Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Saturday, February 17, 2018

The hackers, he suggested, may have been Chinese. Or some 400-pound guy sitting on his bed. Again and again, he insisted, Russian interference was a hoax — a fiction created by Democrats as an excuse for losing an election they should have won.

When Donald Trump finally acknowledged publicly that Russians had hacked Democratic emails and interfered in the 2016 presidential election, the then-president-elect immediately regretted it. He confided to advisers that he did not believe the intelligence. The last thing Trump wanted to do was to endorse the notion that his victory may have been caused by any force other than his own strategy, message and charisma.

“Russia talk is FAKE NEWS put out by the Dems, and played up by the media, in order to mask the big election defeat and the illegal leaks!” Trump tweeted last Feb. 26.

But Trump’s own Justice Department has concluded otherwise. A 37-page federal indictment released Friday afternoon spells out in exhaustive detail a three-year Russian plot to disrupt America’s democracy and boost Trump’s campaign, dealing a fatal blow to one of the president’s favorite talking points.

A Russia “hoax” this was not.

Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein announces the indictment of 13 Russian nationals and three Russian organizations Friday for meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The indictment — signed by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and announced by Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, both of whom Trump has at times mused about wanting to fire — reveals that the scope of Russia’s alleged efforts to help Trump defeat Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was extraordinary.

Even Trump seemed to partly concede the point Friday, acknowledging Russia’s election interference while still minimizing its effects.

“The results of the election were not impacted,” he tweeted. “The Trump campaign did nothing wrong — no collusion!”

John Brennan, who was CIA director at the time of the election, said on Twitter that the indictments reveal the extent of the Russian campaign. “Claims of a ‘hoax’ in tatters,” he tweeted. “My take: Implausible that Russian actions did not influence the views and votes of at least some Americans.”
According to the federal charges, Russian operatives spread pro-Trump and anti-
Clinton propaganda. They posed as Americans to coordinate and infiltrate political activities. They organized grass-roots rallies. They paid for a cage large enough to hold an actress impersonating Clinton in a prison uniform. They stoked racial tensions and sowed social discord.

“We have known that Russians meddled in the election, but these indictments detail the extent of the subterfuge,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a statement. “These Russians engaged in a sinister and systematic attack on our political system. It was a conspiracy to subvert the process, and take aim at democracy itself. Today’s announcement underscores why we need to follow the facts and work to protect the integrity of future elections.”

President Trump meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany, on July 7. (Evan Vucci/AP)

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, which has been investigating Russian meddling, said in a statement, “The indictment reaffirms what our intelligence community concluded, what our committee’s investigation has borne out, and what President Trump denies: that Russia interfered in our election in an effort to assist his presidential campaign and harm Hillary Clinton’s campaign.”

Mueller’s indictment came three days after the nation’s top intelligence chiefs warned in Senate testimony that Russia is targeting the 2018 midterm elections in a continuing effort to disrupt the U.S. political system.

But the intelligence community’s warnings have gone largely unheeded in the White House.
During the first 13 months of his presidency, Trump has rejected the evidence that Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy — something many in his administration regard as objective reality — and has sought to discredit the case that Russia poses a threat to the United States.
White House officials have said this is partly because Trump wants to forge a productive partnership with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin to tackle problems in North Korea, Iran and other hot spots.

Trump has never convened a Cabinet-level meeting on Russian interference and has resisted or attempted to undo efforts to hold Moscow to account, such as additional penalties imposed last August by Congress. On the National Security Council, there has been an unspoken understanding that the president would see raising the Russia matter as a personal affront.

Trump’s skepticism of the intelligence about Russian interference and his administration’s handling of the security threat were documented by The Washington Post in December, including efforts to explore the return of two Russian compounds in the United States that had been seized by President Barack Obama.

Trump’s doubts about Russia’s role in the election drew considerable attention in September 2016, at his first presidential debate with Clinton. Moderator Lester Holt of NBC News asked Trump about the hacking of emails from the Democratic National Committee.

“Who’s behind it? And how do we fight it?” Holt asked Trump.

“She’s saying ‘Russia, Russia, Russia,’ ” the candidate said, referencing Clinton. “But I don’t — maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia. But it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?”
Thus began the 400-pound-couch-potato theory.

It was not until January 2017 that Trump’s advisers persuaded him to acknowledge for the first time that he believed Russians were behind the cyberattacks. The leaders of the nation’s intelligence agencies had traveled to New York on Jan. 6 to brief the president-elect on their findings. And in the days that followed, chief of staff Reince Priebus, son-in-law Jared Kushner and other advisers prodded Trump to accept the findings. They argued that he could affirm the validity of the intelligence without diminishing his electoral win.

