UNP Sets Course For Solo Government, Shrugs Off Karu-Killi-Maithri Spoiler Efforts

author: COLOMBO TELEGRAPH-February 13, 2018 

The rank and file of the United National Party (UNP) and parliamentary back-benchers have pledged support to Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and urged him to form a new UNP government in the midst of moves by Speaker Karu Jayasuriya to position himself to take over the premiership with the support of President Maithripala Sirisena.

Sirisena, who had earlier pushed for Wickremesinghe’s resignation, had told a group of UNP MPs that he was willing to replace Wickremesinghe with Jayasuriya as the Prime Minister. Colombo Telegraph reliably learns that the attempt to foist Jayasuriya in the Prime Minister’s seat was pushed by his son-in-law and UNP MP Navin Dissanayake and Killi Rajamahendran, the owner of the Capital Maharaja Organization and a close confidante of President Sirisena. According to sources they had told Sirisena that Jayasuriya could muster the support of around 30 UNP MPs.

Rajamahendran has used his television stations to continuously attack Wickremesinghe. Even as the results of the recently concluded local government elections were being released Sirasa TV devoted a panel discussion to blame Wickremesinghe for the by then obvious defeat of the UNP.

UNP stalwarts as well as back-benchers and loyalists who agitated outside Temple Trees have argued that Sirisena has no right to talk about the UNP and its leadership since his party received just over 12% of the total votes cast. Colombo Telegraph reliably learns that the overwhelming majority of Parliamentary group and Working Committee members of the party concur with this position.

​This is not the first time that Jayasuriya has tried to oust Wickremesinghe. Various coup attempts against Wickremesinghe over the years have resulted in inglorious defeats.

One such attempt saw him bribe news websites to get political milage and position himself as the Common Candidate of the Opposition at the last Presidential Election.

On October 23, 2014, Karu Jayasuriya telephoned the Colombo Telegraph editor and offered him a monthly payment of Rs. 50,000 ‘in appreciation of the work that Colombo Telegraph does’. 

Jayasuriya did not state for how long this payment was to be made. The issue did not arise because the editor politely declined the offer. Furthermore, the editor reminded Jayasuriya that it was he who interviewed Jayasuriya when the latter first came into politics in 1995. At that point, Jayasuriya told the journalist that he hoped to work towards strengthening independent media. The Colombo Telegraph editor pointed out to Jayasuriya that his media entity functioned as an independent one and said he did not need any money.

Read More

Ex-DIG Vaas Gunawardena gets five years RI

Lakmal Sooriyagoda-Tuesday, February 13, 2018

The Colombo High Court yesterday found former DIG Vaas Gunawardena guilty of charges that he threatened to kill CID detectives in 2013.

Accordingly, former DIG Gunawardena was sentenced to five-year-Rigorous Imprisonment by Colombo High Court Judge Gihan Kulatunga.

Apart from the imprisonment, the accused was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000. However, the accused was ordered to be acquitted and released from five other counts including obstructing police duties.

While handing out the judgment against the accused, the High Court observed that the prosecution have proved the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The Attorney General had filed indictments against the former DIG former Western Province (North) DIG on charges of having threatened to kill CID detectives who questioned him over the killing of businessman Mohamed Shiyam.

In this case, the Attorney General alleged that, on or around June 13, 2013, the CID detectives, including ASP Shani Abeysekara, and, Special Investigations Division OIC, Inspector M.A.S. Ranjith Munasinghe, had received death threats, when Vaas Gunawardene was being questioned, at the CID headquarters, on June 13, over the killing of businessman Mohamed Shiyam.

In a complaint to the CID Special Investigations Division, ASP Abeysekara alleged that the suspect Vaas Gunawardena threatened them saying, “Shani,I am a murderer; you won’t be able to keep me inside forever. When I am out, see what I will do to all of you.”

Vass Gunawardena and six others were sentenced to death by the Colombo High Court for committing the murder of multi-millionaire businessman Mohammed Shyam in 2013 at Dompe. 

