Is Saudi Arabia funding ISIS?

By Martin Williams-7 JUN 2017

The conversation about Islamic extremism should begin with “Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that have funded and fuelled extremist ideology,” Jeremy Corbyn has said.

The accusation is common: that the House of Saud is allowing a flow of money to finance ISIS. But the Saudi government has completely rejected the “false allegations”, dismissing them as a “malicious falsehood”.


We can’t answer this one with absolute certainty, since any financing is highly secretively. All we can do is weigh up the documents and research that are currently available.

How strong is the evidence?

Perhaps the most powerful indication of Saudi’s financial links with ISIS can be seen in the cache of emails leaked from the office of Hillary Clinton, who was US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.
The messages, published by Wikileaks, contain an unambiguous statement by her campaign chairman, John Podesta:

“We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”

This wasn’t the first time US officials had made this claim. In 2009, Wikileaks published diplomatic cables from the US State Department which spelt out the same concerns.

“Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide,” the documents said. “While the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) takes seriously the threat of terrorism within Saudi Arabia, it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority …

“More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT, and other terrorist groups, including Hamas, which probably raise millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources.”

A third Wikileaks file appeared to show a private speech that Hillary Clinton made in 2013. In it, she said: “The Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons – and pretty indiscriminately – not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future.”

While the Wikileaks files are widely regarded to be genuine, FactCheck cannot verify the accuracy of the claims within them. However, given the repetition of similar statements, it certainly seems that people in the highest ranks of US government have had good reason to believe money is flowing between Saudi Arabia and ISIS.

Indeed, the former US vice president, Joe Biden, once spoke off-message by accusing Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states of pouring “hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad.” He explained: “The people who were being supplied were al-Nusra, and al-Qaeda, and the extremist elements of jihadis who were coming from other parts of the world …

“We declared [ISIS] a terrorist group early on. And we could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them.”

In other countries, politicians have been more vocal about these concerns. For instance, in 2014, the Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki accused both Saudi Arabia and Qatar of supporting and funding terrorists.

“I accuse them of inciting and encouraging the terrorist movements,” he said. “I accuse them of supporting them politically and in the media, of supporting them with money and by buying weapons for them.”

However, just because the Saudi government is not doing enough to stop the flow of money to ISIS, that doesn’t necessarily mean the cash is coming direct from the government itself.

In fact, research by the Washington Institute said there was no credible evidence of this at the moment. This is probably because Saudi Arabia is fearful of the threat ISIS may pose to their own country, it said.

But the report added that Saudi government “has taken pleasure in recent ISIS-led Sunni advances against Iraq’s Shiite government, and in jihadist gains in Syria at Bashar al-Assad’s expense”.

It added: “It would not be surprising to learn of limited, perhaps indirect contact, logistical coordination to further Sunni positions in Syria and beyond, or leaking of funds and materiel from Saudi-supported rebels to ISIS.”

“Arab Gulf donors as a whole – of which Saudis are believed to be the most charitable – have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Syria in recent years, including to ISIS and other groups,” it said. “Riyadh could do much more to limit private funding.”

The reality of ISIS financing is complicated and messy. It’s not as simple as just donations from wealthy backers; research suggests the militants have made a fortune from oil reserves which it controls.

An investigation by the Financial Times in 2015 estimated they earned $1.5m a day from oil, and even sold to the very rebel groups they were fighting.

It’s worth noting that other countries are implicated too, such as Qatar and Kuwait. So although Saudi is accused of funding the group, it is not alone.

Why don’t we stop them?

The Wikileaks files suggest there have been western efforts to “bring pressure” on Saudi Arabia to end its support for ISIS. But that seems to be the extent of it.

Publicly, both the UK and US keep up very good relations with Saudi Arabia.

Theresa May visited the country in April, to “further strengthen the UK’s relationships in the Middle East”.

A government report about the trip said: “She made clear that they are a close and important ally and that we will continue to work closely in a range of areas, particularly on counter-terrorism where UK-Saudi co-operation is vital.”

May has said it’s in the UK’s “security and prosperity interests” to maintain a good relationship with Saudi. “By working with them, we are helping keep British people safe,” she said.

And, in America, the CIA has described Saudi Arabia as being “among our very best counter-terrorism partners globally”.

Western politicians have financial reasons to stay close to Saudi Arabia too. It is the world’s largest exporter of petroleum, with huge reserves of crude oil. Plus, both the UK and US also make a fortune by selling weapons to Saudi Arabia.

Government documents show that British arms companies have been granted 636 military export licences for Saudi Arabia in the last five years. These were worth around £5.2bn in total. Meanwhile,

 America has just signed a $110 billion arms deal with the country, including planes, ships and bombs.

There’s also a balancing act in terms of security and intelligence.

Supporters of western policy say that – despite these concerns – the state is an increasingly rare and important ally in the Middle East.

Theresa May has said a good relationship is in “British national interests”.

But although the political and diplomatic solution may be far from clear, it seems that the concerns over Saudi money being channeled to ISIS are real and serious.

What does the UK government say about it?

Not much. David Cameron commissioned a report into foreign funding of terrorist groups, back in 2015, but the Home Office has admitted it may never actually be published. It is thought to focus on Saudi Arabia and is said to be “very sensitive”.

