Demographics expert says No labour shortage in Sri Lanka Importing foreign workers will lead to tension

BY Rathindra Kuruwita-2017-10-09

What Sri Lanka has is a youth bulge, Professor Indralal De Silva, the current acting Executive Director of the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies, and one of Sri Lanka's foremost experts on demographics, claims, dismissing a popular belief that there is a labour shortage in the country.
Professor, you are one of the foremost authorities on Sri Lankan demographics. So let's start with a brief introduction on the characteristics of Sri Lanka's population? And how do you think it will expand in the coming decades?

A: The Sri Lankan population has changed dramatically in the last 30 - 40 years. Sri Lanka had its first national census in 1871, at that time the population was 2.4 million. However, by 1981 it was around 14.8 million. And by 2012, by our last national census, the number has risen to 20.4 million. So the size of the population has increased by almost 9 times since 1871.

The size of the population was a not a problem in the 19th and even up to mid-20th Century but by the 21st Century the Sri Lankan population has increased rather rapidly, creating certain strains. Although our growth rate is around 0.7 or 0.8, which is not much, I tend to argue that net additions are very significant. According to my latest population projection, from 2012 to 2060, by the 2040s our population will grow to approximately 25 million. This, in my opinion is a population explosion. We are a small country and our population density is already high, around 330 per square kilometre. Therefore this increase will lead to serious implications.

What has led to this increase?

A: The population increase is governed by three factors, i.e., births, deaths and international migration. We had a recent growth in fertility, per woman the fertility is about 2.4 on average. Along with that we are experiencing an increase in life expectancy (by 2012 female life expectancy is around 78 while the male life expectancy is around 72) this is another factor that has caused the population to expand.

Other factor is that in the recent past labour migration has declined significantly. Middle Eastern countries are cutting down on the number of people they hire, thus the number of annual migration has dropped by around 50,000 – 60,000. Moreover, during the civil war, a large number of people left the country and found asylum in Western nations. But after 2009 that migration has also dropped drastically. Moreover, now even professionals find it hard to find employment in developed countries because those nations are also facing internal pressure to reduce migration and invest more on native populations. Thus, all three factors, i.e., births, deaths and international migration, are positive for Sri Lanka and we have seen a spike in population numbers.

There is a lot of discussion on ageing population and its implications. Can you elaborate on that as well?

A: Of course, but there is something else I must mention. That is the change in the gender ratio in the country. In 1971, there were 106 men for 100 women in the country but now things have turned the other way. By 2012 the number of men for 100 women is 93. This trend will continue in the coming years, which has separate implications on the workforce and productivity.

And at the same time the population is ageing. In year 2012, the elderly population (60 years and above) was 12.4 per cent of the total population, if you go back to the 60s and 70s, the number was between 6 to 7 per cent. The growth in ageing population will be very rapid in Sri Lanka and by 2022 over 16 per cent will be over 60, and by 2042, 23 per cent of the population will be elderly.

That means there will be heavy dependencies. However, if the elderly can work in a productive manner, ageing is not going to be a problem but whether we can ensure such circumstances remains to be seen as the bulk of our labour force is engaged in agriculture in the non-organized sector.

If we can't manage this we will have severe implications. The current elderly population (2012), is 2.5 million, but by 2030s that number will rise to over five million. So the size of the elderly population will double. Since this is going to be a rapid increase, the required structural adjustments are not easy to make at the governmental, social or family level.

But isn't Sri Lanka supposed to be in the midst of a demographic dividend? A number of your papers suggest that our demographic dividend started in 1991 and will go until 2034? But you also suggest that the best part of that period will be over by the end of this decade?

A: In my work before 2007, I have shown that our demographic dividend started in 1991. So what is demographic dividend or window of opportunity for social and economic development? In the Sri Lankan population we had a high percentage of the people in working ages, and the proportion of dependents, i.e., elderly and the young, as a proportion of the population was not that big compared to the proportion of the working age population. Therefore, by the late 1990s and early 2000s I stated that we are in the era of demographic dividend.

As you said I am also arguing that demographic dividend will last up to 2034, however, if you take such a long period, it's obvious that there must be a most productive era or a peak. Although we all agree that the dividend will last till 2034, my idea is that the best part of this period will be over by 2019. So my argument is that Sri Lanka has not been able to make use of the best part of its demographic dividend.

Therefore, I tend to argue that we have missed the train but one must realize that the demographic dividend alone is not enough for economic and social development. Demographic dividend must be there but we also must have productive investment, productive savings, the labour force must engage in productive activities, political stability and skills. Even if we have productive investment, productive savings, the labour force must also engage in productive activities. Political stability and skills is doubtful.

So right now we should be at the peak of our demographic dividend but we hear a lot of complaints from companies and industrialists about the shortage of labour. How is this possible?

A: Yes, quite right, there many such complaints. Why is there a shortage of labour? That is of great interest to any demographer and we have identified a few.

For example, if we take female labour, out of 100 potential female workers only 35 are working. Moreover, all though the men work, there is a serious issue about the work they do. Very large segments of Sri Lankan youth are engaged in unproductive employment.

One may say that three-wheel driving is a productive employment, but I disagree. The main reason why there is such a high number of three-wheel drivers , and they keep on expanding, is that successive governments have not done enough to develop the public transport sector. In Sri Lanka we don't see an improvement in the public transport system and there is no will by the Government to address this issue.

Therefore, anyone who can afford to buy a motor vehicle tends to go ahead and purchase and those who can't afford to buy a vehicle, depend heavily on three-wheelers. There is an opportunity for youth to become three-wheel drivers and make some money.