Israel sues Palestinian family for damage to vehicle that killed son

Ghneimat family sued for $28,000 to fix vehicle which ran over and killed 21-year-old Abdullah

Zeenat Ghneimat holds a large pendant she wears, printed with a photo of her son Abdullah (MEE/Akram al-Wara)

Yumna Patel-Tuesday 13 February 2018 14:30 UTC

KAFR MALIK, Occupied West Bank - Iyad Ghneimat's remembers the day her oldest son, Abdullah, was shot, run over, and left to die under an Israeli military vehicle near his home in Kafr Malik, northwest of Ramallah.

Nearly three years later, in January of this year, the Ghneimat family was sent a bill for $28,000 for damage caused to the vehicle.

Sitting in a living room decorated with dozens of pictures of Abdullah and posters commemorating him as a martyr, Iyad recounts the events of that June 2015 morning as if it were yesterday.

We pleaded with the soldiers... if it was one of theirs trapped under the vehicle, they would have got them out in minutes

- Iyad Ghneimat

It was about 4am and Abdullah, 21, was returning from work at a nearby chicken farm, as Israeli forces were conducting what they described at the time as "military activities".

"The neighbours came to tell us that an Israeli vehicle had flipped over and a young man was stuck underneath, but we didn't know who it was," Iyad told Middle East Eye as he held his youngest son, Abdullah's namesake, who was born a year and a half after his brother was killed.

Iyad, several of his family members and neighbours rushed to the scene, still not knowing who was trapped. "We tried for more than three hours to free him, but every time we got close the soldiers would fire live bullets into the air and sound bombs and tear gas at anyone who approached.

"We pleaded with the soldiers, telling them that if it was one of theirs trapped under the vehicle, they would have sent a helicopter and ambulances and got them out in minutes."

Israel soldiers move the vehicle that killed Abdullah Ghneimat in Kafr Malik (AFP)

It was only after the muezzin of the village mosque called out over the loudspeaker that the martyr was Abdullah Ghneimat that Israeli forces allowed Iyad's uncle to use his bulldozer to lift the vehicle, allowing residents to free the body.

It was then that Iyad saw his eldest son's body for himself - his head smashed and legs mutilated, and blood everywhere.

"The army and Israeli media first said that it was an 'accident'," Iyad said, "but later they claimed that Abdullah threw a petrol bomb at them, leading them to shoot him and lose control of the jeep."

For them, a vehicle is more important than the life of a Palestinian

- Zenaat Ghneimat

Iyad and his wife, Zenaat, insisted the petrol bomb was hurled from a rooftop where young men had been throwing stones at soldiers to push them out of the village that night - not from street level, where Abdullah was.

"Whether it was an accident or not, they did not just run Abdullah over, but they watched as we saw him bleed for hours, and left him to die," Zeenat said, clutching onto a pendant with a picture of Abdullah's face printed in black and white.

"Now, they have the audacity to tell us we should pay for the damaged vehicle? For them, a vehicle is more important than the life of a Palestinian.

"I told our lawyer, she can tell the Israelis that we will pay for their vehicle if they bring me my son back."

Graffiti depicting Abdullah Ghneimat as a 'hero martyr' is painted on walls, shops, and home exteriors across the village of Kfar Malik (MEE/Yumna Patel)

Seeking justice

About six months after their son's death, Iyad and Zenaat employed a lawyer and filed a suit against the Israeli soldiers who were driving the vehicle.

"At first, we tried to make our peace with it, that maybe it was just an accident," Iyad said. "But after seeing how many Palestinians were killed in cold blood when the violence started in October 2015, we thought 'no', Abdullah was killed deliberately."

After witnessing dozens of Palestinian men and women around Abdullah's age being shot and killed by Israeli forces in a series of alleged attempted attacks against Israeli soldiers, Iyad and Zenaat were determined to seek justice for their son.

"We didn't do it for money, you know, we didn't even ask for a single shekel," Iyad said. "We just want to send those soldiers to jail, so that what happened to Abdullah will not happen to any other Palestinian."

Iyad Ghneimat, 45, points to the spot where his son Abdullah, 21, was crushed by an Israeli military vehicle (MEE/Akram al-Wara)

Despite his unwavering sense of resolve, when asked if he had any hope for a fair trial, Iyad hesitated and let out a sigh.

"You know, not once in their existence have the Israeli courts given a fair and just trial to any Palestinian," he said.