However, both Labour and the Lib Dems have called for the report to be released. Jeremy Corbyn said: “We have to get serious about cutting off the funding to these terror networks, including Isis here and in the Middle East.”

Without this report, we cannot say for sure what the UK government knows about Saudi funding to ISIS.


But it seems likely that – although the House of Saud may not be directly financing terrorists themselves – there are almost certainly some difficult and worrying questions to answer.

Ugandan soldiers accused of rape and assault to face court martial

Military pledges zero tolerance after allegations of abuses by Human Rights Watch, but some fear court will not bring troops to justice

 Ugandan soldiers on patrol during an operation to find Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

Women and girls interviewed by Human Rights Watch – including this woman, pictured holding her daughter – said they had sex with Ugandan military personnel in exchange for food or money because displacement due to the ongoing conflict had left them desperate. Photograph: Lewis Mudge/Human Rights Watch

Samuel Okiror-Tuesday 6 June 2017

The Ugandan military has launched investigations into allegations of rape and exploitation by soldiers who have been searching for notorious rebel group the Lord’s Resistance Army in Central African Republic.

At least two non-commissioned officers are to appear at a court martial over alleged rapes committed in CAR between 2015 and 2017, the military said.

Last month, Human Rights Watch accused troops deployed in CAR as part of the African Union mission to eradicate the LRA of sexually exploiting or abusing at least 13 women and girls since 2015, including at least one rape, and of threatening some victims to remain silent.

“[The] Uganda People’s Defence Force exercise zero tolerance on all acts related to sexual exploitation and abuse. Directives have been given to investigate those cases recently reported,” said Uganda’s military spokesman, Richard Karemire. “We can’t tolerate errant officers. Proper investigations are being conducted. The culprits will be tried in a court martial and punished according to our laws.”

Uganda’s 2,500-strong force has been deployed in CAR since 2009 as part of the AU’s regional taskforce, alongside US special forces, to capture or kill members of the LRA, in particular its leader, Joseph Kony. But the two armies began withdrawing in April amid claims that the mission to neutralise and degrade the rebel outfit had been achieved, and that the LRA was no longer a threat.

Kony and his dwindling band of armed fighters – now believed to number around 120 – remain spread across remote areas of CAR, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

For its report, in early 2017 HRW interviewed 13 women and three girls, who described exploitation or abuse since 2010 by Ugandan soldiers in the south-eastern town of Obo, CAR, where Ugandan forces were based. They also heard credible accounts of other cases. Two of the women were children when the alleged abuses took place, HRW said.

“The allegations by HRW are both shocking and disturbing. The Ugandan military should do all it can to bring the errant officers to justice. The UPDF needs to take these allegations seriously and punish the errant officers if found guilty,” said Lino Ogora, director of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives, based in the northern Ugandan city of Gulu.

“As a person who has worked with victims of sexual violence before, I understand the pain that the victims in CAR are going through and it is my hope that the UPDF will do justice for the victims.”

But Ogora also attacked the failure to undertake a proper investigatation of exploitation within local communities.

Alix Boucher, assistant research fellow at the Africa Center for Strategic Studies in Washington, said the UPDF was taking the cases seriously.

“It has repeatedly done so in the case of such allegations, both in the context of UN peacekeeping missions and when soldiers have misbehaved at home. The UPDF court martial system is known for being swift and effective. The UPDF also makes these decisions and any ensuing punishment public. Punishment has ranged from demotion and dismissal to execution in the most serious cases,” Boucher said.

“President [Yoweri] Museveni … believes UPDF participation in peacekeeping is prestigious and wouldn’t want this to taint [its] reputation,” she said.

Maria Burnett, associate director of HRW, said: “The UPDF commitments to investigate need to bear fruit – to lead to accountability and redress for victims – to have any impact on the situation. Often, the Ugandan police and military commit to investigate when the media inquires, but then they do little to follow through. A climate of impunity could lead to continued abuses in future areas of deployment, so meaningful action, beyond public relations, will be required.

“The Ugandan army – like all militaries – need to hold commanders and their troops accountable for their conduct, whether they are deployed in CAR, Somalia, Uganda or elsewhere. Ensuring victims can report, and ensuring that military courts are providing fair trials for soldiers accused of abuses are critical steps to accountability.”

Nevertheless, some experts believe the investigation is no more than lip service to gain international approval.

“The Ugandan military takes seriously its image in both peacekeeping operations and foreign war theatres. They are willing to announce an investigation into allegations of crimes in those operations while stonewalling a call for the same for allegations of crimes in the country,” said Nicholas Opiyo, a human rights lawyer based in Kampala.

“These actions are often less transparent … and the reports of such investigations almost never made public. Given that history, it is right to suspect that this round of promised investigations is merely to placate Uganda from criticism and will amount to minimal, if any, action.”

Uganda’s military foreign engagements and peacekeeping missions have been beset by accusations of abuses. In 2016, the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights reported 14 cases of rape by Ugandan forces in CAR, including instances involving children.

Phil Clark, an Africa specialist at Soas University of London, said: “At every turn, the Ugandan military has blocked international investigations, claiming that it would deal with these cases through the national military courts. These cases have routinely turned into whitewashes. In the latest incidents in CAR, the Ugandan military is once again prosecuting only low- and middle-ranking personnel.

