‘Sword Fights’ all the way!

By Manekshaw-2017-08-12

Six gangsters of the Jaffna's sword wielding notorious Ava group with their leader were arrested in Colombo a few days ago and they have been remanded till 22 August when they were produced before the Jaffna Magistrate.

The crackdown on Ava group was intensified following the sword attack on two Police personnel in Kokuvil in Jaffna two weeks ago.

Inspector General of Police Pujith Jayasundara made directives by visiting Jaffna on curbing the Ava menace soon after the incident and it was the Police Chief's direct involvement that led to the speedy action towards arresting the key members of the notorious Ava gang.

So far Ava gangsters have carried out several attacks and Jaffna's civil society elites have pointed out that the notorious group has posed a huge challenge to law and order in the Peninsula.

The Catholic Bishop of Jaffna Rt. Rev. Dr. Justin Gnanapragasam in a recent interview with Ceylon Today even mentioned that the sword wielding gangsters behave in a manner like the actors in present day Tamil cinema films carry out attacks. Despite priority being given to stabilizing law and order in the Northern Province soon after the end of the separatist war by reopening the Police Stations and Court Houses, the notorious gangsters remain a threat to the law abiding citizens in the North.

As the general security situation remains tensed with sword wielding gangsters even targeting law enforcement officials in a region which was devastated by the ruthless separatist war, the political climate in the Northern Province also remains gloomy with Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Provincial Council S. Thavarasa urging the Council to be dissolved.

Remains defiant

While Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran remains defiant in taking his own decision to appoint new ministers to the Northern Provincial Council (NPC) with a reshuffle he intends to make shortly, the Illankai Tamil Arasu Katchchi (ITAK) which is the premier party in the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) led Northern Provincial Council had decided not to accept any ministerial position in the reshuffled NPC.

Leader of the Opposition and TNA R. Sampanthan met Chief Minister Wigneswaran in the presence of the leaders of the constituent parties of the TNA last week.

The meeting which was held at the Chief Minister's residence in Nallur had heated arguments among the gathering over the powers of the Chief Minister in the NPC.

Chief Minister Wigneswaran being a member of the ITAK, the party leader Mavai S. Senathiraja, in contrast to Wigneswaran's stance on taking his own decision over the NPC ministerial appointments, has requested the fourteen ITAK Councillors in the NPC not to accept the ministerial portfolios in the reshuffled Cabinet at the NPC.

Sampanthan being the leader of the TNA, Chief Minister's defiant stance on taking his own decision on appointing new NPC ministers has led to a conflict situation in the TNA with the ITAK Councillors getting sidelined by Councillors of the three constituent parties such as PLOTE, TELO and EPRLF taking the upper hand in the NPC.

ITAK Leader, Mavai S. Senathiraja, has even stated at a meeting with the ITAK NPC Councillors at the Party's Jaffna office that Chief Minister Wigneswaran has become the puppet of other three constituent parties in the TNA sidelining the ITAK.

Therefore, the latest political situation in the Northern Province has clearly highlighted, as it was in the past, the Tamil politicians were not going to remain united forever not only in regional politics, in National politics as well.

The people in the North and the East who expect a stable political atmosphere on the regional level as well as on the National level to resolve several post-war grievances worry about the sad state of Tamil politics, and witness that history repeats itself in Tamil politics.

In the backdrop of sword wielding gangsters with other anti social elements such as drug traffickers and alcohol dealers posing severe threats to the post-war Jaffna society, the cyclonic atmosphere which remains in the Northern political scene is somewhat another form of 'sword fight' within the Tamil political hierarchy slashing the political aspirations of the people in the North and the East.

Sporadic activity by ‘subversive groups’ not a threat to national security– Army Commander-‘Don’t use LTTE label on every incident in the north’

Lt. Gen. Mahesh Senanayake

by SURESH PERERA-August 12, 2017, 7:39 pm 

Army Commander Lt. Gen. Mahesh Senanayake says that tagging the ‘LTTE label’ on every incident happening in the north is "completely misplaced" as sporadic activity by "subversive groups" do not constitute a threat to national security.

Asked by The Sunday Island about fears expressed of a resurgence of LTTE atrocities in the north in the backdrop of many violent incidents, he replied: "You mentioned the word ‘LTTE’, I didn’t. I don’t like people saying ‘LTTE’ for every incident. My point is that it’s very easy to connect the LTTE whenever something happens, though it is far from the truth".

There are other subversive groups in the north. ‘Ava’ is not the LTTE. There are people creating problems in the south, including university students, but you can’t just say they belong to one group or another. You can’t identify them with the 1971-1981 group either. It’s a label", Lt. Gen. Senanayake said during an interview at Army Headquarters in Colombo last week.

