Without citizenship, Bedouins would be largely defenseless against steps to evict them, advocates say.Ryan Rodrick BeilerActiveStillsJonathan Cook-19 September 2017
Israel has quietly revoked the citizenship of thousands of members of its large Palestinian minority in recent years, highlighting that decades of demographic war against Palestinians are far from over.
Three people injured after rocket from passing rotorcraft explodes near group of men during Zapad war games in Luzhsky
Moment Russian helicopter accidentally fires rocket at observers – video Marc Bennetts in Moscow-Tuesday 19 September 2017
A Russian attack helicopter accidentally fired at least one rocket into a group of people during large-scale military exercises close to Nato’s borders, Russian media has reported.
Three people were injured in the incident at the Zapad 2017 drills, a source close to the Russian Ministry of Defence told RBC news agency. “They weren’t civilians,” the source said.
RBC also posted a video of what appeared to show a rocket from a passing Ка-52 “Alligator” combat helicopter explode close to a group of men dressed in camouflage fatigues. The footage shows at least one person knocked to the ground by the force of the impact.
Unconfirmed reports said the incident took place at the Luzhsky firing range near St Petersburg. The defence ministry initially denied the reports, but was later said to have admitted the unplanned launch of a rocket by a combat helicopter at a military drill.
“As a result of a strike by an unguided rocket, a cargo vehicle with no people on board was damaged,” Interfax cited a military official as saying.
The Ministry of Defence did not clarify whether the accident had taken place during the Zapad drills. It said reports of injuries were “either a deliberate provocation or someone’s individual stupidity”.
A video posted by the Conflict Intelligence Team, an independent Moscow-based group that monitors Russia’s military, showed what it said was the aftermath of the blast, including damaged military trucks. It said the registration number of one of the vehicles in the video indicated it belonged to the Federal Guard Service, which provides security for the Kremlin.
The Zapad 2017 military exercises are taking place in Russia and Belarus and simulate a Nato-backed separatist revolt in northern Belarus. The seven-day drills are due to end on Thursday.
In the struggle for the party's future, the ex-president's paid private chats send a message.
Photo Credit: YouTube/France24 ByJefferson Morley / AlterNet-September 18, 2017, 10:46 AM GMT
If you’re wondering where Barack Obama stands in the struggle for the future of the Democratic Party, check his calendar. While supporters of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are vying to define the Democrats as a corporate-friendly party or a populist insurgency, the former president has been stacking his Benjamins courtesy of Wall Street.
Just last week, Obama reminisced about his White House years at the Carlyle Group, one of the world’s biggest private equity firms, according to Bloomberg. Next week, he’ll give a keynote speech at investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald's conference on health care.
Last month, he spoke to clients of the Chicago-based Northern Trust Corp. (“We serve the world’s most-sophisticated clients, from sovereign wealth funds and the wealthiest individuals and families, to the most successful hedge funds and corporate brands.”)
The wages of an ex-president: $400,000 per chat. If you want to know what exactly Obama said, you're out of luck: $400,000 buys a whole lot of non-disclosure.
Corporate Power
Bloomberg notes:
While he can’t run for president, Obama continues to be an influential voice in a party torn between celebrating and vilifying corporate power. His new work with banks might suggest which side of the debate he’ll be on and disappoint anyone expecting him to avoid a trap that snared Clinton.
In her new book, Clinton expresses regret about making paid speaking appearances on Wall Street after she left the State Department in 2013, saying it created the impression that she was beholden to the financial industry.
Obama doesn’t have that worry, because he’s not running for anything. But his party has to worry about how to recover from Clinton’s disastrous loss to Trump. In key battleground states, a critical bloc of working-class voters who had voted for Obama swung to the Republicans. To win in 2020, the Democratic nominee will need a message that brings those voters back and inspires people who didn't vote at all.
As the party’s most popular personality, Obama is in a position to influence the sometime bitter debate about the party’s economic message.
Obama’s formula for Wall Street was tough rhetoric, light regulation and personal connections. He came to office in 2009 talking about “fat cats” and he backed the Dodd-Frank legislation to prevent the emergence of “too big to fail” banks.