“If these cases follow the historical pattern, these officials will either be exonerated or found guilty of relatively minor charges and given very lenient sentences. The chance of justice being delivered in these very serious cases is next to zero.”

One rape survivor, 15-year-old “Marie”, said a Ugandan soldier had assaulted her in January 2016, while she was working in the fields near the Ugandan base at the Obo airstrip. “The man was alone … I could not understand what he was saying,” she said. “He pushed me to the ground. Afterwards, there was real pain.” She became pregnant from the rape and had a child.

Several countries providing troops for UN peacekeeping missions have faced allegations of soldiers engaging in rape and exploitation, which remain unresolved. The former UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon recommended that accused soldiers be court martialled in the countries where the alleged crimes take place.

Boucher, from the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, said: “It is very difficult to end sexual exploitation and abuse in any kind of military operation, even peacekeeping. The UN has instituted a zero-tolerance policy and normally sends military units home so allegations can be investigated. But it is up to the member state to prosecute. Uganda’s authorities have repeatedly done so. This is very positive.”

In Nod to China, South Korea Halts Deployment of THAAD Missile Defense

BY PAUL MCLEARY-JUNE 7, 2017

The new president of South Korea put the brakes on an upcoming deployment there of four American missile defense systems, in what has emerged as a contentious domestic fight over how Seoul juggles its relations with China, North Korea, and the United States.

The administration of new president Moon Jae-in, a left-leaning politician who favors rapprochement with North Korea, suspended the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense systems (THAAD), in what appears to be a concession to Chinese objections to the deployment. The move is in direct defiance of the American policy to confront North Korea’s growing ballistic and mid-range missile programs.

Moon in some ways is inheriting a political headache from his disgraced predecessor, who greenlighted the deployment of the defense systems before being impeached and removed from office in early March, just as the first two THAAD systems were being installed on a golf course.

Moon, who campaigned on the promise of opening a new era of engagement with North Korea, complained that the THAAD deployment was rushed through, giving his government no chance to take part in the decision making process. Still, he agreed that the two systems that had already arrived would stay, but wanted to pause further deployments.

Moon has said that Seoul needs to “learn to say no” to Washington. But he has also acknowledged that he has to bring Washington along if he is to open talks with North Korea.

Moon and his new government reacted angrily when they discovered they had not been informed about the upcoming arrival of four more interceptors, and ordered an environmental assessment before they arrive.

“My order for a probe on THAAD is purely a domestic measure and I want to be clear that it is not about trying to change the existing decision or sending a message to the United States,” Moon told visiting U.S. Senator Dick Durbin in Seoul last week.

There is little indication that the new government is looking to significantly restructure relations with the United States, which is a major trading partner, maintains 23,000 troops in the country, and sells billions of dollars worth of advanced military technology to Seoul.

Still, the halt on the THAAD deployment can be seen as a new wrinkle in an old relationship, and a significant win for Beijing, which has strongly objected to the radar and missile interceptor system being deployed on the peninsula.

China is South Korea’s biggest trading partner, accounting for about a quarter of its exports, and has sought to make the THAAD deployment sting. Citing health and safety issues, China shut down 87 of 99 of South Korean conglomerate Lotte’s department stores in China in the days after THAAD arrived in South Korea, and stopped work on South Korean-funded theme park.

In order to ease tensions, just days after his election Moon sent an envoy to Beijing to meet with Chinese president Xi Jinping. Upon his return, China stopped blocking Lotte’s web site, and walked back some other economic pressures.

A spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry reiterated Beijing’s opposition to the missile-defense system, which China fears could be used to neuter its own strategic missile forces.

“China’s stance of opposing the THAAD deployment by the U.S. in [South Korea] is clear, consistent and firm,” the spokesperson said.

Moon also recently sent his top national security advisor, Chung Eui-yong, to Washington to meet with U.S. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster to discuss the threat from North Korean missiles.

Photo Credit: JUNG YEON-JE/AFP/Getty Images

Trump, furious and frustrated, gears up to punch back at Comey testimony

With former FBI director James Comey due to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, here's what to expect from the high-profile hearing. (Video: Jenny Starrs/Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post)

By Robert Costa, Ashley Parker and Philip Rucker June 6 at 8:37 PM

Alone in the White House in recent days, President Trump — frustrated and defiant — has been spoiling for a fight, according to his confidants and associates.

Glued even more than usual to the cable news shows that blare from the televisions in his private living quarters, or from the 60-inch flat screen he had installed in his cramped study off the Oval Office, he has fumed about “fake news.” Trump has seethed as his agenda has stalled in Congress and the courts. He has chafed against the pleas for caution from his lawyers and political advisers, tweeting whatever he wants, whenever he wants.

And on Thursday, the president will come screen-to-screen with the FBI director he fired, James B. Comey, thoughts of whom have consumed, haunted and antagonized Trump since Comey launched an expanding Russia investigation that the president slammed as a “witch hunt.”

Comey’s testimony is a political Super Bowl — with television networks interrupting regular programming to air it, and some Washington offices and bars making plans for special viewings.

Trump is keen to be a participant rather than just another viewer, two senior White House officials said, including the possibility of taking to Twitter to offer acerbic commentary during the hearing.

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

The president’s term has featured controversial executive orders and frequent conflicts with the news media.