If adequate attention was paid to developing the public transport system, there would have been no need for such a large three-wheel workforce and most of these youth would have been engaged in productive work.

A lot of people tend to think of South Korea, Singapore and China when they think about countries that used the demographic dividend well. But India who reached its demographic dividend period rather recently has also taken a long hard look at how to use its demographic dividend?

A: Yes, India has identified this factor very well and they are doing a lot of planning and execution. They are doing everything to capitalize their demographic dividend.

Now this can affect us in many ways. For example, there is a perception in Sri Lanka that there is a shortage of labour. Now our neighbour, that has a massive labour pool, reached its demographic dividend era only two years ago. Indian planners are knowledgeable about the demographic dividend and they know that a large number of youth are entering the job market. They are looking at finding jobs for these youth within India and in other parts of the world. Sri Lanka is one of their options.

Contrary to popular belief, what we have in fact is a youth bulge. But I have seen many heads of industries saying that there is a shortage but they are saying that because they don't know. But as demographers we know the reasons for this seeming shortage. The youth are there but they are not approaching these opportunities.

My worry is that this artificial shortage can be used by some elements and their proposed remedies might lead to conflict and tension. We need to look at sorting our labour needs internally.
In a situation of a youth bulge we need to be really careful because whenever we have had a similar situation we have had conflict.

Look at 71, 88/89 and the conflict in the North and East, these are results of a youth bulge. The educated youth found it difficult to find proper employment and we have seen what happened. If we don't tackle this youth bulge properly, we might end up facing a similar situation. The problem may further aggravate if we try to bring in foreign workers.

What are the implications of all this? Another major concern of population expansion and the lack of long-term planning is the damage on the environment, which in turn can lead to natural disasters and human health. You have been consulted on matters regarding demographics by everyone from the UN to the Megapolis Ministry, so can you tell me whether there are the plans to address these concerns?

A: The implications are obvious. We are going to add about 5 million in another few decades and already we are observing major problems in deforestation. Less than 100 years ago our forest cover was 80 per cent of the total land area. Now it is something like 25 per cent. And as the population grows more and more people will penetrate our forests for housing and agriculture. As a direct result of this we see an ever increasing human – elephant conflict, this is happening not because elephants are coming into human settlements but because we have gone into areas where they used to live.

In recent decades we have seen a significant amount of forests being cleared to make way for housing and cultivation. Those who settle in these new frontier areas believe that they can make a living by cultivating the fertile forest land and by selling the produce to those living in the city. However, most of their products are destroyed by elephants and ultimately we can't produce what is required for consumption. That is why we have become a country that imports food.

The population increase, environmental degradation, and urban-oriented issues will create a lot of tension and we need to get our physical planning right.
Rathindra984@gmail.com

It’s everyone’s responsibility to manage workplace conflict

Tuesday, 10 October 2017 

All personnel at every level of the organisation must accept that conflict is an inescapable part of their working life. Whilst most would view conflict in a negative light, handled well, it can also be a birthing ground for creativity and innovation.

A survey of managers and executives in some of Sri Lanka’s leading medium to large sized companies revealed that 40% always or frequently had to deal with conflict in the workplace whilst 56% dealt with it occasionally. Up to 80% of the conflicts, they encountered were between line managers and their reports or between different levels of management.

The question is not really if conflict can be evaded, but how can it be dealt with early on, so that its negative impacts, such as loss of morale and business productivity, do not spiral out of control.

Three of the most common conflict triggering issues reported were related to heavy workload and inadequacy of resources, followed by stress and personality clashes. Clearly these are all important issues, which if ineffectively handled, can soon mutate in to personal attacks, sickness or absence from work, incurring huge personal and financial losses. These same instances handled skilfully, however, can lead to positive outcomes, such as better understanding of others, improved solutions to challenges and major innovation.

The survey carried out by Oxford Psychometrics (UK) revealed that 93% of respondents believed that it was everyone’s responsibility to manage conflict effectively in the workplace and that it is a vital leadership skill. The survey also revealed that effective conflict management is thought to be better amongst the more senior and older employees.

However there was an undisputed view, exceptionally amongst senior executives, that professionally qualified young people with a ‘mediation mindset’, who can help others come up with win-win solutions to their problems, would make highly attractive candidates to their organisations.

[The writer is a Chartered Business Psychologist and an Accredited International Mediator. She is the founder of Oxford Psychometrics (UK), an Occupational Psychology consultancy that specialises in the development of Conflict Confidence Organisations.]

Prisoners get a full day to spend with loved ones

2017-10-10

We know life consists of both joy and sorrow. Our joy enhances when we spend time with our loved ones. Although it is so, everybody doesn’t get that precious opportunity to be so close to his or her loved ones every day. That’s because either they are far away from their loved ones in terms of distance or where the hearts are concerned. If someone, whom you love the most, isn’t close to you, you feel isolated or lonely.

Prisoners, who are branded as criminals, live a life of misery and anxiety. The focus of this story is on the prisoners who have been sentenced to death. They once made a grievous mistake in their lives, hence they were dragged into a wretched cell, a place where they have to live until their life ends. They surely regret what they have done, but their fate doesn’t allow them to put their lives in order. If anybody can do something, which would at least give them relief or bring a smile to the faces of those inmates, that’s indeed praiseworthy.   

We got to know of an event titled ‘Family Gathering’ which was organized in the Welikada Prison with the special permission of Commissioner General of Prison Nishan Dansinghe and the acknowledgment of the Superintendent of the Welikada Prison Chandana Ekanayake.   