"We rehabilitated 12,000 plus LTTE cadres and reintegrated them into society. One person could do something, but that does not mean that all 12,000 of them will take weapons tomorrow morning and start a war. For that to happen, we should be sleeping without monitoring the ground situation!", he noted.

The veteran soldier said that when every incident (in the north) is identified with the LTTE disregarding the factual ground situation, which was different, somebody is bound to get mileage out of it and link it up with national security.

There was an attack on two policemen in Kopay. Incidents happen in the country, but there is no imminent threat to peace. There is no major issue as such. There was a shooting during a bank hold-up at Attidiya, but what if somebody says it was "that one or this one" responsible for the robbery? Similarly, it is not right to say ‘LTTE’ whenever there’s an incident in the north, the army chief pointed out.

"People in the south depend on what they hear of happenings in the north. If you live in the north then you will see something different. It is clear there is no threat to peace", says Senanayake, who was based in the north as Commander Security Forces - Jaffna (SFHQ-J) and Colonel of the Special Forces Regiment at one time.

The army is deployed in the north. There are Divisions of the military in the North and East, he stressed. "The army is not confined to barracks in the north. We move out".

"I invited the Mahanayake Theras to visit the north. As a sequel to this invitation, the Mahanayake of the Asgiriya Chaper will be undertaking a visit to the north on August 28-29", he noted.

Asked about Sri Lanka’s participation in UN peacekeeping operations, Senanayake replied: "Earlier, we were ready to send one battalion to Mali, but the requirement there also changed. They wanted a composite company – 35%-40% of the normal contingent. So we are sending those troops there first. I have discussed about the next company going there. I said we are ready but need time to send the equipment".

Continuing, he said: "The construction team has already gone there to build the basic infrastructure. We need vertical and horizontal structures for accommodation. With a part of the equipment shipped in April, our troops are already on the job. I was asked whether the company can be used to also put up camps of other (peacekeeping) troops. I said ‘yes’ as long as we are paid for it. There is no charity for us in Mali".

The Army Commander expressed confidence that the contingent will be moved by the first week of November. The shipment of equipment will start by end September. "From November onwards, we will be able to reach one entity and may be by December, the first convoy will be in place".

"We also agreed to provide women soldiers as peacekeepers to strike a gender balance. They can serve as staff officers and observers. It’s a difficult task, but I said there are smart women in the army who can also take over military police duties. We are ready to even to send up to brigade level – three battalions plus the command elements", he explained.

Sri Lanka has produced 16,000 peacekeepers so far with missions in Lebanon, Sudan and South Sudan, Senanayake continued. "In South Sudan, the army took professionalism to foreign shores with the establishment of its first-ever SRIMED Level 2 Hospital in Bor under the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS)".

"When they came here to give us another task, they were amazed when they saw the military hospital with all its modern facilities at Narahenpita", the Army Commander emphasized.

He said that army has also offered humanitarian demining, which is another area Sri Lanka has the expertise. Only 12% of the country still remains to be demined and in terms of the target, the country will be free of anti-personnel mines by 2020.

"With our experience exposure and expertise, the army is ready to undertake demining operations whether in Africa, Cambodia or Laos", he said.

Order regarding preliminary objection fixed for Nov. 17

 

SRI LANKA’S MINSTER IN CHARGE OF POLICE MARAPANA BATS FOR AVANT GARDE, UNDERMINES RANIL

Saturday, August 12, 2017 

Corruption case against Gota and others:

The Colombo Chief Magistrate's Court yesterday fixed date for order regarding the preliminary objection raised by former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and seven others over Avant-Garde corruption case.

Accordingly, the corruption case filed by Bribery Commission against Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and seven others for allegedly causing a Rs.11.4 billion unlawful loss to the government when giving permission to Avant-Garde Maritime Services (Pvt.) Limited to operate a floating armoury was yesterday fixed for November 17.

When the matter came up before the Colombo Additional Magistrate, counsel appeared on behalf of the accused filed their written submissions. The Bribery Commission was directed to submit its written submissions yesterday itself.

The defence had raised a preliminary objections alleging that the Bribery Commission Director General had filed this case without the written sanction of the Bribery Commission. The defence moved Court that case proceeding pertaining to the matter be terminated since the case had been filed without the consent of the Bribery Commission. The Defence Counsel further moved Court that the notices issued against the accused be recalled since the notices were gone injuria (unlawfully).

Senior State Counsel Janaka Bandara appearing on behalf of the Bribery Commission informed Court that the Bribery Commission had given its consent to this legal action. He said the Director General of Bribery Commission is vested with power to file cases in the Magistrate’s Court in accordance with the Bribery Commission Act and a judgement issued by the Court of Appeal.