“I wish him luck,” the president told reporters on Tuesday.

“He’s infuriated at a deep-gut, personal level that the elite media has tolerated [the Russia story] and praised Comey,” former House speaker Newt Gingrich said. “He’s not going to let some guy like that smear him without punching him as hard as he can.”

[All eyes will be on James Comey this Thursday — again]

This account of Trump’s mind-set and the preparations of his team in the run-up to Comey’s testimony is based on interviews with 20 White House officials, Trump friends and other well-connected Republicans, many of whom spoke only on the condition of anonymity to offer candid perspectives.

The president’s lawyers and aides have been urging him to resist engaging, and they hope to keep him busy Thursday with other events meant to compete for his — and the news media’s — attention.

“The president’s going to have a very, very busy day,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said.

“I think his focus is going to be on pursuing the agenda and the priorities that he was elected to do.”

As of now, Trump’s Thursday morning — when Comey is scheduled to start testifying — is open. He plans to deliver a 12:30 p.m. speech at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s conference in Washington, followed by a 3:30 p.m. meeting with governors and mayors on infrastructure projects.

The Post’s Robert Costa explores how the Senate testimony of former FBI director James B. Comey on June 8 could have a lasting impact on President Trump’s tenure. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

Jay Sekulow, a high-profile conservative lawyer in Washington, has met several times recently with Trump and said he found the president to have his attention squarely on his proposals.

“He’s been very much in control and in command,” Sekulow said. “I don’t sense any siege or panic at all. . . . I’ve been there a lot, and I don’t see the president in any context distracted or flustered by any of this. I just don’t see it.”

But privately, Trump’s advisers said they are bracing for a worst-case scenario: that he ignores their advice and tweets his mind.

“He’s not going to take an attack by James Comey laying down,” said Roger Stone, a longtime Trump friend and former political adviser. “Trump is a fighter, he’s a brawler and he’s the best counterpuncher in American politics.”

The president increasingly has come to see Twitter as his preferred method of communicating with his supporters, no matter the pitfalls.

“The FAKE MSM is working so hard trying to get me not to use Social Media. They hate that I can get the honest and unfiltered message out,” Trump tweeted on Tuesday morning, making a reference to the “mainstream media.”

[The broadcast networks will air Comey’s hearing live. That’s a big deal.]

The West Wing, meanwhile, has taken on an atmosphere of legal uncertainty. White House counsel Donald F. McGahn has told staff to hold onto emails, documents and phone records, officials said, a move of caution designed to prepare the staff for future legal requests, should they come. McGahn has specifically advised staffers to avoid what are known as the “burn bags” in the executive branch that are often used to discard papers.

While people familiar with the White House counsel’s office described McGahn’s moves as appropriate steps because of the ongoing probes, they said many junior staffers are increasingly skittish and fearful of their communications eventually finding their way into the hands of investigators.

Some staffers nervous about their own personal liability are contemplating hiring lawyers and have become more rigorous about not putting things in text messages or emails that they would not want to be subpoenaed, one person familiar with the situation said.

Attempting to invoke executive privilege to restrict Comey’s testimony was never seriously considered by Trump or his legal team, said one senior White House official. But, this official added, the White House liked floating the possibility as a distraction.

In the weeks leading up to Comey’s testimony, the White House had privately tried to erect a war room that would handle the communications and legal strategies for responding to the Russia matter. Former Trump campaign aides Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie were in discussions to lead it.

But the plan was scuttled, as with so much else in Trump’s administration, because of internal disagreements, according to multiple officials. Arguments included whether the war room would be run from inside or outside the gates of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.; who would staff it; whether they could be trusted by the president’s high-ranking advisers, or even trust one another; and whether Marc Kasowitz, Trump’s outside counsel, would ultimately control the message.

Kasowitz, who has a long-standing relationship with Trump, has been operating as an island of sorts in Trump world. He has been meeting regularly with the president and has a nascent relationship with McGahn, but he has not widely shared his legal strategy within the West Wing, according to two officials involved.

Kasowitz, whose combative personality mirrors Trump’s, has not found it easy to entice other big-name lawyers with Washington experience to join the cause because many prominent attorneys are reluctant to have him giving them direction and wonder whether he will be able to keep Trump from stumbling, one official said.

In the absence of a war room — and with the departure of communications director Michael Dubke — planning for the White House’s response to the Comey hearing has fallen largely to Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and his lieutenants.

Trump’s team is preparing a campaign-style line of attack aimed at undercutting Comey’s reputation. They plan to portray him as a “showboat” and to bring up past controversies from his career, including his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation in 2016, according to people involved in the planning.

The Republican National Committee has lined up a roster of surrogates to appear on conservative news stations nationwide to defend Trump. But a list the RNC distributed on Tuesday could hardly be described as star-studded: The names include Bob Paduchik, an RNC co-chair who worked on Trump’s Ohio campaign; Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R); and Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R).

Trump so far has been unable to recruit reinforcements for his beleaguered senior staff. Conversations about former Trump campaign official David Urban possibly joining the White House have stalled, although he remains in contact with several Trump advisers, officials said.

