important political cover if Trump pulls the US out of the historic global deal.

Donations from oil, gas and coal interests to the signatories of the letter are Open Secrets that seemed ready for a new review. A Guardian survey of Federal Elections Commission data organized by the Center for Responsive Politics found that the industries gave a total of $10,694,284 to the 22 senators over the past three election cycles.

Visible donations to Republicans from those industries exceeded donations to Democrats in the 2016 election cycle by a ratio of 15-to-1, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And that does not include so-called dark money passed from oil interests such as Koch industries to general slush funds to re-elect Republicans such as the Senate leadership fund.

At least $90m in untraceable money has been funneled to Republican candidates from oil, gas and coal interests in the past three election cycles, according to Federal Election Commission disclosures analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Here is a breakdown for the past three election cycles (2012, 2014 and 2016).

James Inhofe, Oklahoma

Oil & gas: $465,950
Coal: $63,600
Total: $529,550

John Barrasso, Wyoming

Oil & gas: $458,466
Coal: $127,356
Total: $585,822

Mitch McConnell, Kentucky

Oil & gas: $1,180,384
Coal: $361,700
Total: $1,542,084

John Cornyn, Texas

Oil & gas: $1,101,456
Coal: $33,050
Total: $1,134,506

Roy Blunt, Missouri

Oil & gas: $353,864
Coal: $96,000
Total: $449,864

Roger Wicker, Mississippi

Oil & gas: $198,816
Coal: $25,376
Total: $224,192

Michael Enzi, Wyoming

Oil & gas: $211,083
Coal: $63,300
Total: $274,383

Mike Crapo, Idaho

Oil & gas: $110,250
Coal: $26,756
Total: $137,006

Jim Risch, Idaho

Oil & gas: $123,850
Coal: $25,680
Total: $149,530

Thad Cochran, Mississippi

Oil & gas: $276,905
Coal: $15,000
Total: $291,905

Mike Rounds, South Dakota

Oil & gas: $201,900
Coal: none
Total: $201,900

Rand Paul, Kentucky

Oil & gas: $170,215
Coal: $82,571
Total: $252,786

John Boozman, Arkansas

Oil & gas: $147,930
Coal: $2,000
Total: $149,930

Richard Shelby, Alabama

Oil & gas: $60,150
Coal: $2,500
Total: $62,650

Luther Strange, Alabama

(Appointed in 2017, running in 2017 special election)
Total: NA

Orrin Hatch, Utah

Oil & gas: $446,250
Coal: $25,000
Total: $471,250

Mike Lee, Utah

Oil & gas: $231,520
Coal: $21,895
Total: $253,415

Ted Cruz, Texas

Oil & gas: $2,465,910
Coal: $103,900
Total: $2,569,810

David Perdue, Georgia

Oil & gas: $184,250
Coal: $0
Total: $184,250

Thom Tillis, North Carolina

Oil & gas: $263,400
Coal: $0
Total: $263,400

Tim Scott, South Carolina

Oil & gas: $490,076
Coal: $58,200
Total: $548,276

Pat Roberts, Kansas

Oil & gas: $388,950
Coal: $28,825
Total: $417,775

Sum total for all 22 Republican signatories: $10,694,284

A war that nobody wanted?


article_image
By Amal Siriwardena- 

The Middle East war of June 1967 has shaped the geo-political contours of the Middle East ever since. What is more, half a century later the issues raised by it remain largely unresolved. What makes it more tragic is that it seems to be have been a war which none of the belligerents really wanted, but was a result of misinformation and miscalculation.

The 1967 was the third of the wars that broke out in the Middle East post- World-War II. The first occurred shortly after the creation of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. A resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in 1947 provided for the partitioning of the existing state of Palestine, which was under a British mandate, into an Arab state and a Jewish state. The resolution was passed with the support of the Western powers and the Soviet Union, over the opposition of all the Arab countries. The conscience of the West had been then been stricken by the holocaust. Shortly after, five Arab Countries, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon attacked the fledgling Jewish state. With the exception of the Jordanians all the Arab armies fared poorly. The war was ended with a UN brokered armistice in 1949 whereby Israel greatly increased the territory under its control.

The early 1950s saw the emergence of a new Arab leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, who seized power deposing the former monarch. He was not only an Egyptian Nationalist but aspired to be a pan Arab leader, and had socialistic leanings. He first sought financing for his dream project, the High Aswan dam, from the West. However following Egypt’s purchase of arms from the Soviet block and its recognition of Communist China the U.S. refused aid for the dam. Nasser retaliated by nationalising the British and French owned Suez Canal, justifying it as the Canal being a vestige of imperialism. Britain, France and Israel responded with military action, with Israel occupying the Sinai Peninsula between the Israeli border and the canal; British and French forces seized the Canal. However, at this point the political dynamics of the cold war situation prevailed. The United States was fearful of the aggression pushing the Arab world into the Soviet camp. By a UN resolution, Britain, France and Israel were forced to withdraw and the Canal was ceded to Egypt. However Israel was granted access through the Straits of Tiran, leading to the Gulf of Aqaba. Despite the U.S. action Nasser tilted more and more towards the Soviet Union, which became his major supplier of arms, even though Egypt was an active member of the non-aligned movement. Both in 1949 and 1956, there was no peace agreement, no recognition of Israel by the Arab countries only a cessation of hostilities.