When the matter came up before court, seven accused, former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, Avant Garde Chairman Major Nissanka Senadhipathi, former Navy Commanders Somatilleke Dissanayake, Jayanath Kolambage and Jayantha Perera, Rtd. Major General Palitha Piyasiri Fernando and Banda Adhikari were present in Courts.

The court had at a previous occasion allowed to proceed the case in absentia of second accused Sujatha Damayanthi, former Additional Secretary to the Defence Ministry.

The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption had filed this case against eight accused under Section 70 of the Bribery Act.

The Bribery Commission alleged that the accused had had given permission to Avant-Garde Maritime Services (Pvt) Limited to operate a floating armoury between August 7, 2012 and January 8, 2015 in violation of laws by providing unlawful income to this private company, amounting to Rs.11.4 billion. 

Vidya was the fifth victim of Swiss Kumar’s video racket? 

Aug 12, 2017

Reports say Mahalingam Shashikumar alias Swiss Kumar had videoed four gang-rapes and sold them via the internet before Sivaloganathan Vidya became his fifth victim. A woman of Jaffna had been employed for the task and when exposed he had been able to cover it up by throwing money.

The second suspect in the Vidya murder case is a Pradeshiya Sabha member of the EPDP, which has aided this rape video racket and illegal sand mining in the area. Investigations into the Vidya incident are exposing a major underworld network. During the Rajapaksa regime, Douglas Devananda aided it, but now, he has been replaced by Vijayakala Maheswaran and her brother-in-law Thuvarakeshwaran.

The CID questioned the children’s affairs deputy minister last week, but she tried to clear herself by using her political powers. She stands accused of having aided Swiss Kumar to flee. Lanka News Web is ready to make further exposures of this criminal network to prevent either Vijayakala or Thuvarakeshwaran from escaping.

Roger Waters says he’s shunned on orders “from above”

Ali Abunimah-11 August 2017

Roger Waters says he won’t be deterred by attempts to silence him because of his support for the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights.

The former Pink Floyd bass player talked to RT’s Anya Parampil about the effort by a group of local politicians on New York’s Long Island to have his September performance at the Nassau Coliseum canceled because he backs BDS.

But so far free speech is prevailing. Last month, the lawyer for the Nassau Events Center, the company that has a 49-year lease to run the state-owned venue, affirmed that Waters’ opinions are protected speech.

Chief legal officer Jeffrey Gewirtz wrote that the company “respects the constitutionally guaranteed rights of all people and therefore intends the Coliseum – under its stewardship – to be a venue that respects the expression and exchange of a wide variety of ideas and viewpoints.”

The effort to target him, Waters noted, comes in the context of a bigger push by Israel lobby groups to silence support for Palestinian rights, particularly with the Israel Anti-Boycott Act which is currently before Congress.

Play Tel Aviv, endorse Israel

Waters also criticized Radiohead’s decision to play in Tel Aviv last month, despite appeals from Palestinians to the band and its frontman Thom Yorke to heed their call for a boycott.

Playing in Tel Aviv amounts to an endorsement of Israeli government policy, according to Waters.

“Spokespersons of that government have said how excited they are, that this is the best thing for their hasbara – which is their explaining to the rest of the world what a wonderful and precious democracy Israel is,” Waters said.

“And when they cross the picket line, they are making a public statement that they do endorse the policies of the government, whatever they say, because that is what will be reported in Israel.”

“That is why Radiohead have been so soundly criticized by anybody with progressive ideas about human rights,” Waters added.

“We’re living in 1984”

Asked why his views receive so little attention in mainstream media, Waters referred to what he hears from producers: “I’m told that they can’t answer that question but it comes from above.”

Waters said he was told this by a producer for PBS talk show host Charlie Rose.

“We’re living in 1984,” Waters said, referring to the George Orwell novel in which all dissenting views are erased. “In order to retain a position of power, you need to be really good at propaganda.”

He lamented that media are talking about distractions like “Russiagate” while the symbolic Doomsday Clocknow stands at two-and-a-half minutes to midnight, indicating that the risk of a nuclear war is greater than ever.

Waters says too many people are not represented by contemporary politics: “They want there to be a society where they care for their brothers and sisters. And they would like that to extend beyond the borders of the United States.”

“All human beings deserve human and civil rights, including the Palestinians,” Waters said. “And we’re winning it. This is why they want to silence me, this is why they call me an anti-Semite and this why they don’t want me on Charlie Rose or Stephen Colbert, speaking.”

Watch the video above.