[Trump’s legal team falters as D.C. heavyweights take a pass]

The White House has long struggled with its communications team, with Trump both privately and publicly voicing displeasure with his current staff. Press secretary Sean Spicer has started appearing less frequently on camera, and Trump and several top advisers, including son-in-law Jared Kushner, are considering a range of options to revamp the structure.

The White House recently approached Geoff Morrell — who served as the Pentagon press secretary for more than four years under former defense secretary Robert Gates — about coming inside the administration and overhauling the communications operation, according to three people with knowledge of the overture.

Morrell declined to comment, but BP announced last month that Morrell would be moving to London this summer to run government relations and communications for the company globally.
Scott Reed, senior political strategist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, was also approached about taking a communications role within the White House, according to two people familiar with the outreach. Reed declined to comment.

In addition, Laura Ingraham, a conservative talk-radio host and Trump friend, discussed joining the White House but made clear to officials that she is more comfortable remaining outside as a vocal Trump ally because of her many broadcasting and media commitments, officials said.

Some Trump loyalists outside the White House who are preparing to go on television news shows Thursday to defend the president and undermine Comey’s testimony said they have been given no talking points, nor seen any evidence of a strategy taking shape. One such loyalist said external supporters are afraid to coordinate too closely with the White House because they fear they could be accused of obstructing justice.

Trump is personally reaching out to some allies on the Senate Intelligence Committee ahead of their questioning of Comey. He was scheduled to have dinner Tuesday night at the White House with Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), both committee members, along with a few other lawmakers. The dinner had been long scheduled for the president to offer a debrief on his foreign trip, a senior White House official said.

In the West Wing, people close to the president and junior aides fear that the president’s erratic behavior could have sweeping legal and political consequences, and they are beleaguered by how he has not proved able to concentrate fully on his agenda — this was supposed to be “infrastructure week,” for instance. Many are also resigned to the idea that there is little they can do to moderate or thwart Trump’s moves, so instead they are focused on managing the fallout.

One Republican close to the White House summed up the staff’s mantra as: “Please, don’t, you’re not helping things.”

But Trump and several political intimates see a political advantage to the president personally engaging, however unseemly it may appear to traditionalists.

“He believes in the long run there is an enormous premium on being the person who stands there fighting,” said Gingrich, author of “Understanding Trump,” an upcoming book. “People respond to that and wonder if he’s fighting this hard, maybe he’s right and the other guys are wrong. It’s the core of how he operates.”

Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor and criminal law expert whose television commentary on the Russia probe has caught the White House’s attention, said he understands why the president would be motivated to speak out to counter Comey’s testimony.

“Every lawyer would tell the president not to tweet, not to react,” Dershowitz said. “But he’s not listening. This is typical. I tell my clients all the time not to talk and they simply disregard it. It’d be very hard to tell a very wealthy, very powerful man not to tweet. He thinks, ‘I tweeted my way to the presidency,’ and he’s determined to tweet.”

Mary Jordan and Amber Phillips contributed to this report.

Freeland rejects Trump's nationalist policies, says Canada will step up to lead on world stage

Foreign affairs minister says U.S. is questioning its past 'mantle' of global leadership

Freeland framed her speech on the changing global order and the shifting balance of power, and the role Canada can play in the future.

By Kathleen Harris, CBC News Posted: Jun 06, 2017 11:31 AM ET

Canada will step up to play a leadership role on the world stage as the U.S. turns inward to focus on its own national interests, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said in a major policy speech today.

While never mentioning Donald Trump by name, Freeland rejected many of the U.S. president's policies, including the withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, imposing protectionist trade policies, and closing the nation's doors to refugees.

"The fact that our friend and ally has come to question the very worth of its mantle of global leadership, puts into sharper focus the need for the rest of us to set our own clear and sovereign course," she said.

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland delivers a speech on Canada's foreign policy in the House of Commons Tuesday. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

"For Canada, that course must be the renewal, indeed the strengthening, of the postwar multilateral order. We will follow this path, with open hands and open hearts extended to our American friends, seeking to make common cause as we have so often in the past."

In a lengthy foreign policy speech delivered in the House of Commons, Freeland praised the U.S. for the "outsized role" it has played in the world in past, and urged the country not to veer off that course.

"We seek and will continue to seek to persuade our friends that their continued international leadership is very much in their national interest — as well as that of the rest of the free world," she said. 

• Defence review to focus on troops
• Liberals lay out foreign policy plan

Freeland praised the U.S. for being the "indispensable nation" for the last 70 years, paying the "lion's share" in blood, treasure, strategic vision and leadership in promoting peace and prosperity. But she said many of the voters in the presidential election cast ballots "animated in part by a desire to shrug off the burden of world leadership."

"To say this is not controversial. It is simply a fact," she said.

'Deep disappointment' with U.S.

Freeland expressed "deep disappointment" with the U.S. position on fighting climate change, and also took at aim at American protectionist policies, saying rising trade barriers will curb growth, stifle innovation and kill employment. 

Speaking to reporters later, Freeland said the only foreign minister she briefed ahead of the speech was U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, whom she spoke to Monday.

Freeland's speech comes the day before Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan is set to release a comprehensive roadmap for Canada's military. She said Canada can't get a free ride from the U.S. simply because of our geography, warning that Canada can't rely on its neighbour for military power and protection.

"To rely solely on the U.S. security umbrella would make us a client state. And although we have an incredibly good relationship with our American friends and neighbours, such a dependence would not be in Canada's interest," she said.

