Why Israelis must disrupt the occupation

An Israeli sniper aiming at Palestinian protestors with live ammunition during confrontations following a protest against the occupation and in solidarity with the Palestinian prisoners hunger strike, in the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh, 26 May. Two weeks earlier in Nabi Saleh a protestor was shot and killed with the same type of weapon.-Haidi MotolaActiveStills

Miko Peled-12 June 2017

One of the most disturbing aspects about the reality in Palestine is its normalcy.

It has become normal to see Palestinians shot and killed, even children. The faces of young Palestinians showing up daily on social media, boys and girls shot by soldiers, accused falsely of attempting to stab a soldier.

It has become normal to see Israeli soldiers shooting skunk water and tear gas, and snipers using live ammunition at unarmed protesters who want the land that was once theirs and the freedom they never had.

And it has become normal for us to engage in the endless, fruitless debate on whether Palestinians throwing stones at armed Israeli soldiers who invade their homes constitutes violence, or whether or not Zionism – which produced this violence – is a racist ideology. And all the while the suffering and the oppression of millions of Palestinians go on almost uninterrupted.

It is no secret that Israelis and Palestinians live two separate realities.

Even when we privileged Israelis go to the village of Nabi Saleh on a Friday to participate in the weekly protest, at the end of the day we are free to leave the village, leave the occupation and return to our safe, clean, well-paved spheres. Unlike the Palestinians we leave behind, our homes will not be raided, our roads will not be blocked and our children will not have to hide for days or weeks from the threat of being shot, arrested and tortured.

We return home sweaty and tired, covered in tear gas and skunk water and we feel we did our bit. But what bit did we do? What is the role of the privileged Israeli activists within the resistance and why are we accomplishing so little?

To begin with we need to admit that this is resistance and ask whether we are willing to take part.

On any given Friday there may be about 10 Israeli activists, be it in Nabi Saleh or Bilin, currently the two main locations for Friday protests in the occupied West Bank. Some Israelis walk in the back, some in the front.

Shadows?

Some like to say they are merely documenting. Most, like shadows, don’t seem like they know their place and don’t want to interfere. Few confront the Israeli forces. So the question that begs to be asked is, what are we accomplishing?

If we don’t use our privilege to push the envelope and to confront the Israeli authorities, then we are indeed mere shadows.

My latest visit to Nabi Saleh was on 26 May, exactly two weeks after Saba Abu Ubaid, 23, was shot and killed by Israeli forces during a protest there.

The march began, as always, with people walking down the hill from the mosque after noon prayer, carrying flags and chanting. There were about 30 or 40 people (though in the charges that would be brought against me, the Israeli police claimed there were 200 protesters), mostly Palestinians with a few regular Israelis and other foreigners.

After a few minutes we were confronted by the Israeli forces who informed us we were to disperse.
How does one begin to describe the outrage? Fully armed soldiers on occupied land telling the people whose village they invaded that they must disperse. But in Palestine, this is normal so there is little outrage.

“Shoot them in the legs”

The usual pushing and shoving began and was then followed by the firing of tear gas, skunk water and, before too long, live ammunition. Considering what had taken place there just two weeks earlier, seeing snipers take their positions and take aim at the kids on the hills was cause for serious concern. I heard someone whose name badge identified him as Raja Keyes order the snipers to “shoot them in the legs.”

Nabi Saleh residents began sitting in front of the snipers to block their sights. More tear gas, more skunk water and more snipers followed.

Keyes was right next to me when he walked to a group of women and children watching the events from the side of the road and, with a smile on his face, threw a tear gas grenade at them. One of the mothers ran up a terrace to interfere with the snipers and was pushed around by soldiers. I ran up towards her, went around a young officer who tried to stop me and by the time I reached her they came for me.

Four or five officers, including Keyes had me in a tight grip. The officers were from Magav – although often described as “border police,” Magav is a unit within the Israeli military.

By that time, the officers had good reason to resent me and want me out of the way.

The photos and videos of my arrest made their way to social media, so suffice it to say they were not gentle and I was not compliant. (My arrest is at about 12:10 in the video below of the day’s events, made by Palestinian activist Bilal Tamimi.)

At one point after I was arrested, Keyes introduced himself formally to me as “force commander” and asked for my ID, which I did not have.

Later on, when I was taken away in the armored vehicle, he was seated in the front and I proceeded to tell him that he was no “commander” and he was not heading any “force” but rather they were all a gang of armed bullies.

But this is not about me or any other single activist. It is about the role that we Israelis can play which is unique because Israeli law provides us with a shield that Palestinians and international activists do not have.

It is not our role to play unbiased spectators or to document, nor is it our role to just follow along. We can get in the faces of the commanders and the soldiers and disrupt their work. In fact, one of the comments made constantly by the commanders is that we are “disrupting their work, and will be arrested for that.”

My response is that this is precisely the point! Why show up if we let them go about their business? When we are arrested we are always charged with disrupting officers on duty, even when we don’t, but that is exactly what we must do.

Along Highway 443 – sometimes known as the “apartheid highway” – there is a sign in Hebrew that says: “By order of the commanding general, Israelis are prohibited from entering the villages along this road.” When activists do go to the villages to protest, they challenge this command. But still, the shield that our Israeli ID provides us can be used to disrupt the normalcy of the occupation everywhere.