But his Justice Department did not prosecute any major bankers for their roles in the financial crisis. He resisted calls to break up the biggest banks which pulled in record profits while most Americans saw wages and salaries stagnate. And his closest advisers, such as Attorney General Eric Holder, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and economic adviser Lawrence Summers, made fortunes on Wall Street.
Obama’s buckracking sends a message to the growing field of prospective presidential candidates in 2020. It's a tacit endorsement of the party’s corporate wing, led by the likes of Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Mark Warner (D-Va.) and perhaps Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). They seek good relations with the financial industry, albeit with some regulation. To them, Obama’s message is: Wall Street is part of the Democratic coalition.
Obama’s speechifying is a tacit rebuke of the party’s left-wingers, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Ver.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). They advocate getting tougher on the financial sector, rhetorically and practically, with tighter regulations, higher taxes and stricter anti-monopoly policy. To them, Obama’s message is: Don’t burn your bridges to Wall Street.
And Obama’s voice will likely be influential. With his work on gerrymanderingand his defense of the Dreamers, Obama is launching an activist ex-presidency unlike any other former chief executive since Teddy Roosevelt tried to regain the presidency in 1912. Come 2020, there will likely be an Obama primary, in which Democratic presidential contenders compete for #44's nod.
The challenge for the progressive presidential hopefuls will be to make the case for a populist economic message without repudiating Obama. That’s not impossible. A populist economic message could be framed as a deepening of Obama’s legacy. The fiasco of Clinton’s defeat shows the dangers of a pro-Wall Street image. And the rank and file of the party has moved to the left as the growing enthusiasm for single-payer health care indicates.
The benefits of Obama’s speechifying will trickle down to poor people, Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for the former president, told Bloomberg.
Obama has delivered public and private speeches that are “true to his values,” Lewis said in an email. “His paid speeches in part have allowed President Obama to contribute $2 million to Chicago programs offering job training and employment opportunities to low-income youth.”
Is that a winning message or weak tea? Democrats have to decide.
President Trump harshly criticized North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the United Nations on Sept. 19, calling him “Rocket Man” and threatening to “totally destroy North Korea” if need be. (The Washington Post)
NEW YORK — President Trump warned the United Nations in a speech Tuesday that the world faces “great peril” from rogue regimes with powerful weapons and terrorists with expanding reach across the globe, and called on fellow leaders to join the United States in the fight to defeat what he called failed or murderous ideologies and “loser terrorists.”
“We meet at a time of immense promise and great peril,” Trump said in his maiden address to more than 150 international delegations at the annual U.N. General Assembly. “It is up to us whether we will lift the world to new heights or let it fall into a valley of disrepair.”
The president's address was highly anticipated around the world for signs of how his administration would engage with the United Nations after he had criticized the organization during his campaign as being bloated and ineffective, and threatened to slash U.S. funding.
Trump offered a hand to fellow leaders but also called on them to embrace “national sovereignty” and to do more to ensure the prosperity and security of their own countries. Over and over, he stressed the rights and roles of “strong, sovereign nations” even as they band together at the United Nations.
President Trump ran his campaign on the message of economic nationalism. What does "America first" mean? (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)
“I will always put America first just like you, the leaders of your countries, should put your countries first,” Trump said, returning to a campaign theme and the “America First” phrase that has been criticized as isolationist and nationalistic.
The president warned of growing threats from North Korea and Iran, and he said, “The scourge of our planet is a group of rogue regimes.”
The North Korean delegation was seated, by chance, in the front row, mere feet from the U.N. podium.
Trump praised the United Nations for enacting economic sanctions on Pyongyang over its nuclear and ballistic missile tests. But he emphasized that if Kim Jong Un's regime continued to threaten the United States and to destabilize East Asia, his administration would be prepared to defend the country and its allies.
“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,” Trump said, before calling Kim by a nickname he gave the dictator on Twitter over the weekend. “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself.”
Trump added, “If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph.”
Trump is scheduled to have a trilateral meeting Wednesday with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Moon Jae-in to discuss the situation. He spoke separately with Chinese President Xi Jinping, who is not attending this year's General Assembly.
Following the speech, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders sought to temper the idea that Trump's remarks about North Korea were a break from past U.S. policy.