Freeland is congratulated by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and party members after delivering a speech that set out a future course for Canada's foreign policy. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

Hinting that tomorrow's defence plan will make significant investments and make Canadians "justly proud," Freeland stressed the need for a robust, well-funded professional military that is ready, trained and equipped to go to battle when needed. 

"To put it plainly: Canadian diplomacy and development sometimes require the backing of hard power," she said. "Force is, of course, always a last resort. But the principled use of force, together with our allies and governed by international law, is part of our history and must be part of our future. To have that capacity requires a substantial investment, which this government is committed to making."

Conservative Foreign Affairs critic Peter Kent said the only meaningful part of the minister's speech was her reference to a need for "hard power." He said he hoped it will be followed up with significant promises from Sajjan tomorrow.

He accused the Liberals of dragging Canada back on the world stage since taking office, and criticized Freeland's speech in light of what he called "erratic" foreign policy.

'Public relations device'

"It's really been a public relations device, a rather clumsy one, to provide a Trojan horse motion that would give the minister a pulpit on which to review — through what I would have to say is a myopic Liberal lens — any number of historic truisms and future wishful thinking," he said.

NDP Foreign Affairs critic Hélène Laverdière said the government must take a stronger stand against Trump's policies, including immigration and human rights, in all international forums.

"The message we have to give to the Trump administration is not only through the House of Commons, but through our decisions and actions on the international scene day after day," she said.

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland delivers major speech on foreign policy

Seeing Africa, Asia, Latin America and Caribbean countries on the rise with increased living standards is not a trend to be feared, but to be embraced, she said.

"Let us recognize that the peace and prosperity we in the West have enjoyed these past 70 years are desired by all, and increasingly within reach of all. And, as Canadians, let us be agents of that change," she said.

Embracing multiculturalism

Freeland also said Canadians embody a way of life that works, embracing multiculturalism and diversity.

"We can say this in all humility, but also without any false self-effacement: Canadians know about living side by side with people of diverse origins and beliefs, whose ancestors hail from the far corners of the globe, in harmony and peace," she said. 

Freeland said while it is not Canada's role to play the world's policeman, it must take an active role in providing asylum to the persecuted, and set a standard for treatment of women, gays and lesbians, transgender people, and racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious minorities.

She also said the government is preparing to present its first international feminist assistance policy that will boost women's rights by improving access to abortion and empowering women.

"We will put Canada at the forefront of this global effort," she said. 

Top intelligence official told associates Trump asked him if he could intervene with Comey on FBI Russia probe
The Washington Post's Adam Entous explains how President Trump asked two top ranking intelligence officials to publicly deny any connection between his campaign and Russia.(Whitney Leaming/The Washington Post)

By Adam Entous June 6 at 8:05 PM

The nation’s top intelligence official told associates in March that President Trump asked him if he could intervene with then-FBI Director James B. Comey to get the bureau to back off its focus on former national security adviser Michael Flynn in its Russia probe, according to officials.

On March 22, less than a week after being confirmed by the Senate, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats attended a briefing at the White House together with officials from several government agencies. As the briefing was wrapping up, Trump asked everyone to leave the room except for Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

The president then started complaining about the FBI investigation and Comey’s handling of it, said officials familiar with the account Coats gave to associates. Two days earlier, Comey had confirmed in a congressional hearing that the bureau was probing whether Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia during the 2016 race.

[Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey]

After the encounter, Coats discussed the conversation with other officials and decided that intervening with Comey as Trump had suggested would be inappropriate, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal matters.

The events involving Coats show the president went further than just asking intelligence officials to deny publicly the existence of any evidence showing collusion during the 2016 election, as The Washington Post reported in May. The interaction with Coats indicates that Trump aimed to enlist top officials to have Comey curtail the bureau’s probe.

[Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence]

Coats will testify on Wednesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Lawmakers on the panel said they would press him for information about his interactions with the president regarding the FBI investigation.

The question of whether the president obstructed the Russia investigation is expected to take center stage this week with Comey’s highly anticipated testimony on the Hill on Thursday. Comey associates say that before the director was fired in May, the president had asked him to drop the investigation into Flynn, and Comey refused.

Brian P. Hale, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), declined to comment on whether Trump asked Coats to intervene with Comey regarding the Flynn investigation. Hale said in a statement: “Director Coats does not discuss his private conversations with the President. However, he has never felt pressured by the President or anyone else in the Administration to influence any intelligence matters or ongoing investigations.”

A spokesman for Pompeo declined to comment on the closed-door discussions. The White House referred questions to outside lawyers, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump has repeatedly denied any coordination took place between his campaign and the Russian government, which, according to U.S. intelligence agencies, stole emails embarrassing to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and leaked them to undermine her campaign.



Team Trump’s ties to Russian interests VIEW GRAPHIC

Flynn had served as an enthusiastic surrogate for Trump during the campaign and then was fired after just 24 days as national security adviser over revelations he misrepresented his discussions with the Russian ambassador to the United States.

[Flynn’s swift downfall: From a phone call to a forced resignation]

The incidents suggest that Trump may not have appreciated the traditional barriers meant to insulate the intelligence agencies from politics.