"They kill our children, destroy our homes, and steal our land; we would be lying to ourselves if we say there was a real chance for justice."

For years, human rights organisations have supported sentiments such as Iyad's with countless reports and condemnations of Israel's excessive use of force against Palestinians, and the failure of the Israeli government to protect the lives of the Palestinians living under occupation.

They kill our children, destroy our homes, and steal our land

- Iyad Ghneimat

In 2014, Israeli human rights organisations B'Tselem and Yesh Din released a joint report saying that the Israeli "military law enforcement system is a complete failure."

"The figures show that the Israeli authorities are unwilling to investigate human rights violations committed by security forces against Palestinians," the report noted.

It highlighted that between 2010-2013, 2.2 percent of investigations opened into suspected criminal offences committed by soldiers against Palestinians and their property ended with indictments.

Israel's version of events in dozens of cases has been disputed by witnesses and rights groups who have denounced what they have termed a "shoot-to-kill" policy against Palestinians, many of whom did not constitute a direct threat at the time of their death, or who could have been subdued in a non-lethal manner.

Zenaat Ghneimat, 42, holds Abdullah, 14 months, in their family living room (MEE/Akram al-Wara)

'This is punishment'

When Iyad and his family were slapped with the countersuit demanding $28,000 in damages, while insulted, they were not in the least surprised.

"It is a known fact, that when you try to hold the occupation accountable for its crimes they will punish you even more, like how they are trying to punish us with this fine," Iyad said.

The Israeli Ministry of Defence told MEE that the family filed their complaint against the state "despite the fact that Ghneimat was killed after he threw a Molotov cocktail at an IDF jeep, causing the jeep to fall onto him."

In light of the damage that was caused to the IDF vehicle, the ministry has filed a countersuit."

- Israeli Ministry of Defence

"The ministry submitted a statement of defence to the court, stating that the event in which the plaintiff was killed constitutes wartime activity as defined by the law, and therefore the state is immune from prosecution in this event.

"In light of the damage that was caused to the IDF vehicle (as a result of the petrol bomb thrown by the plaintiff), the ministry has filed a countersuit."

For Iyad, the ministry's statement proved that the family was being punitively countersued.

"They showed that they are so upset that we filed our suit against the state, and for that reason they are fining us.

"If this is not the case, why didn't they fine us more than two years ago, when their precious vehicle was damaged?"

Palestinian teenager Ahed Tamimi's trial begins behind closed doors

Judge bans media from Israeli military court as trial of teenager filmed slapping and kicking soldiers starts

 Ahed Tamimi arrives for the beginning of her trial in the Israeli military court at Ofer military prison. Photograph: Thomas Coex/AFP/Getty Images

Oliver Holmes in Jerusalem Tue 13 Feb 2018 10.11 GMT

A teenage Palestinian protester filmed slapping and kicking two soldiers outside her home has appeared before an Israeli military court to face various charges including assaulting security forces, incitement and throwing stones.

Ahed Tamimi, who turned 17 in jail last month, arrived on Tuesday morning for the first day of what could be a months-long trial, in what has become a symbolic case in the battle for international public opinion.

The judge ordered a closed-door hearing and ejected a large group of journalists who had gathered at the Ofer military base, despite a request by Tamimi’s lawyer for the media to be able to observe proceedings.

Tamimi’s supporters say the incident in December occurred soon after she discovered Israeli troops had seriously wounded her 15-year-old cousin, who was shot in the head with a rubber bullet during a stone-throwing clash.

Arrested in the middle of the night and since denied bail, Tamimi could spend years in prison for what prosecutors argue was a criminal offence. She faces 12 charges, some of which date back to 2016.

Tamimi’s father, Bassem, said on Tuesday that he arrived at trial “with no good expectations, because this a military court, and it’s part of the Israeli military occupation”.

Tuesday’s preliminary proceedings were brief, with Tamimi appearing in a prison uniform with her hands and feet in restraints. The case was adjourned until March.

Some of Israel’s critics have said the case epitomises its brutal approach half a century after its forces captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem.

Tamimi comes from the village of Nabi Saleh, where regular protests from its several hundred residents have often ended with stone throwing. Since her early years, she has become an international poster girl for the anti-occupation movement. Rights groups have called for her immediate release.