Ekanayake told the Daily Mirror that according to the prison law, life term prisoners get only a few minutes per month to meet with their family members, but despite such an opportunity, most family members don’t use this time provided to them stating that this is insufficient. Therefore, a golden opportunity was given to 500 life term prisoners on September 10, to mark the Prisoners’ Day, so that family members could spend a day with prisoners and participate in a celebration.  

“Those who were very much rude and aggressive have now become really serene and polite as a result of the effective rehabilitation process in the Prison. It was really sensitive and pitiful to see how children were being fondled by their fathers and mothers, who have been sentenced to death. A tear came to my eye when I saw how they were sharing a meal with their loved ones,” Ekanayake said.  

A prosoner’s wife said that her husband had been in Welikada Prison for 18 years and she and her kids were delighted to have time with him. She added that she was absolutely thankful to the officials of the prison for organizing an event like this.  

“When my husband was imprisoned, the kids were too small, but now when he looked at them, they have grown up well. He told me that he was unfortunate not to see how his kids grow up. My two kids have told me that they would not get married until their father is released. I hope my husband would return after being released one day and continue the same life we had before,” she said.  

It is actually heartbreaking to hear such a statement from a courageous wife who really fathoms the reality of life.  

The superintendent said that he was rather astonished by the way  mothers, fathers, children and other relatives approached inmates without hating or mocking at them.  
It was lovely to see how one prisoner was resting his head on his mother’s lap. This scene just underscored how much a mother loves a son.   

She told that she had done all the hard work to bring up her son after the demise of her husband. However she said, while sobbing, that she could not prevent him from ending up where he is today.  

“We are extremely destitute sir. My husband was killed by his enemies when my son was an infant. Thereafter, I had to bear up all the sufferings and live with my son. One day when he came to know the slayers of his father, he wanted to take revenge on them in the same manner in which his father was slain. Then, he ended up behind bars,” the mother related a shocking story.  

She said that she hoped her son would return to her before she would close her eyes. She said that this was her last wish.  

“Although death is inevitable, events like these can be prevented if we use our brains. What matters is patience and courage. We have to be wise when taking certain decisions in our lives. Otherwise we will have to face similar situations like these,” Ekanayake said.  

There was a Ukraine woman who has been sentenced to death. Family members and her Sri Lankan friends had come to visit her. It was obvious that her friends and own family members from Ukraine have not abandoned her. That’s wonderful. 

 
A woman was seen embracing her son. Her melancholic face revealed the agony she was experiencing.   

The woman asked, “Does father take care for you my son?”. 

 
The son said, “Yes. He is the one who gave me money to see you. That’s how I bought food for you”.  

The woman said, “Does father come to see me son?”. 

 
The son said, “My step-mother doesn’t allow father to see you although he wishes to”.   
The woman said, “That doesn’t matter. Tell father that I am not at enmity with him. Have a good life with your father and step-mother. Theruwan Saranai”.   

That was a dialogue between a son and his mother, who is in jail for life. There is no need to exaggerate on the life she is living in prison. We heard that she was cursing herself saying that she is a sinner. Then we also noticed how her son consoled her by saying “I will never desert and forget you. You are my angel.” 

 
This writer feels that readers must be thinking of how unfortunate they (Prisoners) are to come to such a depressing state. Nevertheless, we noticed that the family members of those inmates didn’t utter a single word which would discourage or afflict them. It is noteworthy that the love and affection of parents, wives, husbands and children of these inmates towards them have remained unchanged.   

• When my husband was imprisoned, the kids were too small, but now when he looked at them, they have grown up well. He told me that he was unfortunate not to see how his kids grow up
• We are extremely destitute sir. My husband was killed by his enemies when my son was an infant. Thereafter, I had to bear up all the sufferings and live with my son. One day when he came to know the slayers of his father, he wanted to take revenge on them in the same manner in which his father was slain

Palestine’s disappearing cinemas

The projection room at al-Assi cinema.

Some in Nablus welcomed the demolition of al-Assi, considering it wasted space in the city center, while others, particularly those who used to watch movies there, have expressed sadness over its demise.

Ahmad Al-Bazz-9 October 2017

One by one, Palestine’s classic cinemas are being erased.

Municipal bulldozers razed Nablus’ al-Assi cinema in late June after the abandoned property was purchased from its owners.

It was the second Palestinian cinema in the West Bank to be demolished in less than a year, after Cinema Jenin was razed last December.

Al-Assi, which opened in the early 1950s, was shuttered during the first intifada in 1987 and reopened a decade later. A few years later, during the second intifada, it closed for good.

There are currently only two dedicated cinemas in continuous operation in Palestinian cities in the West Bank – Cinema City, opened in Nablus in 2009, and Palestine Tower, opened in Ramallah in 2014.

Other cinemas throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been shuttered – some of them demolished – and others turned into wedding halls or garages. Some Palestinian cities have never had a proper movie theater.

The golden age of Palestinian movie-going peaked during the first half of the last century. Before the dispossession of Palestine and the declaration of the state of Israel in 1948, cities like Jaffa, Haifa, Akka and Jerusalem were famous for their cinemas that symbolized modernity.

Ahmad Al-Bazz is an award-winning journalist, photographer and documentary filmmaker based from Palestine and a member of the Activestills collective.