Trump also called the U.N.-backed Iran nuclear deal “one of the worst and most one-sided” agreements ever, and “an embarrassment” to the United States. His voice rising, Trump strongly hinted that his administration could soon declare Tehran out of compliance. That could potentially unravel the accord. Trump and his top aides have been critical of Iran for its support of terrorism in the Middle East.
“I don't think you've heard the end of it,” Trump said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu beamed as he and his wife, Sara, listened to Trump speak. The Israeli leader, an opponent of the international nuclear deal with Iran, was also addressing the world body later Tuesday, a day earlier than usual because he is leaving the gathering in time to spend the Jewish holy days in Israel.
“In more than 30 years of my acquaintance with the U.N., I have not heard a more courageous and sharp speech,” Netanyahu, a former Israeli ambassador to the body, said after Trump's remarks. “President Trump told the truth about the dangers lurking in the world, and called to face them forcefully to ensure the future of mankind.”
In a meeting with media executives Tuesday shortly before Trump's address, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Iran has complied fully with its commitments under the nuclear deal and predicted the United States will be the loser if it “tramples upon” the 2015 agreement.
“Everyone will clearly see that Iran has lived up to its agreements and that the United States is therefore a country that cannot be trusted,” Rouhani said.
“We will be the winners,” he added, while the United States “will certainly sustain losses.”
Rouhani also seemed to suggest a U.S. withdrawal would free Iran from its obligations under the deal, which lifted nuclear-related sanctions in exchange for limits on its nuclear program.
“It will mean that this agreement has seen a foundational problem, and under those conditions, Iran will be freed to choose another set of conditions,” he said.
In his speech, Trump pledged that his administration would support the United Nations in its goals of pursuing peace, but he was sharply critical of the organization, and its member nations, for not living up to the promise of its founding in 1945.
“We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, values or systems of government,” he said. “But we do expect all nations to uphold their core sovereignty and respect the interests of their own people and rights of every other sovereign nation. This is the beautiful vision of this institution and the foundation for cooperation and success.”
Later in the day at a lunch hosted by U.N. Secretary General António Guterres, Trump said he sees great potential in the United Nations.
"The potential of the United Nations is unlimited," Trump said. "And I really believe – I’ve met your representatives and I know you well – you’re going to do things that will be epic and I certainly hope you will. But I feel very, very confident."
The president in his speech also focused on the growing threats of “radical Islamic terrorism,” a phrase he had left out of other recent speeches, including a prime time address to the nation on his Afghanistan strategy. He declared that his administration would not allow “loser terrorists” to “tear up our nation or tear up the entire world.”
But Trump also cautioned that areas of the world “are in conflict and some, in fact, are going to hell.” He spent a portion of the speech decrying the “disastrous rule” of Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro, whose authoritarian regime has sent the country into political and economic crisis.
“It is completely unacceptable and we cannot stand by and watch,” Trump said, calling on the United Nations to help the Venezuelan people “regain their freedom and recover their country and restore their democracy.”
He did not address some aspects of his foreign policy that have alarmed foreign leaders, including the proposed temporary ban on immigration for several Muslim-majority nations, a border wall with Mexico or the planned U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate accord.
He appeared to answer international criticism of sweeping new restrictions on refugee resettlement by saying that the United States is helping refugees in other ways. Washington can help 10 people displaced in their home regions for the cost of moving one to the United States, Trump said.
Near the end of his remarks, Trump asked rhetorically: “Are we still patriots? Do we love our nations enough to protect their sovereignty and take ownership of their futures?” Martin Baron contributed to this report.
Any Intellectual who stands by the Dalitbahujans and the poor and asks for some jobs in the their private companies if gets Fatwas of killing and hanging in the streets of India by the one of the richest persons and a parliament member, the country and its very Democracy and Freedom of Speech that the constitution guaranteed will be in real danger. Perhaps I may be the first person to die like that.
by Kancha Ilaiah-
( September 20, 2017, Bangalore, Sri Lanka Guardian) T.G. Venaktesh, an extremist Arya Vysya leader held a press conference on 18/9/2017 in a luxury hotel in Hyderabad with an extremist, conspitorial Arya Vysya team and declared a Fatwa on me that he would kill or hang in the streets as they do in the Middle East. This person is an MP from the TDP and supposed be the richest man after Gandi Madhava Rao (GMR) from that community in the two Telugu states . Can a Parliament member who issued a Fatwa against a citizen—that too a globally known writer and thinker—continue in the Parliament as member? It is for the BJP and TDP (Telugu Desam Party) to decide.