“As an unarmed girl, Ahed posed no threat during the altercation with the two Israeli soldiers who were heavily armed and wearing protective clothing,” said Magdalena Mughrabi, Amnesty International’s deputy director for the Middle East and Africa.

“Yet again the Israeli authorities have responded to acts of defiance by a Palestinian child with measures that are entirely disproportionate to the incident in question.”

Hysteria over how the world perceives Tamimi, who comes from a family with a long history of both peaceful and violent resistance against the occupation, has spread across both societies.

The footage of Tamimi led to the teenager being hailed as a hero by some Palestinians, who saw her as standing up to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.

One senior Israeli official recently revealed he had asked a parliamentary committee to investigate whether the blond, blue-eyed Tamimi family were “real” Palestinians.

Some Israeli politicians have applauded the restraint of the two soldiers while others have demanded a heavy-handed punishment for what they see as a brazen attack.

“She is not a little girl, she is a terrorist,” said the culture minister, Miri Regev, before the trial. “It’s about time they will understand that people like her have to be in jail and not be allowed to incite to racism and subversion against the state of Israel.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report

Israel police recommend Netanyahu be charged with corruption: reports

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (AFP)

AP | Published — Tuesday 13 February 2018

JERUSALEM: Israeli media are reporting that police have recommended indicting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a pair of corruption cases.
The reported recommendations Tuesday night do not immediately threaten Netanyahu, but they are deeply embarrassing and could fuel calls for him to step aside.
For months, police have been investigating two cases. In one probe, Netanyahu reportedly received over $100,000 in gifts from Hollywood mogul Arnon Milchan and other wealthy supporters.
The other is over secret talks with the publisher of a major Israeli newspaper in which Netanyahu allegedly requested positive coverage in exchange for reining in a free pro-Netanyahu daily.
Channels 10 and 2 TV and the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz newspapers reported police recommended indictments in both cases. The attorney general will now review their conclusions and decide whether to file charges.
Netanyahu has denied wrongdoing.

Massachusetts activists defeat “deceptive” anti-BDS measure

Graffiti on the Israeli-built separation wall dividing the occupied West Bank city of Bethlehem promotes the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights, June 2014. Ryan Rodrick BeilerActiveStills

Nora Barrows-Friedman Activism and BDS Beat 13 February 2018

Activists in Massachusetts successfully pressured state lawmakers to stop a bill on 8 February that would have classified the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign for Palestinian rights as “discrimination.”

The bill requires anyone who enters into a contract with the state worth more than $10,000 to pledge that they will not refuse to do business with any person based on the person’s “race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, gender identity or sexual orientation.”

It has no chance of being passed this session as a key committee declined to advance it.

The campaign to defeat it was successful, Elsa Auerbach of Jewish Voice for Peace - Boston told The Electronic Intifada, “after the legislators understood that the framing of the bill was deceptive and posed a threat to the constitutionally protected right to free speech.”

The bill was endorsed by by the Jewish Community Relations Council of Boston, a communal organization that has an active Israel lobby wing.

Though the bill’s wording did not explicitly mention the BDS movement, the JCRC assured its supporters it would extend to the Palestinian rights campaign and prevent the state from awarding contracts “to those who boycott Israeli businesses and goods” manufactured in Israel, claiming the boycott is discriminatory against the “national origin” of Israeli business owners.

Legal groups point out that Massachusetts already has strong anti-discrimination laws, and that human rights boycotts do not constitute national origin discrimination.

As it offers no new civil rights protections, the bill’s real aim is to punish supporters of the BDS campaign, the groups assert.

Furthermore, it would violate the Constitution “if applied to deny state contracts to persons or entities engaged in BDS and will have a chilling impact on constitutionally protected speech,” Palestine Legal, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the National Lawyers Guild and Defending Rights and Dissent said in a joint letter to lawmakers.

More than 100 grassroots organizations – all members of the Massachusetts Freedom to Boycott Coalition – urged lawmakers to protect their rights to organize and use boycotts as a means of protest.
Lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union and other legal experts testified against the bill at a hearing in July.