Israelis, even dedicated, well-meaning ones, do far too little and we use far too little of our privilege to challenge and combat the injustice meted out against Palestinians. Most Israeli activists won’t even call for refusal to serve in the Israeli army because they consider that too radical.

No one likes to be arrested, particularly when it involves a night or two in jail, sharing a smoke-filled room with no ventilation and no company save cockroaches and two-bit criminals who hate activists even more than they hate Arabs.

If we are to play a role in the overthrow of injustice, and if we are to one day see an end to the oppression of more than half of the people with whom we live, then we must use our privilege and act to end the normalcy and the oppression.


Miko Peled is the author of The General’s Son: Journey of an Israeli in Palestine.

Saudi FM insists Qatar not under 'blockade', offers food and medical aid if needed

Saudi Arabia has denied that Qatar is under blockade, while Iraq has warned it is affecting ordinary citizens

A portrait of Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani and text reading in Arabic: "We are all Tamim" on a billboard outside the Qatar Sports club in Doha (AFP)

The land border between Saudi Arabia and Qatar used to see thousands of passengers transit across it each day (Reuters)

Tuesday 13 June 2017 

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir insisted Tuesday that Saudi Arabia has not imposed a "blockade" on Qatar by closing the border and banning Doha's planes from its air space.

Qatar's border with Saudi Arabia is its only land frontier, and the closure of Saudi, Bahraini and Emirati airspace to Qatar Airways jets has disrupted its normal routes.

But Jubeir, in Washington for talks with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson - who called last week for the embargo to be "eased" - insisted the move was reasonable.

Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies accuse Qatar of supporting "terrorism" in the region, something Doha denies, while Doha's supporters - such as Turkey - have warned of a humanitarian crisis.

No blockade?

"There is no blockade of Qatar. Qatar is free to go. The ports are open, the airports are open," Jubeir said, appearing alongside a silent Tillerson.

"What we have done is we have denied them use of our airspace, and this is our sovereign right.  

"The limitation on the use of Saudi airspace is only limited to Qatari airways or Qatari-owned aircraft, not anybody else. 

"The seaports of Qatar are open. There is no blockade on them. Qatar can move goods in and out whenever they want. They just cannot use our territorial waters." 

Jubeir said the closure of the border had been eased to allow divided families to be reunited, and that Saudi Arabia would send food or medical aid if needed.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and allies abruptly severed all ties with Qatar on 5 June.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, due to travel to Riyadh on Wednesday for talks with Saudi King Salman, said on Tuesday that the country opposed the isolation of Qatar, as it is hurting ordinary citizens.

"Regimes are not affected by the blockade; the blockade hurts people," Abadi told reporters in Baghdad.

Abadi said he would seek clarification from Saudi Arabia about the accusations made against Qatar.

US says operations against Islamic State unaffected

The Gulf rift is not affecting US military operations, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said on Tuesday.

"We are watching that very, very closely but we have had good cooperation from all the parties to make sure that we can continue to move freely in and out of Qatar," Joseph Dunford told a US Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

The Pentagon said last week that after Saudi Arabia and its allies imposed economic and diplomatic boycotts on Qatar, current US military operations against Islamic State had not been affected but it was "hindering" the ability to plan for long-term operations. 

On Tuesday, Republican Senator Rand Paul introduced a resolution – alongside two Democrat senators – to block a major US arms sale to Saudi Arabia.

The resolution is expected to be voted on as early as Tuesday.

6h

Senator Rand Paul 

✔ @RandPaul

The vote will be close. It is time we stop the counterproductive and harmful practice of arming a country that promotes extremism

 Follow

Senator Rand Paul 

✔@RandPaul

Saudi Arabia is causing a humanitarian crisis with a war in Yemen. It funds extremism worldwide. Abuses human rights. Stop arming them now.

10:25 AM - 13 Jun 2017

D.C. and Maryland sue President Trump, alleging breach of constitutional oath

Attorneys general for D.C. and Maryland filed a lawsuit against President Trump on June 12, alleging that he violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by retaining ownership of his company as president. (Video: Amber Ferguson,Jenny Starrs/Photo: Michael Robinson Chavez/The Washington Post)

By Aaron C. Davis June 12 at 10:47 AM

D.C. and Maryland plan to sue President Trump for violating a little-known constitutional provision called "the Emoluments Clause." (Video: Jenny Starrs/Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post)

Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland sued President Trump on Monday, alleging that he has violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House.

The lawsuit, the first of its kind brought by government entities, centers on the fact that Trump chose to retain ownership of his company when he became president. Trump said in January that he was shifting his business assets into a trust managed by his sons to eliminate potential conflicts of interests.

[See the lawsuit filed Monday]

But D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) say Trump has broken many promises to keep separate his public duties and private business interests. For one, his son Eric Trump has said the president would continue to receive regular updates about his company’s financial health.

The lawsuit, a signed copy of which Racine and Frosh provided to The Washington Post on Sunday night, alleges “unprecedented constitutional violations” by Trump. The suit says Trump’s continued ownership of a global business empire has rendered the president “deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors” and has undermined the integrity of the U.S. political system.