The myth that the Arya Vysya community is a peace loving non-violent community proved to be wrong. This is clear from the violent statements that their leaders are issuing. It is also clear from their abusive and vulgar behavior on the streets from village to cities up to the State capitals Amaravati and Hyderabad. They are indulging in the treat vandalism. Both the states are freely allowing them to the point of creating a law and order situation. They seem to have no respect for judiciary also.
They are the most organized caste in India with 46 per cent of the total wealth and 48 per cent of the Company Directors, in their hands. The Ambani Group,Adani group, Laxmi Mittals, Vedanta and so on are part of this community. This is the only community that has a Bank called Vysya Bank in their caste name in India.
For writing a chapter in my book called Post-Hindu India with a title called Social Smugglers, a concept I coined to capture caste cultural and economic exploitation in India, and translating it into Telugu they are attacking me. I have been fighting for reservation in the private sector for long time, as there are no jobs in the state sector at all. We are now demanding in the T-MASS (Telanga all peoples) meetings an organization formed three months ago, jobs for all the kith and kin of the lowest level soldiers serving on the borders of Pakistan, and China and also in the internal security sectors, at least one job for family in their firms, a token their nationalism, without going into MERIT Question that they have been raising all the time. At least one percent of their total profit for FARMER’ S FUND for the SURVIVAL of the dying farmers across the country. This is necessary because the States are also not in a position to protect them for paucity of funds as they themselves are saying. The Farmer Suicides are taking place all over India. This is part of their Corporate Social Responsibility.
For this issuing a Middle East type of Fatwa by the Parliament member with a back up of the ruling establishments both at the state and also national level is a dangerous trend in the nation. This fatwa is issued under the nose of Telangana Government in which I am living. The Government is silent giving an impression of complicity. For last 10 days from i.e 10th Sep 2017 till date my phone gets organized phone calls with abuses and vulgar SMSs. This is only to make me mad. Everyone knows that Air Tell and Reliance companies are in their hands.
Any Intellectual who stands by the Dalitbahujans and the poor and asks for some jobs in the their private companies if gets Fatwas of killing and hanging in the streets of India by the one of the richest persons and a parliament member, the country and its very Democracy and Freedom of Speech that the constitution guaranteed will be in real danger. Perhaps I may be the first person to die like that.
In Andhra Pradesh Errachandanam (RED SANDLEWOOD) is being smuggled without trace of source of smugglers. Who knows TG.Venkatesh could be behind it? Who knows he must be behind Gauri Lankesh and Kulburgi’s shooting down? Who knows the murderers could be hiding in the massive mansions he owns in kurnool (AP) and in Hyderabad? Who will investigate when both the State Governments and Centre are behind him?
DEMANDS:
1) Why is the Telangana Government silent on this Fatwa?
2) What is Chandrababu Naidu’s Stand on this Fatwa?
3) What is the position of the Central Government headed by an OBC Prime Minister on this Fatwa?
Based on this fatwa I can seek an Asylum in any country. But I am a nationalist with reverence to Buddha and Ambedkar. I would like to live and die here only. I hope the nation responds. Though filing a case seems to have no effect but I will file a case in the local Police Station on this Fatwa soon.
Prof. Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is the Director, Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-32
An inclusive city is one where everyone, from the pedestrian to the car drivers are given equal treatment. That's not the case in Jakarta and KL now. Source: Shutterstock
IF the Malaysian and Indonesian governments want to improve quality of life in their respective capital cities, a major revamp of their public transport networks must be considered, a conference on sustainable transport was told on Tuesday.
There are too many vehicles on Jakarta’s and Kuala Lumpur’s roads, and far too few sidewalks, cycling lanes and good bus systems, speakers at the “Social City 2: Towards Inclusive and Sustainable Public Transport in Malaysia” conference in Kuala Lumpur pointed out.
This, they say, drives up living costs for those who need to commute daily to or within the capital.
“A city is only a good one if it is inclusive socially and economically,” said Liew Chin Tong, who chairs the Research for Social Advancement (REFSA) research institute, which organised the conference.