Seven White Helmets members shot dead in northwest Syria

The rescue workers were killed in a raid by unknown assailants on their base in a militant-held area

White Helmets rescue workers operating in eastern Syria (AFP)

Saturday 12 August 2017

Unidentified attackers shot dead seven members of Syria's White Helmets rescue service early on Saturday during a raid on their base in a militant-held northwestern town, the group said.

The attackers struck in the town of Sarmin, nine kilometres east of the city of Idlib, which is controlled by the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham Islamist alliance.

"The civil defense center in Sarmin was the target of an armed attack by an assailants in which seven volunteers were killed," the White Helmets said in statement.

"Two minibuses, some white helmets and walkie-talkies were stolen."

It was not immediately clear whether the motive was for the raid was political or purely criminal.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the seven volunteers had all been killed by bullets to the head.

Colleagues came in the morning for a change of shift and found them dead, Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP.

11h

Raf Sanchez 

 ✔@rafsanchez

7 Syrian White Helmets (@SyriaCivilDefe) were shot dead in Idlib and their equipment stolen. Activists say its not clear who's responsible. pic.twitter.com/vjYhFR8ITb

 Follow

Raf Sanchez 

✔@rafsanchez

Syrian opposition activists are posting pictures purportedly showing the White Helmet volunteers who were killed pic.twitter.com/1yfcepD6Rh

4:28 AM - Aug 12, 2017

•  22 Replies
 
•  33 Retweets
 
•  22 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy

The White Helmets emerged in 2013. They operate a rescue service in rebel-held parts of Syria, which have been subjected to fierce bombardment by the government and Russia's air force that has levelled whole city districts during the country's civil war.

They have since gained international renown for their daring rescues, often filmed and circulated on social media, and were nominated for the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize.

Although they work exclusively in rebel-held areas, they are non-partisan.

Their detractors, including President Bashar al-Assad's government and his ally Russia, accuse them of being the tools of their international donors. 

They receive funding from a number of Western governments, including Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States.

Critics also accuse them of harbouring rebel fighters, including Islamist militants, in their ranks.

According to unverified statistics compiled by the White Helmets, volunteer rescuers have saved more than 85,000 civilians since the group's inception. 

It currently has over 3,000 volunteers conducting rescue missions across rebel-held parts of Syria. 

Are we on the brink of nuclear war with North Korea? Probably not.

SEOUL — The saber-rattling from both North Korea and the Trump administration has many people worried that the world is on the brink of a nuclear war.
The Washington Post revealed that U.S. analysts think North Korea has produced a nuclear warhead that can fit inside its missiles. Worried about what that means? Here are four things you need to know. (Elyse Samuels/The Washington Post)

By Anna Fifield August 11 at 9:28 AM

Kim Jong Un’s regime is threatening to fire a missile to land near Guam, the American territory in the Pacific Ocean that is home to two huge U.S. military bases, by the middle of this month. He seems to have the technical capacity to make good on this threat: His regime has made observable progress in its missile program, notably firing two intercontinental ballistic missiles last month theoretically capable of reaching the U.S. mainland.

President Trump has issued tough warnings to North Korea in response. In his latest statement, on Thursday, he warned North Korea that “things will happen to them like they never thought possible” should the isolated country attack the United States or its allies.

President Trump on Aug. 10 said threats he made to North Korea two days earlier about facing the “fire and fury” of the U.S. “may not be tough enough.” (The Washington Post)

There have been many periods of heightened tensions between the two countries over the years, especially in April and August, when South Korea and the United States conducted joint military exercises that North Korea considered preparation for an invasion.

The Washington Post asked a range of experts in both the United States and South Korea if this time was any different. How worried should we be about conflict breaking out, accidental or otherwise?
Here are their replies.

Duyeon Kim, visiting senior fellow at the Korean Peninsula Future Forum, specializing in nuclear nonproliferation

“There’s an enormous difference between speaking North Korea’s language and firing verbal bombs, and frankly, engaging in a dangerously childish shouting match. The administration seems to believe that President Trump’s 'fire and fury' was designed to send 'a strong message to North Korea in the kind of language that North Korea understands.' Now, Trump’s latest threat of the impossible has directly targeted Kim Jong Un. Pyongyang surely has done nothing right and threats of its war plans are more detailed than we have seen with a deadline for Guam. But words by the president of the United States matter. Irresponsibly throwing around nuclear war threats could spiral into accidental and inadvertent conflict from miscalculation and mishap. The Kim regime is not suicidal to lodge the first strike, but one never knows if it’s given any reason — even a misinterpreted one — to hit the button. That accidental strike may not even be targeted at the U.S., but rather at South Korea or Japan. Only Kim Jong Un knows. The unpredictable Trump factor combined with unchecked presidential authority over his nuclear weapons makes the situation even more dangerous.”