The creation of Israel and the subsequent expansion of its territory has led to vast numbers of displaced Palestinian people, mainly in Egypt, Jordan and Syria. . This has spawned the militant Palestinian movement Fatah, led by Yasser Arafat, who then mounted guerilla attacks on Israel. This formed the backdrop to the 1967 war when an attack by Fatah on Israeli soldiers prompted a retaliatory attack on a West Bank village. King Hussein of Jordan came under popular pressure to do more to protect his people. Hussein in turn, rebuked Nasser for not doing more to "liberate Palestine". The Soviet Union conveyed reports to Nasser, apparently false, that Israeli forces were massed along the Syrian border, preparing to attack Syria.

Under the terms of the agreement which ended the 1956 war, a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) had been stationed on the Egyptian side of the Sinai- Israeli border and at Sharm-El- Sheik near the straits of Tiran. Nasser next made the fatal move. He expelled the UNEF and upped the ante by blocking the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping on May 22. He also sent additional forces into the Sinai. The unanswered question is whether at this point, Nasser really wanted war. Did he count on the fact that the United Sates would intervene, as it did in 1956, to broker a settlement? Both Yitzhak Rabin, then Chief of the Israeli General Staff and Abba Eban then Foreign Minister have gone on record saying they do not believe Nasser wanted war. Whatever Nasser’s intentions, there is no doubt it was a colossal blunder. What the Arab countries have been striving for ever since is a return to the pre-1967 boundaries, with the possible exception of a Palestinian State on the West Bank.

However, the die was now cast. King Hussein was in turn being pressured by hard line elements in Jordan. On May 30th he flew to Cairo to join in a military alliance with Egypt which placed Jordanian forces under Egyptian command. Egypt was already in a military alliance with Syria. A national unity government was formed in Israel; on June 5th Israel struck with devastating results. Flying low over the Mediterranean to avoid the radar, Israel launched a surprise air strike which virtually wiped out the Egyptian Air Force on the ground. Shortly after, Israeli tanks rolled into the Sinai. The Egyptians were overwhelmed not so much by superior weapons, but by superior strategy, tactics, leadership and morale. Within three days Israel had occupied the Sinai, the Gaza strip and reached the Suez Canal.

Despite his alliance with Nasser, Hussein was initially reluctant to enter the war. He was in the words of his wife Queen Noor, "Damned if he did and damned if he didn’t". Hussein was aware that the Jordanians were no match for the Israeli forces. After the attack on Egypt, Israel notified him that it would not attack Jordan if he stayed out of the war. However, Hussein was misinformed about the results of the Israeli air attack and chose war. Jordanian forces commenced shelling targets in Israel, including the outskirts of Tel Aviv and the Israeli sector of Jerusalem. Though the Jordanian forces fought bravely, Israel swiftly captured the entire West Bank of the Jordan and East Jerusalem.

On June 6th King Hussein asked the UN for a ceasefire. However there were inevitable delays on the exact terms. Even after Hussein formally accepted the cease fire on June 7, Israeli forces continued fighting till they had secured the whole of the West Bank. Israel also launched a massive air and ground attack on Syria’s Golan Heights. Again the attack continued after Syria had accepted the ceasefire on June 9th, with hostilities ceasing only the following day. A curious episode in this connection was the destruction of US intelligence ship USS liberty on the June 8th by Israeli jets and torpedo boats killing 34 sailors. The ship may have been eavesdropping on Israeli plans to attack Syria. Israel claims the incident was an accident and this was officially accepted by the U.S., but even some highly placed Americans regarded this with skepticism.

The war ended with Israel more than tripling the land under its control. Israel lost less than a thousand men while the Arab countries lost about 20,000. There was another wave of refugees with about 300,000 Palestinians fleeing the West Bank. In November 1967, the United Nations passed resolution 242 which called for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories; it also speaks about the acknowledgement of the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of every state and their right to live within secure and recognised boundaries. It should be noted that the resolution did not call for unilateral withdrawal by Israel but for withdrawal in the context of a comprehensive peace agreement.

Flash forwarding to the current situation, though Egypt has recovered the Sinai through the Peace agreement of 1979, the West Bank, the Palestinian Issue and the Golan Heights remain intractable problems. Though the Palestinian authority, with limited powers, has been established in parts of the West Bank and the Gaza strip, the Israeli policy of expanding settlements and American acquiescence doom any possibility of a viable Palestinian state emerging in the near future. What began as an Arab- Israeli problem has now metamorphosed into an Israeli- Palestinian- Islamic Fundamentalist problem.

The U.S. paid dearly for its support for Israel with the 9/11 bombing. An interesting question, post -1967, is what has driven American policy in the region. Is it a rational appraisal of American interests? Or is it the influence the Jewish Diaspora has on U.S. domestic politics? Whatever the answer, it seems to have doomed the region to eternal conflict.