Poor, old or disabled, all deserve a public transport system that serves them. Source: Shutterstock
Liew referred to a study by global data measurement company Nielsen in 2014 which found that 93 percent of Malaysian households own cars, making it the third highest worldwide in terms of car ownership. The global average is 74 percent.
As much as one-third of Malaysians’ month incomes are spent on car loans, petrol and maintenance – funds they could be spending elsewhere in the domestic economy.
The gap between the “haves and have-nots” are further exaggerated when the city does not provide equal space for a bicycle costing US$30 bicycle, compared to a US$30,000 car. Bike lanes in Malaysia are far and few in between, even in its bigger cities.
Free Malaysia Today noted that data from the Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research found 35.6 percent of cycling fatalities occur between cars and cyclists, while 21.6 percent take place between motorcycles and cyclists.
Neither are there feasible sidewalks or sufficient facilities for the elderly and disabled at its train stations. Persons with disabilities (PWDs) face significant problems when using the country’s public transport modes which have been described as “severely lacking in accessible facilities”, despite the passing of the Disability Act in 2008 – an act to provide for the development and well-being of PWDs in recognition of, among others, their equal entitlement to accessibility so they can fully participate in society.
Jakarta suffers from the same problems, according to Yoga Adiwinarto, who is the country director for the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy based in Menteng, Jakarta.
Like Kuala Lumpur, Indonesia’s capital’s infamous traffic congestion is a result of a car-oriented city planning, instead of one that is people-oriented.
This makes Jakarta’s public transport system one that is “not inclusive at all”, Yoga told Asian Correspondent during the conference.
The poor, disabled and elderly are still at a disadvantage. Despite the popularity of previous governor Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama, Yoga finds his decision to resettle many lower-income groups living in illegal squatter areas to the city’s outskirts “regrettable”.
“In the past, they can just go to work by walking 10 to 15 minutes. but now they have to travel using buses and trains. Some even lose their jobs as they cannot afford the fees for these modes of public transport,” Yoga said.
Not a common sight in Jakarta. Source: Reuters
There have been small improvements in recent years such as the TransJakarta Care, a service by the city’s bus system where bus drivers notify minivans to pick up those wheelchair-bound and bring them to their destinations for free.
“They realise there’s nothing they can do about the sidewalks but there’s a lot of things they can do to make sure all their users are served,” Yoga said.
Jakarta’s sidewalks are notorious for being dangerous due to its close proximity to the traffic-clogged roads, if one can even find them in the first place. According to the Jakarta Pedestrian Coalition, only 20 percent of the city’s roads have anything that resembles a path for pedestrians, way from the traffic from motorists.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres issued a blunt demand that Myanmar halt military operations in Rohingya areas
In less than a month, just under half of Rakhine's million-strong Rohingya minority has poured into Bangladesh, where they languish in overcrowded refugee camps (AFP)
By Dave Clark with Hla Hla Htay-Tuesday 19 September 2017
Aung San Suu Kyi faced mounting criticism on Tuesday over what some world leaders are now calling the "ethnic cleansing" of Myanmar's Rohingya minority, despite her plea for patience from the international community.
The head of Myanmar's civilian administration pledged to hold rights violators to account over the crisis in Rakhine state, but refused to blame Myanmar's powerful military for the attacks that have driven 421,000 Muslim Rohingya out of her mainly Buddhist country.
But her speech, delivered in English and clearly aimed at deflecting international anger as world leaders gathered on Tuesday at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, failed to quell international anger at reports that the Rohingya are being burned out of their homes.
"The military operation must stop, humanitarian access must be guaranteed and the rule of law restored in the face of what we know is ethnic cleansing," French President Emmanuel Macron told world leaders gathered for the week of high-level diplomacy.
The United States has been careful not to blame Myanmar's civilian leadership for the attacks because the country's military retains control of security operations in troubled areas like northern Rakhine, but Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was moved to call Suu Kyi.
The military operation must stop, humanitarian access must be guaranteed and the rule of law restored in the face of what we know is ethnic cleansing
- French President Emmanuel Macron
While Tillerson welcomed the pledge to crack down on abuses, he also urged both the government and the military "to address deeply troubling allegations of human rights abuses and violations" during the telephone conversation, his spokeswoman said.