Trump scoffed at the intelligence findings, arguing that they could not be trusted, but he finally relented. On Jan. 11, in the lobby of Trump Tower, the ­president-elect held a news conference and said it once and for all: “As far as hacking, I think it was Russia.”

Afterward, Trump told aides that he regretted the comments, and he has since hedged his words when asked about Russian interference. In November, during a trip to Asia, he met with Putin and apparently discussed the issue. Trump told reporters that he believed Putin’s denials.
“He said he didn’t meddle,” the president told reporters. “. . . Every time he sees me, he says, ‘I didn’t do that,’ and I believe, I really believe, that when he tells me that, he means it.”

Trump’s remarks roiled Washington, and the president later tried to backtrack. “As to whether I believe it or not,” he told reporters the next day, “I’m with our agencies, especially as currently constituted with their leadership.”

Later that month, however, Trump was back to his old talking points. He tweeted on Nov. 26, “Since the first day I took office, all you hear is the phony Democrat excuse for losing the election, Russia, Russia, Russia.”

Putin’s chef, a troll farm and Russia's plot to hijack US democracy


Yevgeny Prigozhin, left, one of 13 Russians named in Mueller’s indictment, serves dinner to Vladimir Putin. Photograph: Reuters

David Smith in Washington @smithinamerica Sat 17 Feb 2018 14.18 GMT

Robert Mueller has revealed audacious meddling in the 2016 election. Can he link it to Trump?

The plot against America began in 2014. Thousands of miles away, in a drab office building in St Petersburg, Russia, a fake newsroom was under construction with its own graphics, data analysis, search engine optimisation, IT and finance departments. Its mission: ”information warfare against the United States of America”.

What followed, according to an indictment brought by the US special counsel, Robert Mueller, on Friday, was a stunningly successful attack on the most powerful democracy in the world. It involved stolen identities, fake social media accounts, rallies organised from afar, US citizens duped into doing Moscow’s bidding, and two Russians going undercover in a ruse reminiscent of The Americans, a TV drama about KGB spies in suburban Washington during the cold war.

Mueller also delivered an indictment, figuratively if not literally, of tech giants Facebook and Twitter for handing Russia a weapon to turn against the American people – one that Barack Obama’s administration was impotent to deflect.

In his first criminal charges related to election meddling, Mueller accused 13 Russians and three Russian companies of an elaborate effort to disrupt the 2016 presidential poll with a covert trolling campaign, aimed in part at helping Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton. After more than a year of statements by the intelligence community, congressional hearings and media reports, this hardly came as a surprise; but the extent of Moscow’s audacity and reach did.

Far from being all about Trump, it was clear that allegations of collusion form just one component of an ongoing, multi-layered investigation. Mueller was appointed special counsel in May last year, following Trump’s dismissal of the FBI director James Comey. He has been assailed by Trump, some Republicans and conservative media seeking to delegitimise him. But still he quietly, meticulously and relentlessly zeroes in from his leak-proof office.

Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally in South Carolina in 2016. Photograph: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

“The indictment is an indication of the scale of Russia’s interference but also an indication of the scale of Mueller’s investigation,” said Mark Simakovsky at the Atlantic Council thinktank, a former Russia specialist at the Pentagon. “From the beginning, Mueller had a broad mandate. It shouldn’t come as any surprise that the investigation has targeted Russians who have been on the ground interfering in the election.”

If, in the tradition of TV detectives, Mueller has a corkboard on which he pins photos of suspects, then on one side of the board he now has the faces of 13 Russians. On the other he has four men already charged: the former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, his deputy Rick Gates, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos. What is unknown is whether he will be able to draw a direct line between the two groups.

The unprecedented Russian offensive began in 2014 with an aim to “sow discord” and evolved, for still unknown reasons, into a concerted attempt to help Trump. Some of it relied on old-fashioned boots on the ground. Two operatives, Aleksandra Krylova and Anna Bogacheva, allegedly travelled as tourists through at least nine states over about two weeks in June 2014 to collect intelligence for their operations. They prepared “evacuation scenarios” in case their cover was blown.

This was combined with exploiting vulnerabilities in the anonymous, borderless world of social media, where agents of chaos thrive. Silicon Valley’s utopian fantasies were shattered by the Internet Research Agency, a “troll farm” based in nondescript offices at 55 Savushkina Street in St Petersburg. Allegedly operating through Russian shell companies, the agency employed hundreds of people, ranging from creators of fictitious personae to technical and administrative support, with an annual budget of millions of dollars, the indictment says.