Read More

'A regional power': How fighting Assad's war transformed Hezbolla

The group has gained extensive battlefield experience in Syria, and it claims it is prepared for another war with Israel if necessary

Members of the Hezbollah scout movement hold portraits of fighters killed while fighting in Syria at a religious event in the southern Lebanese city of Nabatieh on 4 October 2017 (AFP)

Ali Harb-Monday 9 October 2017

It was formed as a resistance group against Israel, and operated on the country's southern borders. But after years of war in Syria, hardened by battle experience and holding new territory, Hezbollah in 2017 is a wholly different beast.

'A regional power' How fighting Assad's war transformed Hezbolla.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Secret trials of thousands of Boko Haram suspects to start in Nigeria

Unprecedented series of mass trials of more than 2,300 suspected Islamist militants will take place in military facilities

 Nigerian soldiers patrol in the central state of Niger, where about 1,670 Boko Haram detainees are being held at a base in Kainji. Photograph: EPA

Jason BurkeAfrica correspondent-Monday 9 October 2017 

More than 2,300 suspected Islamist militants are expected to appear in court in Nigeria from Monday in an unprecedented series of mass trials that local authorities hope will be seen as evidence of progress in the fight against Boko Haram, one of Africa’s most resilient insurgencies.

All the defendants have been detained since Boko Haram, which means “no to western education”, launched its campaign eight years ago.

The conflict has left at least 20,000 dead in the country’s remote north-east and destabilised a swath of west Africa, displacing millions of people.

But analysts say the trials – which will be held in secret and will see four judges deal with hundreds of cases each – raise serious concerns and could undermine the fight against the group.

“Does the judiciary have the capacity to give so many people charged with very serious offences a fair trial? Have the authorities really captured a quarter of their combat strength? Are they taking into account the fact that a lot of those who committed violence for Boko Haram did so under duress? All these are red flags and very concerning in terms of the broader strategy,” said Ryan Cummings, a South Africa-based expert.

No media reporting of the hearings, which will be held in military facilities, is to be allowed. Umar Ado, a defence lawyer based in Kano, Nigeria’s largest northern city, said that was “as good as denying the public the right to know how the trial is carried out”.

He added: “It sends the wrong signal that justice is not served or the process is compromised.”
Nigeria’s justice ministry announced the start of the trials at the end of last month, saying judges had been assigned and that defendants would have legal representation.

About 1,670 detainees held at a military base in Kainji, in the central state of Niger, will be tried first followed by 651 others held at the Giwa barracks in Maiduguri, capital of the northeastern state of Borno.

Matthew Page, a former US state department analyst and a specialist on Nigeria, said the process was positive but only a “very small step”, as many of the detainees had been held in custody for years without access to a lawyer or ever having appeared before a judge.

To what extent those on trial are actually connected to the group is also unclear. “There are good reasons to believe that large numbers of the detainees have very little or no connection at all to the group,” said Page.


 An image from a video released by Boko Haram in 2014. The conflict has left at least 20,000 dead in Nigeria’s remote north-east. Photograph: AP

Amnesty International said in a damning June 2015 report that more than 20,000 people had been arbitrarily arrested as part of the fight against Boko Haram.

Intelligence agencies estimate the group’s fighting strength at about 6,000.

To date, only 13 suspected Boko Haram militants have been put on trial, with nine convicted for their links to the Islamist insurgency, according to official figures.

The most high-profile current case is that of Khalid al-Barnawi, a leader of the Boko Haram offshoot Ansaru, who is charged with the abduction and murder of 10 foreign nationals.

Boko Haram is nominally aligned with the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, but the exact loyalty of its various factions and leaders is often unclear.

The group provoked international outrage by kidnapping more than 200 schoolgirls, known as the Chibok girls, in April 2014.

Nigeria’s military last year wrested back large swaths of territory from the group. But since April Boko Haram has killed nearly 400 people in a spate of suicide bombings, often using women and children – double the figure of the previous five months.

There have been questions about the ability of Nigeria’s justice system to handle so many cases at once and even of simple procedural details such as whether defendants will be tried on their own or together.

Last week a spokesman blamed delays in prosecution on poor investigation techniques such as lack of forensic evidence, over-reliance on confessions and logistical problems.

In recent years thousands of people detained by the military in sweeps through areas hit by the insurgency have been released without charge.

On Saturday the Nigerian army handed over 750 Boko Haram suspects arrested by soldiers to the Borno state government for “rehabilitation and reintegration”. Officials said the men were “cleared of suspicion after being interrogated”.

Amnesty also highlighted appalling conditions at military detention facilities and claimed at least 1,200 people had been summarily killed and 7,000 died in custody since 2011.

A recent UN report into recruitment to violent extremist organisations in Africa, including Boko Haram, concluded that “state security-actor conduct is ... a prominent accelerator of recruitment, rather than the reverse”.

Nobel Peace Prize winners snubbed by Australia’s prime minister

Protesters demonstrate against leaders who possess nuclear weapons in Central Park, New York on July 4, 2017. Source: Ralf Schlesener / ICAN

By Max Walden | 9th October 2017

AN AUSTRALIAN-founded international campaign to ban nuclear weapons has been awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize, however, the country’s prime minister has not publicly congratulated the organisation.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) – which began in Australia, was officially launched in Vienna ten years ago and only has a few paid staff – was awarded the prize on Friday for its pivotal role in achieving the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons adopted by the United Nations on July 7 this year.

The Nobel Committee said that ICAN was recognised “for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons.”

Join us in congratulating the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)! Just awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize. @nuclearban pic.twitter.com/TsHWqxdrMy

— The Nobel Prize (@NobelPrize) 6 October 2017

The Nobel Prize‏Verified account @NobelPrize

Join us in congratulating the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)! Just awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize. @nuclearban

The prize – accompanied by US$1.4 million to continue campaigning for nuclear disarmament – comes at a time where a war of words between North Korea and Donald Trump’s administration threatens the outbreak of nuclear conflict.