Macron and Tillerson's concerns echoed those of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who issued a blunt demand that Myanmar halt military operations and of Britain, which suspended training courses for the Myanmar military in light of the violence in Rakhine.
"The authorities in Myanmar must end the military operations and allow unhindered humanitarian access," Guterres told the General Assembly.
"They must also address the grievances of the Rohingya, whose status has been left unresolved for far too long."
Amnesty International joined the outcry, saying Suu Kyi was "burying her head in the sand" over documented army abuses and claims of rape, murder and the systematic clearing of scores of villages.
And in New York, there was pressure from leaders like Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Nigeria's President Muhammadu Buhari, who compared the crisis to the 1995 Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia and the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.
"If this tragedy in Myanmar is not stopped, the history of humanity will face the embarrassment of another dark stain," Erdogan said, calling for the Rohingya sheltering in Bangladesh to be allowed to return to the homes in which they "have lived for centuries".
In her long-anticipated speech, Suu Kyi - a former political prisoner and Nobel Peace laureate who won international acclaim for her role in campaigning for a return to elected rule in Myanmar - failed to offer any concrete way out of the crisis.
Supporters and observers say the 72-year-old lacks the authority to rein in the military, which ran the country for 50 years and only recently ceded limited powers to her civilian government.
Myanmar's army acts without civilian oversight and makes all security decisions, including its notorious scorched earth counterinsurgency operations.
Repatriation pledge
Communal violence has torn through Rakhine state since Rohingya militants staged deadly attacks on police posts on 25 August.
An army-led fightback has left scores dead and sent hundreds of thousands of Rohingya fleeing into Bangladesh.
In her 30-minute speech, Suu Kyi reached out to critics who have condemned her failure to speak up for the stateless Rohingya and promised to repatriate refugees in accordance with a "verification" process agreed with Bangladesh in the early 1990s.
"Those who have been verified as refugees from this country will be accepted without any problems," she added.
In less than a month, just under half of Rakhine's million-strong Rohingya minority has poured into Bangladesh, where they languish in overcrowded refugee camps.
It was not immediately clear how many would qualify to return.
But their claims to live in Myanmar are at the heart of a toxic debate about the group denied citizenship by the state and considered to be illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.
Suu Kyi's repatriation pledge "is new and significant," said Richard Horsey, an independent analyst based in Myanmar, explaining it could allow for the return of those who can prove residence in Myanmar - rather than citizenship.
If the government is honestly speaking to resolve our crisis, then we are ready to go back now
- Abdur Razzak, a Rohingya refugee in Bangladesh
But in the monsoon-soaked shanties in Bangladesh, there was anguish among refugees over how they would meet any requirements.
"We don't have any papers," said 55-year-old Abdur Razzak.
"If the government is honestly speaking to resolve our crisis, then we are ready to go back now," he added. "Nobody wants to live in such squalid conditions as a refugee."
No more violence?
Suu Kyi insisted army "clearance operations" finished on 5 September.
But AFP reporters have seen homes on fire in the days since then, while multiple testimonies from refugees arriving in Bangladesh suggest such operations have continued.
Without blaming any group, Suu Kyi promised to punish anyone found guilty of abuses "regardless of their religion, race or political position".
And she insisted Rakhine was not a state in flames, saying: "More than 50 percent of the villages of Muslims are intact."
Around 170 Rohingya villages have been razed, the government admits. Rights groups say satellite evidence shows the damage is more widespread.
While stories of weary and hungry Rohingya have dominated global headlines, there is little sympathy for them among Myanmar's Buddhist majority.
Around 30,000 ethnic Rakhine Buddhists as well as Hindus have also been displaced - apparent targets of the 25 August attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army.
Loathing for the Rohingya has brought the public, including pro-democracy activists, into an unlikely alignment with an army that once had them under its heel.
Suu Kyi's speech was warmly welcomed in Myanmar, even though no Burmese subtitles were provided.
"She told the real situation to the world on behalf of Myanmar people," Yu Chan Myae told AFP.
A humanitarian crisis is unfolding on the border between Burma (also known as Myanmar) and Bangladesh. Over the last three weeks, nearly 400,000 Burmese Rohingya have fled the country, driven out by the devastating violence unleashed upon them by the military. Their stories are horrific: parents slaughtered in front of their children, systematic rape and sexual torture, wholesale destruction of villages. Aid and advocacy groups describe the rate of population displacement as unprecedented and the human misery among the refugees as unparalleled.