“We are very pleased that our lawmakers understood the long-term implications of attempting to remove the First Amendment right to free speech through boycott action – a peaceful, tried and true expression of dissent,” said Sara Driscoll of the Alliance for Water Justice in Palestine.

The Jewish Community Relations Council of Boston conceded that it was “deeply disappointed” by the bill’s failure to advance, while reiterating smears against the BDS campaign.

Testing ground

By omitting overt references to BDS and adopting “anti-discrimination” language, the bill indicates that Israel lobby groups may be testing new ways to advance their goal of suppressing Palestinian rights activism.

Activists say that by intentionally muddling the arguments – insisting the bill was just about discrimination, while also pledging to their supporters that it was part of a larger anti-BDS strategy – the JCRC deceived lawmakers and lost support for the measure.

A previous bill, drafted with help from the JCRC in 2016, explicitly called on Massachusetts to create a blacklist of companies that boycott Israel.

It was introduced but failed to pass following advocacy by members of the Freedom to Boycott Coalition.

“The Jewish Community Relations Council and its allies overplayed their hand” with this latest bill, Cole Harrison of Massachusetts Peace Action told The Electronic Intifada on Monday.

“By asking the state legislature to pass a bill that strikes at free speech, they forced legislators to choose between supporting Israel’s occupation and supporting free speech,” he said, calling this bill’s defeat “a grassroots organizing success story.”

Anti-BDS measures have passed in more than 20 states, and federal legislation is pending in Congress.

However, activists feel energized by the recent ruling by a federal judge in Kansas who blocked enforcement of a state anti-BDS bill, acknowledging its constitutional violations.

Another lawsuit is pending against a similar bill in Arizona.

Auerbach said that the momentum from the Kansas ruling, along with legal support, compelling testimony from a range of experts and sustained pressure on lawmakers were key factors in last week’s victory.

She said the last thing state elected officials wanted – especially during an election year – “was to become embroiled in a contentious battle with grassroots organizations about the right to boycott.”

 Trump wants to slash food stamps and replace them with a ‘Blue Apron-type program’

White House budget director Mick Mulvaney explained on Feb. 12 how the Trump administration hopes to save money on food aid. (TWP)

By Caitlin Dewey February 12 at 6:57 PM

The Trump administration wants to slash food aid to low-income families and make up the difference with a box of canned goods — a change that Office of Management and budget director Mick Mulvaney described in a Monday briefing as a “Blue Apron-type program.”

“What we do is propose that for folks who are on food stamps, part — not all, part — of their benefits come in the actual sort of, and I don't want to steal somebody's copyright, but a Blue Apron-type program where you actually receive the food instead of receive the cash,” Mulvaney said. “It lowers the cost to us because we can buy [at wholesale prices] whereas they have to buy it at retail. It also makes sure they're getting nutritious food. So we're pretty excited about that.”

Mulvaney's remarks drew raised eyebrows from some critics, who accuse the Trump administration official of drawing an unfair comparison between the food stamp program, which delivers an average of $1.37 per meal to America's poorest, and a high-end meal kit that runs $10 per serving.

On Monday, the Trump administration proposed cutting food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, by $17 billion in 2019 and more than $213 billion over the next decade. The dramatic reductions came as part of a budget proposal that made sweeping, across-the-board cuts to popular safety net programs, including federal housing subsidies and Medicaid.

The White House's spending priorities for 2018 renege on President Trump's promises to lower the deficit and keep Medicare and Medicaid spending without cuts.(Video: Jenny Starrs/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

[Trump’s budget hits poor Americans the hardest]

But the administration's SNAP proposal was particularly striking, advocates and experts said, because it advocates a fundamental change to the program's administration. For the past 40 years, the Agriculture Department has distributed benefits as either paper coupons or virtual disbursements on Electronic Benefit Transfer cards, allowing recipients to use them as cash on foods of their choice and at their own grocery store.

But under the Trump proposal, which the Agriculture Department has dubbed “America’s Harvest Box,” all households receiving more than $90 per month in benefits — 81 percent of SNAP households overall — would begin receiving about half their benefits in the form of government-purchased, nonperishable food items.

Those foods would include shelf-stable milk, juice, grains, cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned meat, fruits and vegetables, according to the USDA. The department estimates that it could supply these goods at about half the cost of retail, slashing the cost of SNAP while still feeding the hungry.