A spokesperson for ICAN, Gem Romuld, told Asian Correspondent that the organisation will use the funds to “boost efforts worldwide to achieve the signatures and ratifications of nations who have not yet joined” the treaty.

SEE ALSO: North Korea urged to opt for peace amid ‘extreme’ danger of nuclear war

(From left) Fihn, coordinator Daniel Hogsta, and member of the steering committee Grethe Ostern attend a news conference after ICAN won the Nobel Peace Prize 2017, on Oct 6, 2017 in Geneva, Switzerland. Source: Reuters/Denis Balibouse

Along with powers that possess nuclear weapons including China, India, North Korea and the United States, Australia did not participate in the talks earlier this year that led to 122 nations backing the treaty. Most NATO countries also boycotted it.

Australia’s close ally the US argues that it is too unsafe for western powers not to possess nuclear arms. This likely explains why days after the awarding, ICAN is yet to receive even a phone call from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

“He may not support our work in helping achieve this treaty and a world free of nuclear weapons. As the first Australian-born organisation to win the Prize, this is disappointing,” said Romuld.

“Signing the Treaty would help Australia comply with its obligations to pursue nuclear disarmament under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

In a statement released over the weekend after receiving the Nobel Prize, ICAN said that “the treaty categorically outlaws the worst weapons of mass destruction and establishes a clear pathway to their total elimination.”

SEE ALSO: Will North Korea sell its nuclear technology?

“By harnessing the power of the people, we have worked to bring an end to the most destructive weapon ever created – the only weapon that poses an existential threat to all humanity.”

Just ten minutes out from awarding the prestigious award, the head of the Norwegian Nobel Institute Olav Njølstad called ICAN executive director Beatrice Fihn to inform her of the news.

Asked what her response was, Fihn reacted: “Shock! Um, well this is amazing. I’m shaking.

 Wow, what an honour. I feel like I have to collect myself for a moment,” she said, before taking to Twitter to post “This. Is. Surreal.”

Protest at Australian foreign ministry in Canberra, Australia, on Sept 20, 2017. Source: ICAN

SEE ALSO: What would happen if a North Korean missile hit Japan?

Later interviewed by Nobel Media, Fihn said that “the Cold War is over a long time ago, we can no longer accept these weapons and I think that perspective has really mobilised a new generation of campaigners.”

Regarding the treaty, Dihn commented that “it stigmatises nuclear weapons. It declares under international law that these weapons are unacceptable and now illegal as well.”

Being awarded the Nobel Prize would “change everything” for ICAN, she said, in that up until now they had been ignored by mainstream media.

“This award shines a needed light on the path the ban treaty provides towards a world free of nuclear weapons. Before it is too late, we must take that path,” ICAN’s statement added.

Russia, China call for restraint after Trump comment on North Korea

OCTOBER 9, 2017

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia and China called for restraint on North Korea on Monday after U.S. President Donald Trump warned over the weekend that “only one thing will work” in dealing with Pyongyang, hinting that military action was on his mind.

When asked what Russia made of Trump’s comments, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told a reporters on a conference call:

“Moscow has called and continues to call on the parties involved in the conflict and on those who have anything to do with this issue to exercise restraint and to avoid any steps that would only worsen the situation.”

Commenting on a Trump statement that the United States might withdraw from a nuclear deal with Iran, Peskov said such a move would have “negative consequences.”

RELATED COVERAGE

• Moscow says escalation of tension on Korea peninsula unacceptable

In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying repeated China’s position that all parties exercise restraint, describing the situation as extremely complex and serious.

China hopes all sides do nothing to irritate each other or worsen the problem and speak and act cautiously, she told a daily news briefing.

In recent weeks, North Korea has launched two missiles over Japan and conducted its sixth nuclear test, all in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions, and may be fast advancing toward its goal of developing a nuclear-tipped missile capable of hitting the U.S. mainland.

Trump repeatedly has made clear his distaste for dialogue with North Korea. Last week, he dismissed the idea of talks as a waste of time, a day after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Washington was maintaining open lines of communication with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s government.

“Our country has been unsuccessfully dealing with North Korea for 25 years, giving billions of dollars & getting nothing. Policy didn’t work!” the U.S. president said in a Twitter post on Monday.

Trump’s comments seemed to further suggest that military action was on his mind.

On Saturday, Trump made a similar comment on Twitter about how negotiations have failed for 25 years and said “only one thing will work” with North Korea.

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Monday told the U.S. Army to be ready with military options on North Korea, but emphasized that efforts to deal with Pyongyang were being led diplomatically.

“There is one thing the U.S. Army can do and that is you have got to be ready to ensure that we have military options that our President can employ if needed,” Mattis said in a speech at an annual U.S. Army conference.

“We currently are in a diplomatically led effort and how many times have you seen the U.N. Security Council vote unanimously, now twice in a row, to impose stronger sanctions on North Korea,” Mattis said.

Newly disclosed email sheds light on Trump Jr. meeting with Russian lawyer

 Details are slowly coming out about Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer during his father's presidential campaign in June 2016, including a newly disclosed email from the lawyer to a music publicist who arranged the meeting. (Video: Elyse Samuels, Jenny Starrs/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

By Rosalind S. Helderman October 9 at 10:00 AM

 A newly disclosed email sent on the morning of a Trump Tower meeting held during last year’s presidential campaign between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer raises new questions about how the key session came together.