David Kang, director of the Korean Studies Institute at the University of Southern California
“This time isn’t any different from the North Korean side — they haven’t done that much different than in the past. Kim Jong Un may be testing more missiles, but essentially their behavior is not any different. The big thing we keep missing about North Korea is that their threats are always the second half of a sentence, and we ignore the first half. North Korea consistently says, 'If the United States attacks us first, we will fight back.' The only thing that gets reported in the U.S. media is the second clause, not the first. So their comments are clearly deterrent in nature, and the Guam 'threat' was exactly along those lines. So we always overhype the North Korean threat, because it is absolutely not a threat of preemptive or first strike. For the U.S., the current administration might be speaking perhaps a little more flamboyantly than previous administrations, for sure. But essentially what they are saying is no different than any previous administration has said: 'If the United States is attacked first, we will fight back, as well.' The message is one of deterrence, not first strike. Both sides are reiterating that they will fight back if attacked. Deterrence works, because both sides believe the other. It is widely accepted that North Korea will strike at American targets somewhere in the Pacific if we attack them first, almost nobody doubts that. For their part, the North Koreans fully expect a massive American attack at some point, they believe us. So deterrence holds, because of the costs involved. It’s not pretty, but it works.”

Alison Evans, deputy head of the Asia-Pacific desk at IHS Markit’s Country Risk team
“In many ways the pattern of belligerent rhetoric and weapons demonstrations is similar to previous years, and — importantly — conflict is still unlikely. There are multiple actions the U.S. or North Korea could take before, for example, targeting the other with a missile: The U.S. continues to conduct sorties over the Korean Peninsula with B-1B Lancer strategic bombers, and North Korea could fire a Scud-type missile toward, but not at, Guam. The current situation differs from previous periods of increased tension in that both sides are making substantial and specific threats to strike the other if perceived necessary. In this kind of brinkmanship the potential for miscalculation is high, particularly relating to the assessment of what constitutes imminent hostile intent by the other side and their likely reaction to a given, potentially escalatory, action. Things that would indicated increased risk include growing U.S. military deployments to the region or a North Korean satellite launch, for example; on the other hand, indicators of reduced risk include evidence of unofficial talks or signs of smaller-scale or delayed joint U.S.-South Korea military exercises.”

Catherine Dill, senior research associate at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies

“The rhetoric and actions from North Korea during this period of tension don’t mark a significant departure from past periods of tension in my view. But the turmoil present in the current U.S. administration and apparent lack of restraint in formulating a cohesive response do introduce new challenges to coming back down, even if the interests of both sides haven’t changed. We should be aware of the possibility of conflict, especially the increased potential for escalation with the disjointed Trump administration, but I’m certainly not stocking up on canned goods any more than I normally do. I do, however, see a real risk for misperceptions leading to hasty actions that could hamper crisis management attempts or future diplomatic endeavors. Take Guam — if the United States perceives the North Korean statement as an explicit threat of attack rather than an opening to test the waters, that may be the difference between successfully reducing tensions and trying to intercept an IRBM that North Korea feels compelled to launch. The latter scenario has very real consequences that our policymakers should calmly think through.”


North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, watches a military drill marking the 85th anniversary of the establishment of the Korean People's Army in this handout photo by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency made available on April 26. (Reuters)

Yoon Young-kwan, former South Korean foreign minister and professor emeritus in international relations of Seoul National University

“North Korea’s threat has moved to a different level with the recent two successful ICBM tests. Now the U.S. mainland is in range of North Korean missile attacks, and this makes the current situation very different from previous periods of tension. Some South Koreans and Japanese are now wondering if the U.S. is willing to risk San Francisco, Chicago or Los Angeles if North Korea conducts provocations toward its allies.

The biggest risks in a situation like this one are misunderstanding, misperception and overreaction. It’s crucial to lower the possibility of these three from occurring. The fact that both President Trump and Kim Jong Un share a leadership style that values unpredictability raises chances of misunderstanding and/or misperception. It is important that the U.S. does not push North Korea into a dead end so they feel they are left with no options. During the Cuban missile crisis, former president Kennedy made sure the U.S. didn’t box in Khrushchev in order to maintain peace. It is very concerning that there are divisions inside the Trump administration in policy toward North Korea.”
Ralph Cossa, president of the Pacific Forum CSIS in Honolulu 

“The main difference between today and prior periods of tension is the hyperbole is flying in both directions. For years now, we have learned to not take Pyongyang seriously when it lets loose with it colorful rhetorical barrages. Why we see some advantage in emulating this is beyond me. I do take some solace in the view that barking dogs don’t bite, but a little less growling would not be a bad thing.