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

Scenes from the Republican’s first months in the White House.

“Fundamental to a President’s fidelity to [faithfully execute his oath of office] is the Constitution’s demand that the President ... disentangle his private finances from those of domestic and foreign powers. Never before has a President acted with such disregard for this constitutional prescription.”
The suit could open a new front for Trump as he navigates investigations by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and congressional committees of possible collusion between his associates and the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign.

[Democrats plan resolution to demand Trump divest from his business, but chances of passage are slim]

If a federal judge allows the case to proceed, Racine and Frosh say, one of the first steps will be to demand through the discovery process copies of Trump’s personal tax returns to gauge the extent of his foreign business dealings. That fight would most likely end up before the Supreme Court, the two said, with Trump’s attorneys having to defend why the returns should remain private.

“This case is, at its core, about the right of Marylanders, residents of the District of Columbia and all Americans to have honest government,” Frosh said. To fully know the extent of Trump’s constitutional violations “we’ll need to see his financial records, his taxes that he has refused to release.”

Racine said he felt obligated to sue Trump in part because the Republican-controlled Congress has not taken the president’s apparent conflicts seriously.

“We’re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be,” he said.

D.C. and Maryland plan to sue President Trump for violating a little-known constitutional provision called "the Emoluments Clause." (Video: Jenny Starrs/Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post)

The constitutional question D.C. and Maryland will put before a federal judge is whether Trump’s business holdings amount to violations of parts of the Constitution known as the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses.

To guard against foreign countries gaining sway over the new republic’s ambassadors in the late 1700s, drafters of the Constitution prohibited any “Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust” from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

In another part of the Constitution, framers sought to prevent a president from favoring one state over another, forbidding him from receiving any gift or emolument from a state and, instead, only the compensation approved by Congress.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, is the latest and most significant legal challenge to Trump over the issue of emoluments. The first was filed in January by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a D.C.-based watchdog group. In March, a D.C. restaurant sued Trump, alleging the new Trump International Hotel in D.C. benefits from unfair advantages because of its close association with the president. And last week, a group of Democratic members of Congress said they plan to file suit soon. Each, however, has faced legal hurdles over standing to sue the president.

[The official who let Trump keep his government hotel deal explains herself[

In the Trump administration’s most detailed response yet, the Department of Justice filed a 70-page legal brief on Friday arguing the CREW lawsuit should be dismissed. The administration said Trump’s businesses are legally permitted to accept payments from foreign governments while he is in office. The filing held up the lack of past complaints — going all the way back to farm produce sold abroad by George Washington — to assert that market-rate payments for Trump’s real estate, hotel and golf companies do not constitute emoluments as defined by the Constitution.

Racine and Frosh, however, argue Trump’s violations are on scale never seen before and that both D.C. and Maryland are being adversely affected by the Trump hotel near the White House.

After hiring staff and holding events to cater to foreign diplomats, the Embassy of Kuwait held an event at the hotel, switching its initial booking from the Four Seasons. Saudi Arabia, the destination of Trump’s first trip abroad, also booked rooms at the hotel through an intermediary on more than one occasion since Trump’s inauguration. Turkey held a state-sponsored event there last month. And in April, the ambassador of Georgia stayed at the hotel and tweeted his compliments. Trump himself has appeared at the hotel and greeted guests repeatedly since becoming president.

As a result, the hotel may be drawing business away from the taxpayer-owned D.C. convention center and one in nearby Maryland subsidized by taxpayers, Frosh and Racine argue.

Norman Eisen, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama and is CREW’s board chairman, said jurisdictions such as the District and Maryland are among the “most perfect plaintiffs” to sue over emoluments because they have a say in making sure the Constitution is being enforced.

“In the emoluments clauses, we have these ancient air bags that were placed in the Constitution by the framers that are now being deployed,” said Eisen, whose nonprofit has been advising the District and Maryland on their suit. “Trump is the framers’ worst-case scenario; a president who would seize office and attempt to exploit his position for personal financial gain with every governmental entity imaginable, across the United States or around the world.”

On the domestic side, the suit alleges Trump has received unconstitutional financial favors from the U.S. government. It says the U.S. General Services Administration, which handles federal real estate, wrongly allowed Trump’s company to continue to lease the Old Post Office building, where Trump built his D.C. hotel, even though a clause in the contract said no elected official could remain on the lease.

Despite promise, Trump’s business offers little information about foreign profit] [

The GSA initially said Trump would have to fully divest from the hotel after the election. But after Trump proposed increasing GSA’s budget, the suit says, the agency issued a letter saying Trump was in full compliance.

The suit also alleges that Trump is violating domestic emoluments by creating a situation in which states feel compelled to compete for Trump’s favor, perhaps by offering zoning exemptions, waivers or other benefits to help his businesses.

After initially saying the Trump organization would not pursue new deals while he was in office, Trump’s sons announced last week that the company would begin building a network of new hotels in mostly red states that he won in last year’s election.

The suit by D.C. and Maryland says the two jurisdictions are faced with an “intolerable dilemma”: to either go along with the Trump Organization getting special treatment, including possible lost local revenue, or “deny such requests and be placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis states and other government entities that have granted or will agree to such concessions.”