The note was written by the Russian lawyer and sent to a music promoter who had helped arrange the session.

It could offer evidence backing up the Russian lawyer’s claims that she was meeting with Trump Jr. solely to discuss a 2012 law despised by the Kremlin that imposed financial sanctions on wealthy Russians as punishment for human rights abuses.

That is the version of events the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, has asserted in a series of media interviews since the New York Times first disclosed the Trump Tower meeting in July.

But her version conflicts with explosive correspondence released previously that shows the music promoter told Trump Jr. before the meeting that Veselnitskaya would bring damaging information about Hillary Clinton on behalf of the Russian government to help the Trump campaign.

A meeting between Donald Trump Jr., a Russian lawyer and others during last year’s presidential campaign has raised questions. (Kathy Willens/AP)

The newly disclosed email was provided to The Washington Post by Scott Balber, a U.S. lawyer representing Aras Agalarov, the Russian billionaire who hosted the Trump-owned Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013 and who had helped secure the Trump Tower meeting for Veselnitskaya.

Balber said he was releasing the new email from Veselnitskaya because he thinks it bolsters his clients’ claim that the Trump Tower meeting was not part of any Russian government effort to assist President Trump’s campaign, despite what music publicist Rob Goldstone had written.

The newly disclosed email shows Veselnitskaya wrote Goldstone on the morning of the scheduled meeting to ask if she could bring a “lobbyist and trusted associate.”

The lobbyist, Rinat Akhmetshin, “is working to advance these issues with several congressmen,” she continued. “He has invaluable knowledge about the positions held by the members of the Foreign Relations Committee that will be important to our discussion.”

At the time, Veselnitskaya was preparing to testify before the congressional committee about the law, the Magnitsky Act.

The email offers no conclusive evidence about why Trump Jr. accepted the meeting with Russians as his father prepared to accept the Republican nomination for president. Trump Jr. had reacted enthusiastically when told over email by Goldstone that Agalarov had met with a top prosecutor in Russia and been provided incriminating information about Clinton that the Russian lawyer would convey.

“If it’s what you say, I love it,” Trump Jr. wrote.

What you need to know about Donald Trump Jr.'s ties to Russia. (Thomas Johnson/The Washington Post)

Balber’s clients also include Agalarov’s pop star son, Emin, who is represented by Goldstone and asked Goldstone to set up a meeting. He also represents Ike Kaveladze, a U.S.-based employee of the Agalarovs. Agalarov denies that he ever met with a Russian prosecutor about the U.S. presidential campaign, as Goldstone wrote.

Balber said Veselnitskaya provided him with the email during an interview in Moscow last month, which he conducted to better understand how the Trump Tower meeting came together by speaking to the person who had first requested it.

“My clients have been implicated, in my view unfairly, in some theory that they were involved in an effort to influence the election campaign by providing some secret damaging information about Hillary Clinton,” he said. The documents, he said, are “consistent with what my clients have said.”
Veselnitskaya did not respond to a request for comment.
Balber said Veselnitskaya also provided him a detailed account of how she secured the meeting.
Her account began when she was extended an offer to testify at a June 14, 2016, congressional hearing about the Magnitsky Act by U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), an advocate of closer ties with Russia. The Post has reported that her testimony was ultimately scuttled after opposition from Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Edward R. Royce (R-Calif.).

Veselnitskaya has said she was interested in the Magnitsky Act issue on behalf of a private client. She was working closely in the United States with Akhmetshin, a Russian-American lobbyist who has been accused of having ties to Russian intelligence. He has denied any ties to the Russian government.

Veselnitskaya told Balber that she met with a series of well-connected Russians in early June 2016 to discuss her upcoming trip to the United States. One person with whom she met was Agalarov, for whom she had previously done legal work.

Veselnitskaya told Balber she did not seek a meeting with the Trump campaign but was “surprised and pleased” when Agalarov explained his business connection to the presidential candidate and offered to make a connection. Veselnitskaya told Aras Agalarov that she had in October 2015 provided information intended to undermine the U.S. law to Yuri Chaika, the Russian prosecutor general, Balber said. Balber said he believes it is possible Veselnitskaya’s statement resulted in a misunderstanding about the prosecutor’s role.

Robert Gage, an attorney for Goldstone, declined to comment.

By June 7, 2016, Goldstone had confirmed that Veselnitskaya and her translator were confirmed to meet with the candidate’s son, along with top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Two days later, Veselnitskaya sent the email asking if she could bring Akhmetshin.
Akhmetshin has previously told The Post that he was invited to the meeting at the last minute, after having lunch in New York City with Veselnitskaya, where she asked his advice on what to say. The newly released email shows Veselnitskaya asked Goldstone if the lobbyist could attend at 9:24 a.m., not after lunch, and that she wrote she had a signed a nondisclosure agreement with Akhmetshin.
Michael Tremonte, a lawyer for Akhmetshin, said that the lobbyist was invited to the meeting over lunch.

“He has no recollection of signing a nondisclosure agreement in connection with the meeting and was not aware of the communications between Ms. Veselnitskaya and Mr. Goldstone,” Tremonte said.
Natasha Abbakumova, Andrew Roth and David Filipov in Moscow contributed to this report.

The Rising of Britain’s ‘new politics’

Corbyn and Chave

by John Pilger-Oct 9, 2017
Oct 9, 2017

( October 9, 2017, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) Delegates to the recent Labour Party conference in the English seaside town of Brighton seemed not to notice a video playing in the main entrance. The world’s third biggest arms manufacturer, BAe Systems, supplier to Saudi Arabia, was promoting its guns, bombs, missiles, naval ships and fighter aircraft.