Its specialists were divided into day shifts and night shifts to fit with the appropriate US time zones. The agency also circulated lists of US holidays so that specialists could be active accordingly. They were directed to create “political intensity through supporting radical groups, users dissatisfied with [the] social and economic situation and oppositional social movements”.


Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama on the presidential campaign trail in 2016. Photograph: Alex Wong/Getty Images

Russians posed as politically and socially active Americans, advocating for and against particular candidates, according to Mueller. They created social media pages and groups, and bought political adverts such as “JOIN our #HillaryClintonForPrison2016” and “Donald wants to defeat terrorism ... Hillary wants to sponsor it”. They relied on identity theft, using the social security numbers, home addresses and birth dates of Americans without their knowledge. They set up fake bank accounts linked to PayPal accounts.

“They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support [Democratic candidate] Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump,” the indictment states.

According to one internal communication, the specialists were told to “use any opportunity to criticise Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump – we support them)”.

In June 2016, just weeks after Trump officially clinched the Republican nomination, the Russians began to organise and coordinate pro-Trump rallies, recruiting and paying unwitting Americans. At a time when Trump supporters were chanting “Lock her up!”, one was asked to wear a costume portraying Clinton in a prison uniform at a rally in Florida, while another was asked to build a cage on a flatbed truck.

On 5 June, someone posing as an American activist used the Twitter account @March_for_Trump to contact an unnamed Trump campaign volunteer in New York. The volunteer “agreed to provide signs for the ‘March for Trump’ rally”, the indictment alleges. That contact came four days before Trump’s son, Donald Jr, and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, met a group of representatives for Russian interests at Trump Tower. That meeting is not cited in the indictment; it remains to be seen if Mueller will make a connection.

The accounts @March_for_Trump and @TEN_GOP – which falsely appeared to represent the Republican party in Tennessee – generated thousands of tweets. A selection made available by NBC News includes: “This is sickening. Hillary using the Mentally Ill to incite violence at Trump rallies. #FreeJulian #BirdDogging…”, “BREAKING Hillary caught using a child actor at her townhall in Haverford, PA Please, RT to expose this fraud!…”, “DISGUSTING Watch: Hillary laughing when Trump said gays get thrown off buildings in Muslim counties [sic] …” and “Watch: Barack Obama admits he was born in Kenya.. #birtherism”.

On or about 22 September, Russians created and bought Facebook ads for a series of “Miners for Trump” rallies in Pennsylvania – which turned out to be a crucial swing state that Trump won by 68,236 votes. The operation also targeted minority communities to exploit divisive issues such as immigration, religion and the Black Lives Matter movement, with a view to suppressing Democratic votes.

Twelve of the individuals indicted worked at various times for the Internet Research Agency. The other defendant, Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin, allegedly funded the conspiracy. Prigozhin is a St Petersburg businessman dubbed “Putin’s chef” because his restaurants have hosted the Kremlin leader and foreign dignitaries. The 13 Russians are not in custody and not likely ever to face trial.

The indictment does not allege that any American knowingly participated in Russian meddling, or that Trump campaign associates had more than “unwitting” contact with some who posed as Americans. Trump quickly claimed vindication, noting in a tweet that the interference efforts began in 2014 “long before I announced that I would run for president”. He added: “The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong – no collusion!”

But it’s far from over. Although the Russian interference predated Trump’s candidacy, there is still the possibility that his campaign decided to ride that wave and capitalise on a coincidence of interests. The president has shown a mysterious reluctance to criticise the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, or acknowledge that Moscow might have played any part in putting him in the White House. Even on Friday, he said little to acknowledge the scale of the assault or offer anything by way of American countermeasures.

Matthew Miller, a former justice department spokesman under Obama, said: “He’s acting more like a defendant than the chief executive of a country that was attacked. It continues to be all about him.”
Few would bet against more tremors to come. The indictment does not mention the hacking of Democratic emails, which then turned up on WikiLeaks. It does not mention the infamous Trump Tower meeting in June 2016. It does not mention the four Trump associates who are facing charges that range from money laundering to lying to the FBI about conversations with Russia’s ambassador. America, and the world, is waiting for Mueller to join the dots.

Simakovsky pondered: “Why did this get released before the president decides whether to take an interview with special counsel? All this is timed to build more public and private pressure on those who are being investigated. I believe there should be no comfort in the Trump administration that this somehow absolves them from inquiry.”

This Is What $1.25 Million Dollars a Month Bought the Russians

A birthday card! An all-American trip! Tweets! Stolen American identities!