Though the ODNI oversees other intelligence agencies, the FBI director operates independently on many matters. For example, Comey kept James R. Clapper Jr., Coats’s predecessor in the Obama administration, in the dark about the bureau’s investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.

A day or two after the March 22 meeting, the president followed up with a phone call to Coats, according to officials familiar with the discussions. In the call, Trump asked Coats to issue a public statement denying the existence of any evidence of coordination between his campaign and the Russian government. Again, Coats decided not to act on the request.

Trump similarly approached Adm. Mike Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, to ask him to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of coordination, as The Post previously reported, according to current and former officials. Like Coats, Rogers refused to comply with the president’s request.

Trump announced in January that he was nominating Coats to serve as director of national intelligence, responsible for overseeing U.S. intelligence agencies and for briefing the president on global developments.

In February, as tensions flared between intelligence agencies and the White House over Russia and other issues, some of Trump’s advisers floated the idea of appointing a New York billionaire, Stephen A. Feinberg, to undertake a review of the ODNI. Coats, who was preparing for his confirmation hearing, felt blindsided, officials said.

The White House backed away from the idea of naming Feinberg after Coats, members of the intelligence community and Congress raised objections.

Officials say Trump’s advisers have since revived their proposal to appoint Feinberg to a senior position, possibly to review the roles of the ODNI and other intelligence agencies.

Some officials said they viewed the prospective appointment of Feinberg as an effort by White House officials to put pressure on intelligence agencies to close ranks with the White House.
In an appearance last month before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Coats refused to provide details about his interactions with Trump.

But he indicated that he would cooperate with the Russia probe now being led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Under questioning by Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Coats said that if asked, he would provide details of his conversations with Trump to Mueller.

Coats also said that if he is called before an investigative committee, such as the Senate Intelligence Committee, “I certainly will provide them with what I know and what I don’t know.” He said the Trump administration had not directed the ODNI to withhold information from members of Congress conducting oversight.

Human Rights: We should not be “naming and shaming” States !

Denial of access and lack of cooperation with UN bodies will not diminish scrutiny of a State’s human rights record, UN High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein tells States at the 35th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, 6 June 2017.

by Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein

( June 6, 2017, Geneva, Sri Lanka Guardian) Fifty years ago, this was the day I first heard the sound of war. I was three and a half years old and, while fragmentary, I can still remember military men milling around our home in Amman, an armoured car stationed nearby and later, planes that flew overhead. It was a war that shaped my life, and forged my later desire to understand the depths of Palestinian suffering but not only that, Jewish suffering too – the latter spanning over two millennia, and which culminated in that colossal crime, the Holocaust.

Human Rights We should not be “naming and shaming” States.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Scientists discover the oldest Homo sapiens fossils at Jebel Irhoud, Morocco

Two views of a composite reconstruction of the earliest known Homo sapiens fossils from Jebel Irhoud (Morocco) based on micro computed tomographic scans of multiple original fossils. Dated to 300 thousand years ago these early Homo sapiens already have a modern-looking face that falls within the variation of humans living today. However, the archaic-looking virtual imprint of the braincase (blue) indicates that brain shape, and possibly brain function, evolved within the Homo sapiens lineage. Credit: Philipp Gunz, MPI EVA Leipzig (License: CC-BY-SA 2.0)

June 7, 2017 

An international research team led by Jean-Jacques Hublin of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Leipzig, Germany) and Abdelouahed Ben-Ncer of the National Institute for Archaeology and Heritage (INSAP, Rabat, Morocco) uncovered fossil bones of Homo sapiens along with stone tools and animal bones at Jebel Irhoud, Morocco. The finds are dated to about 300 thousand years ago and represent the oldest securely dated fossil evidence of our own species. This date is 100 thousand years earlier than the previous oldest Homo sapiens fossils. The discoveries reported in two papers in the June 8th issue of the journal Nature by Hublin et al. and by Richter et al. reveal a complex evolutionary history of mankind that likely involved the entire African continent.

Both genetic data of present day humans and fossil remains point to an African origin of our own species, Homo sapiens. Previously, the oldest securely dated Homo sapiens fossils were known from the site of Omo Kibish in Ethiopia, dated to 195 thousand years ago. At Herto, also in Ethiopia, a Homo sapiens fossil is dated to 160 thousand years ago. Until now, most researchers believed that all humans living today descended from a population that lived in East Africa around 200 thousand years ago. "We used to think that there was a cradle of mankind 200 thousand years ago in east Africa, but our new data reveal that Homo sapiens spread across the entire African continent around 300 thousand years ago. Long before the out-of-Africa dispersal of Homo sapiens, there was dispersal within Africa," says palaeoanthropologist Jean-Jacques Hublin.

The Moroccan site of Jebel Irhoud has been well known since the 1960s for its human fossils and for its Middle Stone Age artefacts. However, the interpretation of the Irhoud hominins has long been complicated by persistent uncertainties surrounding their geological age. The new excavation project, which began in 2004, resulted in the discovery of new Homo sapiens fossils in situ, increasing their number from six to 22. These finds confirm the importance of Jebel Irhoud as the oldest and richest African Middle Stone Age hominin site documenting an early stage of our species. The fossil remains from Jebel Irhoud comprise skulls, teeth, and long bones of at least five individuals. To provide a precise chronology for these finds, researchers used the thermoluminescence dating method on heated flints found in the same deposits. These flints yielded an age of approximately 300 thousand years ago and, therefore, push back the origins of our species by one hundred thousand years.