It seemed a perfidious symbol of a party in which millions of Britons now invest their political hopes. Once the preserve of Tony Blair, it is led today by Jeremy Corbyn, whose career has been very different from Blair’s and is rare in British establishment politics.

Addressing the Labour conference, the campaigner Naomi Klein described the rise of Corbyn as “part of a global phenomenon. We saw it in Bernie Sanders’ historic campaign in the US primaries, powered by millennials who know that safe centrist politics offers them no kind of safe future.”

In fact, at the end of the US primary elections last year, Sanders led his followers into the arms of Hillary Clinton, a liberal warmonger from a long tradition in the Democratic Party.

As President Obama’s Secretary of State, Clinton presided over the invasion of Libya in 2011, which led to a stampede of refugees to Europe. She gloated notoriously at the gruesome murder of Libya’s president. Two years earlier, she signed off on a coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Honduras. That she has been invited to Wales on 14 October to be given an honorary doctorate by the University of Swansea because she is “synonymous with human rights” is unfathomable.

Like Clinton, Sanders is a cold-warrior and an “anti-communist” obsessive with a proprietorial view of the world beyond the United States. He supported Bill Clinton’s and Tony Blair’s illegal assault on Yugoslavia in 1998 and the invasions of Afghanistan, Syria and Libya, as well as Barack Obama’s campaign of terrorism by drone. He backs the provocation of Russia and agrees that the whistleblower Edward Snowden should stand trial. He has called the late Hugo Chavez – a social democrat who won multiple elections – “a dead communist dictator”.

While Sanders is a familiar liberal politician, Corbyn may well be a phenomenon, with his indefatigable support for the victims of American and British imperial adventures and for popular resistance movements.

For example, in the 1960s and 70s, the Chagos islanders were expelled from their homeland, a British colony in the Indian Ocean, by a Labour government. An entire population was kidnapped. The aim was to make way for a US military base on the main island of Diego Garcia: a secret deal for which the British were “compensated” with a discount of $14 million off the price of a Polaris nuclear submarine.

I have had much to do with the Chagos islanders and have filmed them in exile in Mauritius and the Seychelles, where they suffered and grieved and some of them “died from sadness”, as I was told. They found a political champion in a Labour Member of Parliament, Jeremy Corbyn.

So did the Palestinians. So did Iraqis terrorised by a Labour prime minister’s invasion of their country in 2003. So did others struggling to break free from the designs of western power. Corbyn supported the likes of Hugo Chavez, who brought more than hope to societies subverted by the US behemoth.
And yet, now that Corbyn is closer to power than he might have ever imagined, his foreign policy remains a secret.

By secret, I mean there has been rhetoric and little else. “We must put our values at the heart of our foreign policy,” said Corbyn at the Labour conference. But what are these “values”?

Since 1945, like the Tories, British Labour has been an imperial party, obsequious to Washington and with a record exemplified by the crime in the Chagos islands.

What has changed? Is Jeremy Corbyn saying Labour will uncouple itself from the US war machine, and the US spying apparatus and US economic blockades that scar humanity?

His shadow Foreign Secretary, Emily Thornberry, says a Corbyn government “will put human rights back at the heart of Britain’s foreign policy”. But human rights have never been at the heart of British foreign policy — only “interests”, as Lord Palmerston declared in the 19th century: the interests of those at the apex of British society.

Thornberry quoted the late Robin Cook who, as Tony Blair’s first Foreign Secretary in 1997, pledged an “ethical foreign policy” that would “make Britain once again a force for good in the world”.
History is not kind to imperial nostalgia. The recently commemorated division of India by a Labour government in 1947 – with a border hurriedly drawn up by a London barrister, Gordon Radcliffe, who had never been to India and never returned – led to blood-letting on a genocidal scale.

Shut up in a lonely mansion, with police night and day
Patrolling the gardens to keep the assassins away,
He got down to work, to the task of settling the fate
Of millions. The maps at his disposal were out of date
And the Census Returns almost certainly incorrect,
But there was no time to check them, no time to inspect
Contested areas. The weather was frightfully hot,
And a bout of dysentery kept him constantly on the trot,
But in seven weeks it was done, the frontiers decided,
A continent for better or worse divided. ~ W.H. Auden, ‘Partition’.

It was the same Labour government (1945–51), led by Prime Minister Clement Attlee – “radical” by today’s standards — that dispatched General Douglas Gracey’s British imperial army to Saigon with orders to re-arm the defeated Japanese in order to prevent Vietnamese nationalists from liberating their own country. Thus, the longest war of the century was ignited.

It was a Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, whose policy of “mutuality” and “partnership” with some of the world’s most vicious despots, especially in the Middle East, forged relationships that endure today, often sidelining and crushing the human rights of whole communities and societies. The cause was British “interests” – oil, power, wealth.

In the “radical” 1960s, Labour’s Defence Secretary, Denis Healey, set up the Defence Sales Organisation (DSO) specifically to boost the arms trade and make money from selling lethal weapons to the world. Healey told Parliament, “While we attach the highest importance to making progress in the field of arms control and disarmament, we must also take what practical steps we can to ensure that this country does not fail to secure its rightful share of this valuable market.”

The doublethink was quintessentially Labour.

When I later asked Healey about this “valuable market”, he claimed his decision made no difference to the volume of military exports. In fact, it led to an almost doubling of Britain’s share of the arms market. Today, Britain is the second biggest arms dealer on earth, selling arms and fighter planes, machine guns and “riot control” vehicles, to 22 of the 30 countries on the British Government’s own list of human rights violators.