“USDA America’s Harvest Box is a bold, innovative approach to providing nutritious food to people who need assistance feeding themselves and their families – and all of it is home grown by American farmers and producers," Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said in a statement. "It maintains the same level of food value as SNAP participants currently receive, provides states flexibility in administering the program, and is responsible to the taxpayers.”

It is this program that Mulvaney likened to meal-kit delivery service Blue Apron — whose shipments typically include fresh fish, meat and produce — earning the derision of some on social media. A spokeswoman for Blue Apron could not immediately be reached for comment.

“Hearing that the Trump Admin is selling this as the 'Blue Apron-ing' of SNAP. Um, no,” tweeted Chad Bolt, a senior policy manager at the progressive group Indivisible.

“With Blue Apron, you get to pick your meals and decide when they come. And it gives you all the ingredients you need to complete it,” echoed New York Times op-ed writer Bryce Covert. “Under Trump's plan, the government decides what you get and when you get it.”

Many anti-hunger advocates and analysts are equally skeptical of the proposed “food box,” which — if approved — would affect 16.4 million households. They say it's unclear how USDA would deliver the boxes and how much that would cost. Equally unclear is whether USDA would allot the same foods to, say, an elderly diabetic and a family with young children.

“It boggles the mind how that would play out,” said Kathy Fisher, policy director at Philadelphia’s Coalition Against Hunger. “We know SNAP works now, when people can choose what they need. How they would distribute foods to people with specialized diets, or [to people in] rural areas … It’s very expensive and very complicated.”

The proposal is also likely to enrage food retailers — particularly Walmart, Target and Aldi — that stand to lose billions if food stamp benefits are cut, analysts say. On Monday, the Food Marketing Institute, a trade association for grocery stores, condemned the Harvest Box proposal as expensive, inefficient and unlikely to generate any long-term government savings.

Ironically, that sort of criticism has also dogged Blue Apron, which saw its customer base contract in 2017. A recent report by the market research firm Datassential found that four in 10 lapsed meal-kit subscribers dropped their service because they were too costly.

As much as a third of the price per box goes toward shipping and logistics, which remain daunting, industry analysts told The Washington Post last June. Food policy experts expressed skepticism that the government could do better.

In a statement, Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center, described the proposal as a “a Rube-Goldberg designed system of commodity distribution via food boxes.”

"[It] will be administratively costly, inefficient, stigmatizing, and prone to failure,” Weill added. "[And it] will return the country to Depression-era anti-hunger approaches.”

 What Trump proposed cutting in his 2019 budgetVIEW GRAPHIC 

This story has been updated to include a statement from Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue. 

Defending America Means Defending Democracy

Which China and Russia on the rise, the United States leaves the field uncontested at its peril.

Chinese President Xi Jinping, left, and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, on March 22, 2013. (Sergei Ilnitsky/AFP/Getty Images) 

BY RICHARD FONTAINE, DANIEL TWINING

 | FEBRUARY 13, 2018, 12:29 PM

In its new strategy documents, the Trump administration identifies America’s central security challenge as the re-emergence of great power competition. China and Russia seek to “change the international order in their favor,” the National Security Strategy asserts, while the recent National Defense Strategy holds that they “want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model.” The administration rightly characterizes the contest as one of political systems as well as nations, and the implication is that America’s future security and freedoms hang in the balance.

The National Defense Strategy highlights the loss of America’s competitive edge in every military domain, as great power rivals continue making major investments in power projection. But our country’s response to the great power challenge must go beyond building a stronger military. It also requires doubling down on America’s support for democracy in the world.

The reasons are straightforward. Friends and allies add strength to American power. Existing and potential partners must be able to make their own strategic choices, free of Chinese or Russian coercion. They must be able to resist outside attempts to fracture their political systems, foster corruption and sow disinformation, or undermine elections and the rule of law. Internally riven countries have trouble projecting power effectively, and they make for weaker and less reliable security partners.