The District and Maryland file the suit at great peril, Racine and Frosh allege, because the two have a disproportionately large percentage of federal workers and could be acutely affected by federal budget cuts that Trump could seek as retribution.

But Maryland argues that it has special standing to sue. As one of the original states that approved the Constitution, Maryland gave up a clause in its own state declaration that had required its governors not to take any gifts from foreign governments or other states.

Revealed: reality of life working in an Ivanka Trump clothing factory

Workers complain of verbal abuse, impossible targets and ‘poverty pay’ so bad they have to live away from their children

 Workers at a factory that makes clothes for Ivanka Trump’s fashion label say they get verbally abused Photograph: John Lamparski/Getty Images--- Ivanka Trump clothing made in Indonesia. Photograph: Krithika Varagur for the Guardian

 

There are 2,759 workers at Buma, according to the regional manpower office. Photograph: Syarifah Nur Aida for the Guardian--Staff arrive for work at the PT Buma factory in Subang, Indonesia, which makes Ivanka Trump branded clothing. Photograph: Syarifah Nur Aida for the Guardian

Krithika Varagur in Subang, West Java-Tuesday 13 June 2017

The reality of working in a factory making clothes for Ivanka Trump’s label has been laid bare, with employees speaking of being paid so little they cannot live with their children, anti-union intimidation and women being offered a bonus if they don’t take time off while menstruating.

The Guardian has spoken to more than a dozen workers at the fashion label’s factory in Subang, Indonesia, where employees describe being paid one of the lowest minimum wages in Asia and there are claims of impossibly high production targets and sporadically compensated overtime.

The workers’ complaints come only a week after labour activists investigating possible abuses at a Chinese factory that makes Ivanka Trump shoes disappeared into police custody.

The activists’ group claimed they had uncovered a host of violations at the plant including salaries below China’s legal minimum wage, managers verbally abusing workers and “violations of women’s rights”.

In the Indonesian factory some of the complaints are similar, although the wages paid to employees in Subang are much lower.

Here we look at life inside the factory through interviews with workers, all who have asked for their details to be changed to avoid losing their jobs.

“We don’t like Donald Trump’s policies”

Alia is nothing if not industrious. She has worked in factories on and off since leaving her provincial high school, through the birth of two children, leading up to her current job making clothes for brands including Ivanka Trump at the PT Buma Apparel Industry factory in Subang, West Java.

Throughout her marriage to her husband, Ahmad, one or both of them has always worked. And yet, says Alia, the couple can never think about clearing their debts. Instead, what she has to show for years of work at PT Buma is two rooms in a dusty boarding house, rented for $30 a month and decorated with dozens of photos of their children because the couple can’t dream of having enough money to have them at home. The children live, instead, with their grandmother, hours away by motorcycle, and see their parents just one weekend a month, when they can afford the gasoline.

Alia makes the legal minimum wage for her job in her province: 2.3 million rupiah, or about $173 a month – but that legal minimum is among the lowest in Indonesia as a whole, and as much as 40% lower than in Chinese factories, another labour source for the Ivanka Trump brand.

PT Buma, a Korean-owned garment company started in Indonesia in 1999, is one of the suppliers of G-III Apparel Group, the wholesale manufacturer for prominent fashion brands including Trump’s clothing.

Many Buma workers know who Ivanka Trump is. Alia noticed her labels popping up on the clothes about a year ago.

Ahmad, who also works in the local garment industry and who, like his wife and most of the workers at her PT Buma factory, is an observant Muslim, said: “We don’t like Donald Trump’s policies.”
He had followed news of the so-called Muslim ban on TV this year. “But we’re not in a position to make employment decisions based on our principles,” he said.

When Alia was told the gist of Ivanka Trump’s new book on women in the workplace, she burst out laughing. Her idea of work-life balance, she said, would be if she could see her children more than once a month.

There are currently 2,759 workers at Buma, according to the regional manpower office, of which the total unionised workforce is about 200, split between two unions.



For the majority of non-union Buma workers, their job is a run-of-the-mill hardship to be endured. About three-quarters of them are women, many are mothers and several, like Alia, devote almost all their income to children with whom they can’t afford to live.

Sita, 23, is one such worker. She had to drop out of college when her parents got sick, and started working at Buma last year. She told the Guardian that her contract will be terminated soon, after seven months of work.

“That’s one of the company’s ways to cope with extra expenses,” she said. As a contract worker, she will not get any severance. “I can’t stand it any more. I work unpaid overtime every day and still earn just 2.3 million [rupiah] a month. I’m planning to move from Subang, where the minimum wage is too low. But I don’t know where to go yet. I haven’t got any connections.”

But for some the chance of a job and a pay packet – albeit a small one – is cause for some satisfaction.

Eka, a single mother in her 30s with two children, who has spent seven years at Buma, told the Guardian: “I still like my job. It’s not too hard.”

And Yuma, a young unmarried woman, said, “I’m glad that I work at Buma now, because my parents are farmers and it’s a tiring job. Here, at least there is air conditioning.”