"Well dated sites of this age are exceptionally rare in Africa, but we were fortunate that so many of the Jebel Irhoud flint artefacts had been heated in the past," says geochronology expert Daniel Richter of the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig (Germany), now with Freiberg Instruments GmbH. Richter explains: "This allowed us to apply thermoluminescence dating methods on the flint artefacts and establish a consistent chronology for the new hominin fossils and the layers above them." In addition, the team was able to recalculate a direct age of the Jebel Irhoud 3 mandible found in the 1960s. This mandible had been previously dated to 160 thousand years ago by a special electron spin resonance dating method. Using new measures of the radioactivity of the Jebel Irhoud sediments and as a result of methodological improvements in the method, this fossil's newly calculated age is in agreement with the thermoluminescence ages and much older than previously realised. "We employed state of the art dating methods and adopted the most conservative approaches to accurately determine the age of Irhoud", adds Richter.

The mandible Irhoud 11 is the first, almost complete adult mandible discovered at the site of Jebel Irhoud. It is very robust and reminiscent of the smaller Tabun C2 mandible discovered in Israel in a much younger deposit. The bone morphology and the dentition display a mosaic of archaic and evolved features, clearly assigning it to the root of our own lineage. Credit: Jean-Jacques Hublin, MPI-EVA, Leipzig

The crania of modern humans living today are characterized by a combination of features that distinguish us from our fossil relatives and ancestors: a small and gracile face, and globular braincase. The fossils from Jebel Irhoud display a modern-looking face and teeth, and a large but more archaic-looking braincase. Hublin and his team used state-of-the-art micro computed tomographic scans and statistical shape analysis based on hundreds of 3D measurements to show that the facial shape of the Jebel Irhoud fossils is almost indistinguishable from that of modern humans living today. In contrast to their modern facial morphology, however, the Jebel Irhoud crania retain a rather elongated archaic shape of the braincase. "The inner shape of the braincase reflects the shape of the brain," explains palaeoanthropologist Philipp Gunz from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig. "Our findings suggest that modern human facial morphology was established early on in the history of our species, and that brain shape, and possibly brain function, evolved within the Homo sapiens lineage," says Philipp Gunz. Recently, comparisons of ancient DNA extracted from Neanderthals and Denisovans to the DNA of present day humans revealed differences in genes affecting the brain and nervous system. Evolutionary shape changes of the braincase are therefore likely related to a series of genetic changes affecting brain connectivity, organization and development that distinguish Homo sapiens from our extinct ancestors and relatives.

The morphology and age of the fossils from Jebel Irhoud also corroborate the interpretation of an enigmatic partial cranium from Florisbad, South Africa, as an early representative of Homo sapiens. The earliest Homo sapiens fossils are found across the entire African continent: Jebel Irhoud, Morocco (300 thousand years), Florisbad, South Africa (260 thousand years), and Omo Kibish, Ethiopia (195 thousand years). This indicates a complex evolutionary history of our species, possibly involving the whole African continent.

"North Africa has long been neglected in the debates surrounding the origin of our species. The spectacular discoveries from Jebel Irhoud demonstrate the tight connections of the Maghreb with the rest of the African continent at the time of Homo sapiens' emergence", says Abdelouahed Ben-Ncer.
The fossils were found in deposits containing animal bones showing evidence of having been hunted, with the most frequent species being gazelle. The stone tools associated with these fossils belong to the Middle Stone Age. The Jebel Irhoud artefacts show the use of Levallois prepared core techniques and pointed forms are the most common. Most stone tools were made from high quality flint imported into the site. Handaxes, a tool commonly found in older sites, are not present at Jebel Irhoud. Middle Stone Age artefact assemblages such as the one recovered from Jebel Irhoud are found across Africa at this time and likely speak to an adaptation that allowed Homo sapiens to disperse across the continent.

Some of the Middle Stone Age stone tools from Jebel Irhoud (Morocco). Pointed forms such as a-i are common in the assemblage. Also characteristic are the Levellois prepared core flakes (j-k) Credit: Mohammed Kamal, MPI EVA Leipzig

"The stone artefacts from Jebel Irhoud look very similar to ones from deposits of similar age in east Africa and in southern Africa" says Max Planck Institute archaeologist Shannon McPherron. "It is likely that the technological innovations of the Middle Stone Age in Africa are linked to the emergence of Homo sapiens." The new findings from Jebel Irhoud elucidate the evolution of Homo sapiens, and show that our species evolved much earlier than previously thought. The dispersal of Homo sapiens across all of Africa around 300 thousand years is the result of changes in both biology and behaviour.
More information: Jean-Jacques Hublin et al, New fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco and the pan-African origin of Homo sapiens, Nature (2017). DOI: 10.1038/nature22336
Daniel Richter et al, The age of the hominin fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, and the origins of the Middle Stone Age, Nature (2017). DOI: 10.1038/nature22335

Provided by Max Planck Society
"Scientists discover the oldest Homo sapiens fossils at Jebel Irhoud, Morocco" June 7, 2017 https://phys.org/news/2017-06-scientists-oldest-homo-sapiens-fossils.html