Today the dangers to many countries’ sovereignty and security come not from a United States that spent the last decade retrenching, but from what the National Endowment for Democracy calls “sharp power” — foreign influence operations designed to subvert democratic institutions for strategic advantage. Effectively contesting the new world of great power competition requires the United States to work with a panoply of strong and confident foreign partners. Active U.S. support for better governance makes countries more resilient in the face of pressure from revisionist powers.

Russia views western democracies as a threat to its security. Its answer? Weaken democratic practice in them. Hence Moscow’s combination of election meddling, propaganda, fake news, trolling, and other forms of subversion that polarize politics by pitting citizens against each other. Russia lacks the power to challenge NATO directly, but it has succeeded in sowing allied disunity. It was an early mover on this plane of competition against the United States.

Similarly, China now meddles in the domestic political affairs of countries as disparate as Australia, Greece, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and Zimbabwe. China’s Belt and Road investment scheme has imported corrupt and opaque deals to a host of countries, and its influence operations in countries including New Zealand and Singapore have prompted domestic outrage. Beijing’s political support for autocratic leaders in Africa has elicited local charges of a new colonialism, and China has moved to restrict free speech in countries with which it has close economic ties.

How countries are governed, and how that governance impacts their strength and their geopolitical alignments, matters — particularly in an era when America’s rivals are sowing discord aimed at weakening nations friendly to the United States and edge them away from partnerships with it. Strong democracies are far less likely to be coopted by China or Russia than are one-party states whose leaders are too often tempted to privilege personal gain over national interest. And as the United States competes for allies and friends, the strength of those partners will turn in large measure on the resiliency of their political institutions. It is precisely this fortitude that China and Russia are undermining.

The United States leaves the field uncontested at its peril. With Beijing and Moscow active, and amid what Freedom House describes as a 12-year decline in freedom around the world, it is time for Washington to renew its support for democracy abroad. This requires actively promoting the growth of liberal institutions and defending them against invidious assault.

American support for democracy and rule of law is often seen as the softer side of U.S. foreign policy: nice-to-have elements of a values agenda that should be subordinated to the hardheaded pursuit of security. But done right, these approaches work in tandem, giving the United States a competitive edge its adversaries lack. A world of fewer democracies — in more disarray, adding less weight to U.S. power and under siege from revisionist autocracies — is not only offensive to American values but dangerous to the security of the American people.

As the administration’s new strategies prompt needed discussions about how the United States should best compete in a world of great powers, there will be a natural focus on defense investments, military technology, economic growth, and multilateral security arrangements. This is good, but incomplete. A program of strengthening and expanding the world’s democracies must be part of any successful approach to navigating today’s new geopolitical terrain.

UK judge refuses to stop legal action against WikiLeaks' Assange

Andrew MacAskill, Estelle Shirbon- FEBRUARY 13, 2018

LONDON (Reuters) - A British judge refused on Tuesday to halt legal proceedings against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for jumping bail and fleeing to the Ecuadorean embassy in London in June 2012.

The ruling leaves Assange, 46, in a legal and diplomatic impasse, with no way out of the embassy where he has lived for almost six years, unless he decides to face the prospect of arrest by British police.

Assange said on Twitter he had three months to appeal the ruling, without specifying whether he would. He said the judge’s ruling contained “significant factual errors” which he did not spell out.

Australian-born Assange entered the embassy to avoid being sent to Sweden to face allegations of sex crimes, which he denied. The Swedish case was dropped in May last year, but Britain still has a warrant out for his arrest over his breach of bail terms.

His lawyers had argued that British authorities should give up on arresting him, on public interest grounds, but Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot rejected all their points and criticized Assange.

“The impression I have ... is that he is a man who wants to impose his terms on the course of justice,” she said in her ruling at Westminster Magistrates Court.

“He appears to consider himself above the normal rules of law and wants justice only if it goes in his favor.”

Assange has said all along that the Swedish sex allegations were baseless and the real reason for his legal troubles was the fact that he had published U.S. diplomatic and military secrets on WikiLeaks. He fears that handing himself in would lead to extradition to the United States.

Assange’s supporters regard him as a champion of free speech who has exposed government abuses of power at great personal cost. His critics seem him as a criminal who recklessly endangered lives in many countries by exposing secrets.