The workers spoken to appear to typify the average employee making Ivanka Trump clothes in Indonesia. They are not egregiously abused but are in circumstances so far removed from the first daughter’s “women who work”brand that it was impossible for them to imagine a situation where anyone would wear the dresses they were sewing. Ivanka Trump stepped down from running her brand in January, although all products still bear her name on the label.

Women who are permanent employees at the Buma factory do get certain concessions: three months’ paid maternity leave (usually split between six weeks of pregnancy and six weeks post-birth), mandatory federal health insurance and a monthly bonus of $10.50 if they don’t take a day off for menstruation.

These reports of the Buma factory seem largely typical of the other factories in West Java, said Andriko Otang, of Indonesia’s Trade Union Rights Centre. “Using unrealistic production targets to justify unpaid overtime is very common.”

According to a photo of a timetable one worker showed the Guardian, the production targets, broken down for every half hour between 7am and 4pm, are between 58 and 92 garments per period, while the actual numbers produced are recorded as 27 to 40.

“The management is getting smarter: they tap out our ID cards at 4pm so you can’t prove anything,” said Wildan, a 25-year-old male worker.

Seven workers also said they were subject to verbal abuse, being called things like “animals, moron and monkey”. Otang said this, too, was fairly common.

Beyond this, Buma also has a pattern of firing workers right before Ramadan and rehiring them a month later, to avoid paying a “religious holiday bonus”, according to several workers. Indonesian law dictates all workers are owed a holiday bonus according to their religion, which works out to at least a month’s wages or more depending on seniority. In May 2017, there were about 290 people fired before Ramadan, according to Toto Sunarto, a leader of the SPSI union in Subang.

“The buck stops with her”

Indonesia has the largest gap among Asian countries between high and low wages for unskilled garment workers, according the International Labor Organisation. None of the workers the Guardian spoke with have ever received performance-based raises, only federally mandated ones – even though some of them have worked at the factory continuously for seven years.

“You have to assess minimum wages in the context of the country itself and, in that context, it’s not a living wage,” said David Welsh, Indonesia and Malaysia director at the Solidarity Center. “Given the disparity in wages across Indonesia, we see a trend whereby factories are migrating increasingly to the lowest wage jurisdictions … whose terms are essentially dictated deliberately by western brands.”
None of the not-already unionised workers who spoke to the Guardian expressed a desire to join one, citing fears of being fired and a general sense that their work wasn’t all that bad. Sita, for instance, said she “voluntarily” worked overtime almost every day because they never met their targets.

“It’s not surprising to me that in a factory like this, you have rank and file workers who are unclear on what their rights are, and what the law says in terms of wages and rights,” said Jim Keady, an American labor rights activist who has worked extensively in Indonesia. “But with these poverty wages — and I would call it that — just because something is legal, doesn’t mean it is moral.
“The buck stops with her,” said Keady, of Ivanka. “It’s her name that’s on the dress. Without her there is no brand.”

Carry Somers, founder of the non-profit Fashion Revolution said: “Ivanka Trump claims to be the ultimate destination for Women Who Work, but this clearly doesn’t extend to the women who work for her in factories around the world.”

In March, Indonesia was called out by President Donald Trump for having an unfavourable trade balance with the US. The president took issue with Indonesia’s $13bn surplus last year and vowed to penalise “cheating foreign importers”.

  
Ivanka Trump asked if she’s ‘complicit’ in Trump White House – video

 The fortunes of Ivanka’s brand have fluctuated wildly in the past year. During her father’s campaign, net sales for her brand increased by almost $18m in the year ending 31 January 2017, according to G-III data. But in recent months, several department stores have pulled her brand and G-III discreetly relabelled some Ivanka Trump merchandise under a different house brand, Adrienne Vitadini.

Hepi Abdulmanaf, an official with the local manpower ministry, was flattered by the Trump connection. “It’s proof that Indonesian goods are good enough for the world. Hopefully this – quality garments – becomes something Indonesia is known for.”

Meanwhile, the word “minus” was a common refrain among Buma workers, denoting ongoing debt. “We can never think about leaving debt,” said Alia. The cost of infant formula, school books, or a family visit can put these workers over the edge in any given month.

Fadli, a young man who works in the warehouse part of the factory, sees all the brands’ price tags as they are prepared for shipment to the United States.

“Sure I’m proud to make clothes for a well-known brand,” he said. “But because I see the price tags, I have to wonder, can’t they pay us a bit more?”

The Guardian contacted PT Buma for comment on the claims made in this article. A spokeswoman said neither she, nor anyone else at Buma Jakarta, nor anyone else at Buma Subang, wanted to comment.

G-III Apparel, which became the exclusive supplier of Ivanka Trump’s brand in 2012 told the Guardian in a statement: “G-III Apparel Group, Ltd. is committed to legal compliance and ethical business practices in all of our operations worldwide; we expect and require the same of our business partners throughout the world. We audit and inspect our vendor’s production facilities and when issues arise we work with our partners to correct them promptly.”

The Guardian also approached the White House for comment. None was forthcoming at time of publication. The Ivanka Trump brand’s public relations company declined to offer any comment.

Britain Has One More Shot at Stopping the Brexit Car Crash

The recent electoral chaos has left europhiles an opening. Here’s how they can take advantage.