Will this cease under a Corbyn government? The preferred model – Robin Cook’s “ethical foreign policy” – is revealing. Like Jeremy Corbyn, Cook made his name as a backbencher and critic of the arms trade. “Wherever weapons are sold,” wrote Cook, “there is a tacit conspiracy to conceal the reality of war” and “it is a truism that every war for the past two decades has been fought by poor countries with weapons supplied by rich countries”.

Cook singled out the sale of British Hawk fighters to Indonesia as “particularly disturbing”. Indonesia “is not only repressive but actually at war on two fronts: in East Timor, where perhaps a sixth of the population has been slaughtered … and in West Papua, where it confronts an indigenous liberation movement”.

As Foreign Secretary, Cook promised “a thorough review of arms sales”. The then Nobel Peace Laureate, Bishop Carlos Belo of East Timor, appealed directly to Cook: “Please, I beg you, do not sustain any longer a conflict which without these arms sales could never have been pursued in the first place and not for so very long.” He was referring to Indonesia’s bombing of East Timor with British Hawks and the slaughter of his people with British machine guns. He received no reply.

The following week Cook called journalists to the Foreign Office to announce his “mission statement” for “human rights in a new century”. This PR event included the usual private briefings for selected journalists, including the BBC, in which Foreign Office officials lied that there was “no evidence” that British Hawk aircraft were deployed in East Timor.

A few days later, the Foreign Office issued the results of Cook’s “thorough review” of arms sales policy. “It was not realistic or practical,” wrote Cook, “to revoke licences which were valid and in force at the time of Labour’s election victory”. Suharto’s Minister for Defence, Edi Sudradjat, said that talks were already under way with Britain for the purchase of 18 more Hawk fighters. “The political change in Britain will not affect our negotiations,” he said. He was right.

Today, replace Indonesia with Saudi Arabia and East Timor with Yemen. British military aircraft – sold with the approval of both Tory and Labour governments and built by the firm whose promotional video had pride of place at the Labour Party conference – are bombing the life out of Yemen, one of the most impoverished countries in the world, where half the children are malnourished and there is the greatest cholera epidemic in modern times.

Hospitals and schools, weddings and funerals have been attacked. In Ryadh, British military personnel are reported to be training the Saudis in selecting targets.

In Labour’s 2017 manifesto, Jeremy Corbyn and his party colleagues promised that “Labour will demand a comprehensive, independent, UN-led investigation into alleged violations … in Yemen, including air strikes on civilians by the Saudi-led coalition. We will immediately suspend any further arms sales for use in the conflict until that investigation is concluded.”

But the evidence of Saudi Arabia’s crimes in Yemen is already documented by Amnesty and others, notably by the courageous reporting of the British journalist Iona Craig. The dossier is voluminous.
Labour does not promise to stop arms exports to Saudi Arabia. It does not say Britain will withdraw its support for governments responsible for the export of Islamist jihadism. There is no commitment to dismantle the arms trade.

The manifesto describes a “special relationship [with the US] based on shared values … When the current Trump administration chooses to ignore them … we will not be afraid to disagree”.

As Jeremy Corbyn knows, dealing with the US is not about merely “disagreeing”. The US is a rapacious, rogue power that ought not to be regarded as a natural ally of any state championing human rights, irrespective of whether Trump or anyone else is President.

When Emily Thornberry linked Venezuela with the Philippines as “increasingly autocratic regimes” – slogans bereft of contextual truth and ignoring the subversive US role in Venezuela — she was consciously playing to the enemy: a tactic with which Jeremy Corbyn will be familiar.

A Corbyn government will allow the Chagos islanders the right of return. But Labour says nothing about renegotiating the 50-year renewal agreement that Britain has just signed with the US allowing it to use the base on Diego Garcia from which it has bombed Afghanistan and Iraq.

A Corbyn government will “immediately recognise the state of Palestine”. But it is silent on whether Britain will continue to arm Israel, continue to acquiesce in the illegal trade in Israel’s illegal “settlements” and continue to treat Israel merely as a warring party, rather than as an historic oppressor given immunity by Washington and London.

On Britain’s support for Nato’s current war preparations, Labour boasts that the “last Labour government spent above the benchmark of 2 per cent of GDP” on Nato. It says, “Conservative spending cuts have put Britain’s security at risk” and promises to boost Britain’s military “obligations”.

In fact, most of the £40 billion Britain currently spends on the military is not for territorial defence of the UK but for offensive purposes to enhance British “interests” as defined by those who have tried to smear Jeremy Corbyn as unpatriotic.

If the polls are reliable, most Britons are well ahead of their politicians, Tory and Labour. They would accept higher taxes to pay for public services; they want the National Health Service restored to full health. They want decent jobs and wages and housing and schools; they do not hate foreigners but resent exploitative labour. They have no fond memory of an empire on which the sun never set.

They oppose the invasion of other countries and regard Blair as a liar. The rise of Donald Trump has reminded them what a menace the United States can be, especially with their own country in tow.
The Labour Party is the beneficiary of this mood, but many of its pledges – certainly in foreign policy – are qualified and compromised, suggesting, for many Britons, more of the same.

Jeremy Corbyn is widely and properly recognised for his integrity; he opposes the renewal of Trident nuclear weapons; the Labour Party supports it. But he has given shadow cabinet positions to pro-war MPs who support Blairism, and tried to get rid of him and abused him as “unelectable”.

“We are the political mainstream now,” says Corbyn. Yes, but at what price?