U.S. INVESTIGATION

Assange supporters hold a banner outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Britain, February 13, 2018. REUTERS/Peter Nicholls

There is no public record or evidence demonstrating any U.S. criminal charges are pending against Assange, but he and his supporters believe U.S. prosecutors could have a sealed, therefore secret, indictment against him.

A U.S. government official told Reuters on Monday that federal prosecutors were still pursuing a criminal investigation against WikiLeaks using a grand jury based in Alexandria, Virginia, a suburb of Washington D.C..

But Judge Arbuthnot said that should the United States seek Assange’s extradition, he would be able to challenge that in the courts by raising issues such as whether he could get a fair trial and whether U.S. prison conditions were acceptable.

“The courts would consider, with the assistance of Mr Assange’s lawyers and expert witnesses, whether he should be extradited,” she said.

The judge also said she had to take into account the impact on public confidence in the British criminal justice system should Assange be allowed to avoid a warrant for his arrest by staying out of reach of the police for years.

Assange’s lawyers had argued that his restricted living conditions in the Ecuadorean embassy, in a first-floor apartment in the affluent Knightsbridge district of London, amounted to severe and disproportionate punishment for breaching bail terms.

They said he had no sunlight and was suffering from depression, respiratory infections, dental problems and a frozen shoulder for which he could not get treatment.

Indonesian finance minister crowned Best Minister in the World

Indonesian Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati speaks during an interview with Reuters in Nairobi, Kenya January 25, 2018. Source: Reuters/Thomas Mukoya

By Max Walden | 12th February 2018

INDONESIA’S Minister of Finance Sri Mulyani Indrawati has been named the Best Minister in the World.

Responsible for helming the budget of Southeast Asia’s largest economy, the minister was presented the award by the UAE’s Prime Minister Shaikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum at the six annual World Government Summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates on Sunday.

“Under her mandate Indonesia achieved tangible results in reducing poverty, improving the standard of living, reducing public debt and boosting the transparency of public transactions,” said the awarding committee.

She was also recognised for her efforts to “fight corruption and increase transparency in government.”

SEE ALSO: Indonesia: Fisheries minister goes from strength to strength

Sri Mulyani has been Finance Minister since 2016 under President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo and was formerly the World Bank’s Managing Director. She previously served as finance minister from 2005 to 2010 and is credited with steering Indonesia though the Global Financial Crisis.

“The Indonesian economy now is much more resilient and that has something to do with a much stronger foundation of the way we manage the economy,” she told CNBC in an interview last year.

The selection process for the Best Minister award was undertaken by independent consultancy Ernst & Young based upon ministers’ leadership, innovation, the social and economic impacts and the scaleability of initiatives and policies.

Sri Mulyani Indrawati, Indonesia’s Minister of Finance, receives the Best Minister Award from Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, Prime Minister and Vice-President of the United Arab Emirates, and ruler of Dubai, during the World Government Summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates February 11, 2018. Source: Reuters/Christopher Pike

It aims to recognise “exceptional efforts of government ministers at demonstrating excellence in the public sector, implementing successful reforms and inspiring other government leaders and service providers to promote innovation within their domain, to better serve the needs of their citizens.”

Previous awardees include Senegal’s former Minister of Health and Social Action Awa Marie Coll-Seck in 2017 and Australia’s then-Environment Minister Greg Hunt in 2016.

SEE ALSO: Indonesia is brightest hope for democracy in Asean say parliamentarians, experts

According to the World Government Summit, poverty has been reduced in Indonesia by 40 percent in the past five years, while the country’s debt was reduced by 50 percent. 

Indonesian reserves, meanwhile, were at the “all-time high” of $50 billion, it said.

In a video posted to Facebook, Sri Mulyani dedicated the award to the leadership of Jokowi, the people of Indonesia and the ministry’s 78,000 staffers. “I hope this award motivates the Indonesian government to implement further reforms to prepare the young generation for a fast-changing world and technological advancement,” she said.

The minister has presided over Indonesia’s ambitious tax amnesty scheme, the Jokowi administration’s major investments in infrastructure and has “earned a reputation for toughness”, according to Bloomberg.

Sri Mulyani was last year recognised as Asia’s best finance minister by FinanceAsia and she was ranked at number 37 in Forbes magazine’s list of most powerful women in the world in 2016.