BY PHILIPPE LEGRAIN-JUNE 12, 2017

For a country that prides itself on its political stability, Britain is doing a good impression of chaos. Plunged into turmoil a year ago by the referendum decision to leave the European Union, the country seemed set for the hardest of breaks with the EU under the leadership of its seemingly impregnable prime minister, Theresa May, who replaced David Cameron last July. But in elections on June 8, which May had called to seek a mandate for herself and her vision of Brexit, voters deprived her Conservative Party of its parliamentary majority. Suddenly, the Brexit process is up in the air again.
The outcome could be a car-crash exit without a deal — or a much softer break than May envisaged.

Chaotic situations are, by definition, unpredictable. For now, May hobbles on as prime minister. She is seeking to cobble together a slim parliamentary majority with the backing of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), a hard-line, social conservative, evangelical Protestant party in Northern Ireland. She insists that she is ready to start the Brexit negotiations as planned on June 19.

But with May living on borrowed time and no majority to pass the legislation required to implement the various steps in the Brexit process, it is hard to see how meaningful negotiations can proceed. If and when May is toppled — Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson unconvincingly denies that he is plotting to oust her — the Conservative Party will need to spend months choosing a new leader. There is also the risk of fresh elections, either because the government loses a no-confidence vote or because a new Conservative leader and prime minister will want to seek their own mandate and majority.

Meanwhile, the Brexit clock is ticking.

With May having triggered the formal EU exit process on March 29, Britain is set to leave the EU two years from then, with or without a deal.

With May having triggered the formal EU exit process on March 29, Britain is set to leave the EU two years from then, with or without a deal. While the U.K. government could seek a two-year extension, all 27 remaining EU governments (the EU-27) would need to unanimously agree to the request. That is highly unlikely, since it would reduce their negotiating leverage and they are also keen to get the Brexit process over and done with. So there is a significant risk that Britain could crash out of the EU without a deal, simply because the government lacks the time or the means to agree to one.

But there is also the possibility of a much rosier outcome. With the Conservatives deprived of both a majority and a mandate for May’s hard Brexit, extreme Brexiteers who seek a rupture with the EU at any cost can no longer impose their will on the party and thus the country (although they can still cause trouble by rebelling). Instead, the election has emboldened moderate Tories who sought to remain in the EU and now seek a softer exit. Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, who bucked the anti-Tory swing by winning 12 more seats in Scotland, thereby keeping the Conservatives in office for now, has been quick to flex her muscles. She is demanding an “open Brexit” that “puts our country’s economic growth first.” And in her limited post-election reshuffle, May has appointed as her deputy Damian Green, one of the most Europhile Conservatives.

Most non-Conservative members of Parliament — including those of the DUP — also want a softer break with the EU that minimizes the damage to the economy and jobs. Some are now even suggesting seeking a broader, cross-party consensus on how best to proceed with Brexit. That seems very hard to achieve. Labour’s hard-left leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who did better than expected in the elections, thinks he is now on the brink of power (wrongly, in my view) and is thus likely to let the Conservatives deal with the mess that they have created. Even so, the government will now have to take on board the views of some opposition MPs if it is to pass any Brexit legislation, since any rebellion would otherwise deprive it of a majority.

If a weak and divided Britain decides that it wants a softer Brexit, it isn’t guaranteed to get one, however; the EU-27, which are in a stronger position than ever, would also have to agree. In response to Prime Minister May’s letter in March setting out Britain’s negotiating position, they have agreed on their own. Their initial priorities are entrenching the rights of EU citizens in Britain after Brexit, obtaining a big financial payment for spending commitments that Britain made while it was an EU member, and avoiding a “hard” border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland that could destabilize the peace process.

To restore some goodwill, the U.K. government ought to move quickly to unilaterally guarantee EU citizens’ post-Brexit rights. The divorce bill would also loom less large if Britain committed to continue paying into the EU budget during a post-Brexit transition period during which it remained in the EU single market. As for the Irish border issue — a common priority, especially with a DUP-backed government — a transition period in which the U.K. remained in the customs union would address it temporarily. Only once the EU-27 deem that “sufficient progress” has been made on these topics are they willing to start negotiating a post-Brexit trade relationship.

Economically, both the EU-27 and Britain share an interest in the softest of Brexits: one that involves Britain remaining in both the EU single market and its customs union.

Economically, both the EU-27 and Britain share an interest in the softest of Brexits: one that involves Britain remaining in both the EU single market and its customs union. Trade would scarcely be disrupted. London could remain Europe’s financial center. Cross-border supply chains could continue unimpeded. So too would the two-way free movement of people — a bugbear for many of those who voted to leave the EU and for May herself, who wants to control immigration from the EU.

Politically, however, the EU-27’s overriding interest is in ensuring that leaving the club is seen to make Britain worse off, so as to deter other restless members from leaving. Meanwhile, every financial center in the EU is also keen to grab some of London’s lucrative business. Even if Britain were to seek a softer Brexit, it might not be able to get it.

But it would unwise for the EU-27 to spurn an olive branch from a suitably chastened British government. Having to back down from its nationalist bravado about walking away without a deal would be humiliation enough. At a time when President Donald Trump is threatening a trade war with Germany (and thus the EU) and has cast doubt on his commitment to defend NATO allies, it would be foolish to alienate Britain, a valuable security ally and economic partner, if it sued for peace on EU terms — as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other leaders ought to recognize.