I think the probability of conflict actually breaking out remains low. Kim Jong Un is not suicidal. While the Post’s headline today was “Trump escalates rhetoric,” in truth he went from threatening responses if they said bad things (which they immediately did, re Guam) to if they did bad things against the U.S. or allies (or “anybody that we love”). That brings him more in line with Mattis and with long-standing U.S. policy, not to initiate hostilities but to respond with great force if attacked.”
Park Hyeong-jung, senior research fellow at the Korea Institute for National Unification, a government-funded think-tank focusing on reunification.

“In 1994, when the U.S. government reviewed a plan to bomb North Korea’s nuclear site at Yongbyon, the situation was much more serious than now. The fact that the American government considered an evacuation of its civilians in South Korea tells a lot. Both the United States and North Korea seem to be at the stage of making threats but not real actions have been taken because taking any actions at this stage will mean a huge catastrophe.


Though it is impossible to rule out a possibility of a conflict by misunderstandings, I think both nations know what their limits are because they have been dealing with each other since 1953, when the Korean War ended with an armistice. The United States and North Korea have managed to keep peace for several decades in this region, and it would have been impossible without very good calculations.”

How much does Trump know about North Korea?

U.S. President Donald Trump refers to amounts of temperature change as he announces his decision that the United States will withdraw from the landmark Paris Climate Agreement, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, U.S., June 1, 2017. Source: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque-New stamps issued in commemoration of the successful launch of the Hwasong-New stamps issued in commemoration of the successful launch of the Hwasong-14 intercontinental ballistic missile are seen in this undated photo released by North Korea’s Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang on Aug 8, 2017. Source: KCNA via Reuters

North Korea’s Presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly president Kim Yong Nam during a meeting with Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani in Teheran in this undated photo released on Aug 7, 2017 by KCNA in Pyongyang. Source: KCNA via Reuters-North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho (back) arrives with China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi to attend the closing ceremony of the 50th Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum (ARF) in Manila, Philippines August 8, 2017. Source: Reuters/Erik De Castro

By Daniel Maxwell | 9th August 2017

AFTER a turbulent six months in office, it has become clear President Donald Trump’s White House – the most chaotic administration in living memory – is ill-prepared to tackle the myriad of complex challenges the world is currently facing.

Just looking back at events in Washington over the past two weeks, with surprise dismissals, in-house fighting, foul-mouthed tirades, allegations of collusion with Moscow, and a major legislative defeat on healthcare, there is an abundance of evidence to confirm Trump and his team are struggling to govern.

While the Trump administration has been preoccupied with its own dysfunctionality, North Korea – the gravest threat to American security – has been launching intercontinental ballistic missiles with the capability of reaching cities across the US, a milestone Trump declared he would not tolerate.

SEE ALSO: Trump warns of ‘fire and fury’ as North Korea threatens attack on US

The North Korean missile launch on July 28 was the second intercontinental missile launch in July, with the earlier missile test being called a “gift” to “American bastards” on their Independence Day. According to American, South Korean and Japanese officials, the intercontinental missile flew for 47 minutes, taking a steep trajectory which sent it 2,300 miles (3701.5km) into space, before turning down and crashing into the sea near Hokkaido, Japan.

A senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, David C. Wright, announced the missile appeared to have a range of 6,500 miles (10460.7km), putting Los Angeles and Chicago “well within range”, Boston and New York possibly  “just within range,” while Washington was “just out of range.”

North Korea has yet the ability to use these missiles to deliver nuclear weapons, but the Defense Intelligence Agency has recently warned North Korean missiles will probably be able to deliver nuclear weapons within a year.

Just days after the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launch, the US military detected “highly unusual and unprecedented levels” of submarine activity by North Korea, including evidence of “ejection tests” from a 1,800-tonne submarine armed with 14 torpedoes.

An ejection test refers to the method by which a missile is shot out of a submarine using pressurised air. Reports of successful ejection tests from a North Korean submarine were described as a “critical step forward” and analysts at Johns Hopkins University believe these drills are “preparations for a test in the near future of an updated Pukguksong-1 submarine-launched ballistic missile or a potentially newer system.”

Explaining the significance of these tests, Tokyo-based Nexial Research Inc president, defence analyst Lance Gatling said: “T“the whole point of putting missiles into a stealthy platform like a submarine is to achieve tactical surprise, and this moves closer to that.”

SEE ALSO: North Korea criticises United States travel ban as ‘sordid’

In response to North Korea’s latest round of military tests, Trump said, “By threatening the world, these weapons and tests further isolate North Korea, weaken its economy, and deprive its people,” warning that the US will “take all necessary steps to ensure the security of the American homeland and protect our allies in the region”.