The violence is shocking, but at the same time it is entirely unsurprising. For the past three years, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Early Warning Project has identified Burma as one of the top three countries most at risk for a mass atrocity. Other researchers argued as early as 2015 that a genocidal campaign was already underway. With such clear indications that a crisis was coming, why did the world fail to protect the Rohingya?
The question is all the more pressing because in 2005, the member states of the United Nations endorsed the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework, which obligates the international community to protect civilians from mass atrocities when their governments are “unwilling or unable” to keep them safe. R2P was borne out of collective guilt over the mass slaughter of civilians in Rwanda and Bosnia and promised a new era of “timely and decisive” atrocity response. In pursuit of this goal, early warning efforts to identify the precursors of mass atrocities became a focus for both international and stateactors.
But if the Rohingya crisis has revealed anything, it’s that early warnings were never going to be enough to prevent genocide. There are still observers who question whether what is happening is genocide at all, arguing that Burma is expelling the Rohingya rather than exterminating them. But the question hinges on intent, not scale. The mass slaughter of civilian members of a minority group by state forces is a crime against humanity. It may also be genocide if committed with the goal of destroying that group “in whole or in part.” And, practically speaking, the distinction doesn’t matter — neither for the Rohingya, who are being subjected to a brutal and systematic attack whatever the motive, nor for the international community, whose options and obligations in the face of mass atrocity do not depend on the name of the crime.
Called “the world’s most persecuted minority,” the Muslim Rohingya have suffered decades of discrimination and abuse at the hands of their Buddhist neighbors and the Burmese security forces. Although the Rohingya have lived in Burma’s western Rakhine state since the era of British colonial rule, Burma does not recognize their citizenship and insists that they are illegal migrants from Bangladesh. As a result of this deprivation of nationality, they have been systematically discriminated against and denied access to state services.
The Rohingya’s precarious legal status has made them particularly vulnerable to violence from other groups. In 2012, when ethnic riots erupted between Muslims and Buddhists in Rakhine state, 100,000 Rohingya fled their homes. Human rights groups documented the collusion of state forces in the violence, suggesting that the Rohingya’s subsequent forced relocationto squalid displacement camps and urban ghettos in the name of security was part of a deliberate plan to restrict their freedom of movement. In 2015, another alarm bell rang: The situation in the camps had become so dire that thousands of Rohingya boarded unsafe vessels on the Andaman Sea. An international crisis ensued when, in the face of the unprecedented numbers seeking asylum, Burma’s neighboring countries began turning back the boats.
When Rohingya insurgents attacked several border posts in October 2016, the government responded with unrestrained fury. Openly invoking the hate speech propagated by militant Buddhist monks, government officials have characterized the Rohingya as “dirty,” terrorists, and liars. By November 2016, human rights groups were warning that the military was systematically employing extrajudicial killings, torture, and sexual violence against the civilian population in the name of counterinsurgency.
And in February 2017, a U.N. report concluded that the so-called “clearance operations” likely amounted to crimes against humanity. The violence, already severe, escalated sharply following the deaths of 12 security officers on Aug. 25. In response, the military launched an all-out attack on the Rohingya. Credible estimates suggest that over a third of the Rohingya population has fled. Thousands more attempt to cross the border into Bangladesh every day.
The plight of the Rohingya suggests that early warnings of the sort promised by the doctrine of R2P do little to prevent atrocities against vulnerable groups. The high risk of mass atrocities was clear from the escalating communitarian violence, the documented uptick in online hate speech beginning in 2012, and the tightening of official restrictions on the Rohingya’s movement and activities.
And the Rohingya are not the only post-R2P victims of long-telegraphed mass atrocities. In 2009, Sri Lanka slaughtered tens of thousands of Tamil civilians in the final phase of its war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The bloodbath was neither sudden nor unpredictable. The security forces had committed systematic abuses throughout the conflict and had expelled aid workers and journalists from the field of combat in late 2008. More recently, South Sudan’s descent into violence and anarchy was preceded by the breakdown of a power-sharing agreement and rumors of ethnic militias forming. In both cases, the threat of atrocities was clear, yet the international community took no action to prevent them.