A soft Brexit deal could initially consist of a transition period for several years after Britain exits the EU in 2019 during which the U.K. would remain in both the single market and the customs union. During that period, a future trading relationship would be negotiated. By then, passions may have cooled and pragmatism been restored.

Politicians ought to prepare the ground by starting to try to persuade British voters that EU migrants are not the source of all their problems — or at least convincing them that the economic price of imposing immigration controls is too great. If the U.K. were willing to retain free movement, perhaps with an emergency brake like Norway has, it could remain in the single market.

Failing that, Britain could still seek to remain in the customs union. That way, trade in goods could continue unimpeded by tariffs, customs checks, and other red tape (including on the Irish border); foreign car factories wouldn’t relocate. While this would prevent the U.K. striking trade deals with non-EU countries on goods, it could still seek to negotiate agreements on services trade, in which the U.K. specializes.

At the very least, in a constructive spirit and with goodwill, the U.K. and the EU-27 should aim to negotiate a deep and wide-ranging free trade agreement that allows people to move as freely as politically possible.

We live in times of political upheaval. Nothing is settled. That poses huge dangers, but it also offers opportunities to reverse bad decisions and make positive changes. There is still all to play for.

Photo credit: ADRIAN DENNIS/AFP/Getty Images

Vijay Mallya could face further charges, UK court told

Force India co-owner, Vijay Mallya, talks outside Westminster Magistrates, in central London, Britain June 13, 2017.REUTERS/Hannah McKay---Force India co-owner, Vijay Mallya, leaves after an extradition hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court, in central London, Britain June 13, 2017. REUTERS/Hannah McKay

Force India co-owner, Vijay Mallya, talks outside Westminster Magistrates, in central London, Britain June 13, 2017.REUTERS/Hannah McKay--Force India co-owner, Vijay Mallya, leaves after an extradition hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court, in central London, Britain June 13, 2017. REUTERS/Hannah McKay

Tue Jun 13, 2017

Vijay Mallya, the co-owner of Formula One team Force India, could face further charges and a second request to extradite him from Britain to India, a London court heard on Tuesday.

The flamboyant Indian liquor and aviation tycoon, 61, was arrested by British police in April on behalf of the Indian authorities, who accuse him of fraud.

Mallya's lawyer, Ben Watson, told a hearing at London's Westminster Magistrates' court on Tuesday that India was believed to be preparing a second extradition request with further separate charges.
"I don't know its contents," Watson said.

India is seeking Mallya's extradition over unpaid loans tied to his defunct Kingfisher Airlines after the businessman fled to Britain in March last year.

Banks are seeking to recover about $1.4 billion that the Indian authorities say Kingfisher owes.
Mallya has repeatedly dismissed the charges against him.

"I deny all allegations that have been made," he told reporters as he arrived at court. "I have enough evidence to prove my case."

The next hearing will be held on July 6 when Mallya, who was granted an extension to his bail, was told he need not attend. The full extradition hearing was provisionally listed to start on Dec. 4 and to last two weeks.

Aaron Watkins, the lawyer representing the Indian government, told the court that prosecutors in Britain were still waiting for documentation and evidence from India and this was expected to arrive in the next month.

However, any delays or a second extradition request could push the case back to April next year, the court heard.

Britain's extradition process can be complicated and take a long time to conclude. The judge will make a decision based on whether there is a prima facie case against Mallya and if the alleged crimes would be offences in Britain as well as India.

That ruling can be challenged in a higher court before being passed to the Home Secretary (interior minister) for approval. That decision can also be appealed to the courts.

Mallya, who has a base in London and a country home bought from the father of triple Formula One world champion Lewis Hamilton, on Friday dismissed speculation of a possible sale of his Force India team.

(Reporting by Michael Holden; Editing by Angus MacSwan)

Tens of thousands rally across Russia in protests against corruption

 Tens of thousands of protesters rallied across Russia June 12. The demonstrations follow March 26 nationwide anti-corruption protests. (Sarah Parnass,David Filipov,Andrew Roth/The Washington Post)

By Andrew Roth and David Filipov June 12 at 3:36 PM

MOSCOW —  Shouting “We demand answers,” and “Stop lying and stealing,” tens of thousands of protesters turned out Monday across Russia in a nationwide anti-corruption rally called by opposition leader Alexei Navalny as part of his long-shot bid to unseat President Vladi­mir Putin.

Russian authorities met the challenge with helmet and truncheon: Police said they had rounded up 650 protesters at illegal rallies in Moscow and St. Petersrburg alone, although the Russian OVD-info nongovernment group put the number of detained at more than 1,000.

Navalny was detained outside his home, fined and, according to the independent Meduza news agency, sentenced to 30 days in jail, after he defied authorities by telling his supporters to crash a massive street festival of historical reeanactments staged for the official Russia Day state holiday.
“He asked me to pass on to you that the plan hasn’t changed,” Navalny’s wife, Yulia Navalnaya, tweeted after her husband’s detention. She told protesters he wanted them to head to central Tverskaya Street despite a warning by Moscow authorities that a demonstration there was illegal.