Trump has previously declared he planned “pretty severe things” in response to North Korea’s tests. US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley has said military action remains an option the US may resort to. Any US-led military action in the Korean peninsula would have had devastating repercussions.

The US has long held a “pre-emptive first strike” policy towards North Korea. If the US were to strike North Korea, the first targets would include nuclear and missile production facilities. However, it’s widely predicted North Korean leader Kim Jong-un would immediately retaliate, ordering a general mobilisation of the North Korean military and issuing a counterstrike, against the US or a US ally, such as South Korea or Japan.

The North Korean regime has legitimised its grip on power through propaganda which portrays the “US imperialists” as hostile aggressors who are planning to bring further devastation to the country which they attacked during the 1950s, dropping 635,000 tonnes of bombs, 32,557 tonnes of napalm and killing 30 percent of the population.

If North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un were not to retaliate to a US strike, his regime’s legitimacy and stability would be destroyed. Therefore, any US military action against North Korea will almost certainly lead to a massive military retaliation.

There are 83 US military bases in South Korea and there are over 50,000 US military personnel stationed in Japan, the mobilisation of these forces would lead to all-out war on the Korean peninsula. Given the proximity of North Korea to South Korea’s capital Seoul, a city of 25 million people, the outbreak of military conflict would be devastating. It has been estimated that with just conventional weapons North Korea could kill 64,000 South Koreans in the first three hours.

Furthermore, a full-scale war in China’s backyard would absolutely infuriate the leadership in Beijing. It’s difficult to predict how China would react to war in the Korean peninsula but Beijing may well, “supply their North Korean ‘allies’ with intelligence, satellite imagery, radar data and radio intercepts in order to prolong the conflict and perhaps prevent the final collapse of the North Korean regime on American terms.”

American forces operating in such close proximity with China’s border will increase tensions between Washington and Beijing, and there is every possibility that China could be drawn into the conflict.

All out war with North Korea is an alarming scenario and it’s clear that military action would be the worse possible option President Trump could choose. We can only hope that President Trump realises how disastrous America’s military campaigns have been in Afghanistan and Iraq and he will not be foolish enough to initiate a new conflict which could escalate into World War 3.

Kim Jong-un is well aware that the chance of the US launching an all out attack on North Korea remains improbability. Furthermore, US threats of military action can be manipulated by North Korean propaganda to enable Kim Jong-un to play the role of national protector, standing up to the bullying imperialists. Responding to the latest US threats, Kim Jong-un announced that such threats, “only strengthens our resolve and further justifies our possession of nuclear weapons.”

• “I am very disappointed in China.”

Another option which President Trump has pursued was striking a “grand deal” with China which would encourage them to put pressure on the North Korean regime to end their provocations. It is believed that during President Trump’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping an agreement was reached that the US would give the Chinese president a pass on issues such as trade and South China Sea expansions for cooperation on North Korea.

However, in recent weeks the relationship between the US and China appears to be soured and realising the “grand deal” was falling to benefit the US, Trump employed his tactful diplomacy skills, attacking China on Twitter on Saturday claiming the country did “NOTHING” to thwart North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.

• “Our foolish past leaders have allowed them to make hundreds of billions of dollars a year in trade, yet they do NOTHING for us with North Korea, just talk. We will no longer allow this to continue. China could easily solve this problem!” said Trump.

Chinese state media responded to Trump’s tweets, condemning the US President’s “emotional venting.” Moscow also criticised Trump’s Tweets, accusing the US of trying to “shift responsibility” for developments on the Korean peninsula, with the Russian foreign ministry releasing a statement: “We view as groundless  attempts undertaken by the U.S. and a number of other countries to shift responsibility to Russia and China, almost blaming Moscow and Beijing for indulging the missile and nuclear ambitions of the DPRK (North Korea).”

With Trump’s brash communications isolating the two superpowers with the greatest ability to influence North Korea, and military action in the Korean peninsula a calamitous option, it’s difficult to believe that Trump has a coherent strategy for dealing with Pyongyang.

Throughout Donald Trump’s election campaign, and his six months in office, he has been quick to criticise the actions and the policies of previous US presidents, promising that he would shake up the system, “drain the swamp” and get the job done. However, on multiple issues he has been unable to provide any realistic alternative policies and it is becoming clear that he has no idea how to deal with complex global issues. If President Trump has prepared a feasible plan for dealing with North Korea, he is certainly keeping his cards close to his chest.

SEE ALSO: China prepared to pay the price of North Korea sanctions – foreign minister

At this stage, the North Korean regime is highly unlikely to cease their missile programme until they have proven to the world that they have the technology to deliver a nuclear weapon on an intercontinental missile. Once they have achieved this, they could be persuaded to come to the negotiating table.