These examples underscore the fact that a lack of advance notice is not the critical obstacle to action on mass atrocities. It’s politics. Many powerful countries are reluctant to permit action that impinges on another state’s sovereignty, lest the precedent be used against them later. This is particularly true for countries (like China, India, and Russia) fighting insurgencies within their own territory. And for those who lack these disincentives, the costs of action may still present a barrier. International actors are aware that humanitarian interventions are rarely simple exercises and often presage long-term commitments. And in the aftermath of the Libyan intervention, where R2P was explicitly invoked, they are particularly wary of the potential for making a bad situation worse.
Early warning has not saved the Rohingya because it can’t offset the countervailing interests or cooperation challenges that make preventing or halting mass atrocities difficult. And unfortunately, these dynamics are particularly pronounced in the present crisis. The Burmese government, including its Nobel Peace laureate civilian leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, has made a concerted push to brand the Rohingya as Islamic militants. Tapping into international counter-terrorism narratives simultaneously bolsters the legitimacy of the military operation against the Rohingya and undermines their status as innocent civilian victims of state abuse.
Additionally, the international community is already struggling to respond to mass atrocities elsewhere, most prominently in Syria, but also in the often-overlooked wars in Yemen, the Central African Republic, and South Sudan. In tandem, these two factors mean that the Rohingya are in competition with other atrocity victims for attention and assistance — and the terrorism allegations, however far-fetched, may make them appear comparatively less deserving.
Finally, the fact that the attacks on the Rohingya are taking place against the backdrop of a singularly apathetic U.S. administration further reduces the likelihood of intervention on their behalf. Under President Trump, the U.S. has removed human rights conditions on arms sales, gutted the State Department’s human rights and democracy promotion mission, and threatened to withdraw from the U.N. Human Rights Council.
However vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy the United States has been in the past, its rhetorical commitment to human rights and willingness to exert pressure has provided a constraint on repressive states that seek the support of the West. But a world in which the United States openly ignores human rights constitutes a permissive environment for the commission of atrocities. Burma knows this, and it has seized the opportunity to finally rid itself of the Rohingya with little risk of interference.
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Key cotton producing regions in central India are set for a recovery in rainfall levels, the country’s weather office chief told Reuters on Tuesday, easing concerns for farmers who are betting on the fibre amid rising demand.
Overall rainfall in the country since June 1 is 6 percent below the long-term average, according to data on the India Meteorological Department’s (IMD) website.
India’s weather office said in June it expected monsoon rains, which deliver about three-quarters of India’s annual rainfall, to reach 98 percent of the long-term average this year.
The monsoon, which stretches from June to September, is critical for India’s 260 million farmers because about half of their land lacks irrigation. Farming accounts for 15 percent of India’s $2 trillion economy and employs more than half of its 1.3 billion people.
The total area cultivated during summer was largely flat from a year ago at about 105 million hectares at the end of last week, according to farm ministry data, with cotton planting growing at the fastest pace as oilseeds and pulses planting slowed.
However, cotton producing regions in the under-irrigated states of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh have received below average rainfall, posing a threat to farmers who have increased planting of the fibre on the back of a surge in demand.
K.J.Ramesh, chief of the IMD, told Reuters this was set to change.
“There have already been signs of recovery,” Ramesh said, adding Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh would see a significant surge in rainfall.
Though rainfall in the drought-prone cotton producing regions of Vidarbha and Eastern Madhya Pradesh in central India is still below average, the degree of rainfall deficiency has come down this week.
Cotton output in India, the top cotton producing and second largest cotton exporting country, is directly linked to the monsoon, as over 60 percent of the area under cotton cultivation is rain-fed.
Demand for cotton produced in India received a boost after fierce storms in the United States resulted in top cotton buyers flocking to Indian markets.
Planting of the fibre had risen 19 percent as of Friday compared with the same period last year, farm ministry data showed.
Reporting by Sudarshan Varadhan; Editing by Mark Potter
Marc Bennetts in Moscow-Tuesday 19 September 2017 
By Jefferson Morley / AlterNet-September 18, 2017, 10:46 AM GMT
By Jefferson Morley / AlterNet-September 18, 2017, 10:46 AM GMT
BY SEPTEMBER 19, 2017