As a result, a crowd chanting “Russia without Putin!” came upon a reenactment of a medieval sword battle on Tverksaya Street, the broad central Moscow avenue that leads south to the Kremlin. A tangle of protesters and police surged towards the reenactors, some of whom locked their wooden shields in a real effort to fend off possible danger as other members of the troupe hid behind them.


People across the country participated in opposition rallies and demonstrations against corruption.

[Who is Alexei Navalny?]

Navalny’s campaign said anti-corruption protesters staged rallies in 187 Russian cities Monday, in one of the most widespread anti-government protests since Putin’s return to the presidency in 2012.

This turbulence is not likely to prevent Putin, who has enjoyed an approval rating above 80 percent for more than three years, from winning reelection next March, Denis Volkov, a pollster with Russia’s independent Levada Center, said in a recent interview. But it does point to weakness of the system Putin has created. The protests target the legitimacy and lack of accountability of his government, which some analysts call its greatest vulnerability.

In Washington, where President Trump has faced increasing controversy over the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, the White House  criticized Moscow’s response to the protests.

“Detaining peaceful protesters, human rights observers and journalists is an affront to core democratic values,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer read from a prepared statement. “The Russian people, like the people everywhere, deserve a government that supports an open marketplace of ideas, transparent and accountable governance, equal treatment under the law and the ability to exercise their rights without fear of retribution.”

Amnesty International also denounced the mass arrests, saying the Kremlin had shown “utter contempt for fundamental human rights.”

 Protesters in Vladivostok, Russia, rallied against corruption on June 12, which is also Russia Day, a national holiday there. (korotyla/twitter)

 Russian state television ignored the protests and focused on the fairs and commemorative events, which attracted tens of thousands in Moscow alone. It ran a live broadcast of Putin handing out state awards, and periodically showed a countdown to the Kremlin leader’s annual televised “direct line” Thursday, in which ordinary citizens can phone in requests.

[Putin uses the Soviet defeat of Hitler to show why Russia needs him today]

The Russia Day holiday commemorates the 1990 declaration of sovereignty within the Soviet Union orchestrated by Boris Yeltsin, the upstart leader of what was then called the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic. It presaged the eventual collapse of the U.S.S.R., and Yeltsin’s rise to the Kremlin as the first president of independent Russia.

Navalny, who faces an uphill battle just to get on the 2018 ballot, is nowhere near being able to defy Putin on that scale. But to listen to the people who came out Monday, Navalny has tapped into a vein of disgust with the current Russian leadership.

“I’m angry, my family is angry, but they’re not going to come to this because they’re scared,” said Alexander Fomenko, a 17-year-old student. "I don't have this kind of fear. I will be here on this street until they throw me in jail. And there's a lot of people who think like me; my friends think like me.”
The number of young demonstrators was among the many surprises when tens of thousands turned out across Russia on March 26 for an “anti-corruption”protest called by Navalny.

[Russian police arrest more than a thousand in anti-corruption rallies]

The Kremlin had clearly been caught off guard. Authorities made a show of arresting people involved in the protest, and educators forced students to watch documentaries about the evils of protesting. Some Russian parliament members expressed support for a ban against minors attending street rallies, calls that are likely to be renewed after Monday’s demonstration.

Youthful protesters scurried in and out of cafes Monday, taunting riot police to come after them, and then sitting at tables, pretending to be ordering food when the officers confronted diners.
Navalny, who was briefly jailed after the March protest, had received permission to hold Monday’s rally at a venue just north of the center, but on late Sunday called on his supporters to come to Tverskaya, saying that authorities had refused to provide a stage and sound system at the agreed-upon place.

Authorities had barricaded Tverskaya from all sides except for carefully controlled security points lined by helmeted police. But the police presence took on a surreal air because of the reenactors camped out in the center of the nine-lane thoroughfare.

Fencers feinted and darted to wild applause from children, while a 14th-century battle between ancient Russians and the Golden Horde took place nearby. World War I troops gave tips on bayonet thrusts, and a company of infantry in War of 1812 gear bivouacked not far from a blacksmith and an impressive array of medieval swords.

Protesters began to infiltrate the audience at 2 p.m., and by 4 p.m., riot police squads were wading into the crowd, dragging and carrying out protesters by their arms and legs and beating them with batons, as the demonstrators shouted “Shame!”

Recent polls suggest that Navalny — portrayed on state media as an unpopular and marginal figure, the creation of out-of-touch Westernizers — would not win more than 10 percent of the vote if he runs for president in 2018, though pollsters say Navalny’s best bet is to try to unite people fed up with government indifference and abuse.

At the venue in Moscow originally approved for Navalny’s protest, about 2,000 people gathered Monday to protest the city’s plan to relocate as many as 1.6 million residents of Soviet-era low-rise apartment buildings to new high-rise apartment buildings.

Some Muscovites believe the plan amounts to a violation of their rights to own property and to choose where to live, and a gift to political insiders who own construction firms.

[Moscow’s massive relocation plan turns middle class into protesters]

"I don't want to live in a 30-floor ant-house. Their whole project is total corruption, money laundry, initiated by the construction lobby,” said Zamira Medvedeva, a retiree who lives in a communal apartment building.