South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in has called for dialogue with the aim of establishing a peace treaty to permanently end the Korean War. In working towards this goal, China, Russia and North Korean diplomats have raised the possibility of a “freeze for a freeze” which would entail a freeze in North Korean missile tests in exchange for a freeze in US-South Korea military exercises.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the Trump administration would accept any such freeze in US military exercises, because it would give the impression they were rewarding North Korea’s aggressive behaviour, and Trump’s ego would not let him suffer such a public defeat.

This leaves the outcome of this precarious situation firmly in the hands of an unprepared and unpredictable president, with a tendency to shoot from the hip.

We can only hope that the president’s advisors restrain him from launching a military attack which could lead to a nuclear holocaust.

Cocaine Is Booming in Colombia and the President Is Tanking

BY JOSÉ R. CÁRDENAS-AUGUST 11, 2017

When Vice President Mike Pence arrives in Colombia next week, he will find a country no longer celebrating its widely touted success story of rising from a near-failed state under the thumb of narco-terrorists to a secure, confident, and vibrant democracy.  Instead, he will find a nation unnerved by a controversial peace process initiated by an unpopular president and dispirited about its future ahead of elections next year.

Moreover, storm clouds are brewing on the U.S.-Colombia bilateral front, a prospect unthinkable in recent years. But that is where we are, thanks to the Obama administration’s meek acquiescence to President Juan Manuel Santos’s decision to change Colombia’s long-standing coca eradication policies, with disastrous results.

It has been five years since President Santos surprised both Colombians and the international community by announcing his intention to enter peace negotiations with the narco-terrorist group FARC, whose five-decade war against the Colombian state resulted in some 260,000 deaths of Colombian citizens, with seven million displaced and another 60,000 unaccounted for.

After four controversial years of negotiations held in Cuba, an agreement was struck in September 2016. Colombians initially rejected the peace plan as too lenient to the FARC in an October 2016 plebiscite, only to see Santos make some modifications and then reroute it through Congress, where his party dominates. It passed unanimously after opponents boycotted the vote in protest of the maneuver.

Colombia may be now at peace on paper, but the process continues to be burdened by the lack of a political consensus, an untrustworthy partner in the FARC, continued organized criminality and violence, and a politically weak, lame duck president.

But it is just not the peace agreement that has unnerved the Colombian people. All Colombians, of course, want peace, but they don’t have confidence the Santos government is on the right track. Beyond that, many believe that President Santos — who has seen his approval rating drop as low as 18 percent in recent days — has invested too much time and effort into the peace process at the expense of other problems dogging Colombian society.

There is a growing sense of fatigue and frustration from Colombians about their stagnant economy and traditional political parties.  A recent poll found that the top three issues Colombians want the next president to address are by far healthcare, education, and unemployment. Indeed, the government’s lack of attention and progress on these issues is clearly reflected in polling: 90 percent disapprove of the way Santos has handled unemployment, while 74 percent disapprove of his education policies and 85 percent disapprove of his handling of healthcare.

Their pessimism was reflected in another shocking recent poll showing that more than 50 percent of Colombians fear that the country is at risk of turning into Venezuela at some point in the future.
This is all backdrop to what truly should be the concern of U.S. policymakers. As Latin America’s fourth-largest economy and the largest recipient of U.S. assistance, what happens in Colombia matters to the United States. Since 2000, successive U.S. administrations have provided more than $10 billion in aid to Colombia to combat drugs and drug-related violence.
But

Santos’s decision to end U.S.-supported aerial fumigation of coca fields — seen as a concession to the FARC to spur the peace process — has boomeranged badly.

Santos’s decision to end U.S.-supported aerial fumigation of coca fields — seen as a concession to the FARC to spur the peace process — has boomeranged badly. The result has been a 200 percent increase in cocaine production over the past three years, most of it destined for the United States.

In his May 2017 meeting with Santos, President Donald Trump affirmed his willingness to continue to assist Colombia’s counter-narcotics efforts, but noted his “high alarm” about record highs in coca cultivation and cocaine production. Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Bill Brownfield, a former ambassador to Colombia, recently said, “If we don’t reach an acceptable solution for both countries reasonably soon, we’re going to see bilateral political problems and this is what I want to avoid.”

Vice President Pence’s mission to Bogotá likely will be focused on finding just such a solution. With so much treasure invested in Colombia by the United States over the past 17 years, the U.S. objective now must be to not allow the peace agreement with the FARC to undermine long-standing U.S. counter-narcotics efforts in Colombia. Not only will it serve U.S. interests, but it will maintain common cause with millions of Colombians who similarly don’t want their hard-fought-for gains of the past decade-and-a-half to be lost.

Photo credit: GERARDO GOMEZ/AFP/Getty Images