Trump and Putin speak at an APEC meeting in Nov. 2017. (MIKHAIL KLIMENTYEV/AFP/Getty Images) 

No automatic alt text available.
BY -
 

On Friday, the Department of Justice announced criminal charges against 13 Russians for interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Special counsel Robert Mueller accused the 13 — plus three Russian entities, including the infamous Internet Research Agency “troll farm” — of carrying out a wide-ranging disinformation campaign that involved stolen identities, fake social media accounts, and even a bizarre White House birthday subterfuge.
The operation, according to the indictment, was backed by Yevgeny Prigozhin, otherwise known as “the chef,” a Kremlin associate who once served caviar and truffles to former President George W. Bush — and dished out trouble to U.S. domestic politics. Prigozhin is accused of using his companies, including Concord Management and Consulting and Concord Catering, to fund the operation.

The endeavor, at one point, had a budget of $1.25 million a month, allowing it to pay hundreds of operatives to engage in a surreal campaign meant to interfere in American democracy that appears to have been financed in part through a catering company (one that reportedly treats workers poorly, at that).

What did these undercover operatives do with the money?

The special counsel alleges their operations were intended to meddle in U.S. elections, including the 2016 presidential election, and to disrupt people’s faith in politicians and their own institutions. In practice, that meant creating false U.S. personas to operate social media pages and groups. Some allegedly stole real Americans’ identities in order to create PayPal accounts, with which they paid for political advertisements with taglines such as, “You know, a great number of black people support us saying that #HillaryClintonIsNotMyPresident” and “Hillary is a Satan, and her crimes and lies have proved just how evil she is.”

They also created and managed social media accounts that were made to appear to be operated by real U.S. citizens. One, @TEN_GOP, was apparently retweeted by now-President Donald Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., as well as White House counselor Kellyanne Conway and onetime deputy assistant Sebastian Gorka.

The account had over 100,000 followers.

After connecting with “a real U.S. person affiliated with a Texas-based grassroots organization,” the defendants and their co-conspirators learned that they should focus on “purple states like Colorado, Virginia, & Florida.” Defendants Aleksandra Krylova, Anna Bogacheva, and Maria Bovda applied for visas and said they were traveling for personal reasons (ostensibly because “I’m trying to meddle in U.S. elections and also sow discord and distrust” wouldn’t have gone over well at the U.S. Embassy).

Krylova and Bogacheva allegedly went to Nevada, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Louisiana, Texas, and New York to “gather intelligence.” Mueller said the defendants also “organized” rallies but, “to conceal the fact that they were based in Russia,” pretended to be activists who were simply unable to meet up in person.

Perhaps most inexplicably, in late May of 2016, the defendants allegedly arranged for a “real U.S. person” to stand outside the White House with a sign that read “Happy 55th Birthday Dear Boss,” but then let the person know that the sign was not for then-President Barack Obama, whose birthday is in August, but for “a leader here and our boss … our funder.”

The indictment seems to indicate they really meant Prigozhin, whose birthday is June 1 and who did indeed turn 55 that year.

Mueller stresses in the indictment that the defendants worked in conspiracy with people “known and unknown” to the grand jury, which could mean more indictments are coming. Among the areas Mueller’s team is investigating is whether anyone from the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in electoral interference.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, expressed support for the indictments. “I’m glad to see that work [by the Senate intelligence committee] vindicated today by the Special Counsel’s indictment of the ‘Internet Research Agency,’ the Russian troll farm that was a key component of Russia’s attempts to interfere in the U.S. elections in 2016, and which continues to spew divisive and false content aimed at undermining the United States,” he said in a statement.

Trump seemed to disagree. “Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I would run for President. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong – no collusion!” the president tweeted. “Mark today as the day that the Democrats’ Russia-Trump collusion conspiracy theory unraveled!” GOP spokesperson Kayleigh McEnany trumpeted.

Not all Republican lawmakers appear to interpret the charges that way.  Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said in a statement that “Mueller just put Moscow on notice.”

“This ought to be a wakeup call to Washington: Putin’s shadow war is aimed at undermining Americans’ trust in our institutions,” he said.

Actually, the wake-up call could have been much sooner: Russian newspaper Novaya Gazetareported on the “troll farm” as early as 2013.

As for the chef, funder, and birthday boy — in response to the news of the indictment, he told Russian outlet RIA Novosti, “Americans are very impressionable people, they see what they want to see. I have great respect for them. I’m not at all upset that I’m on this list. If they want to see the devil — let them see one.”

Whether Americans see the devil or not, this is hardly the first time Prigozhin has caught the attention of U.S. authorities. The U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned him in December 2016 for providing support to Russia’s military occupation of Ukraine, and two of his companies were sanctioned by the Treasury Department. Including, yes, the catering business.

Terrorism, Competitiveness and International Marketing: Searching For Corporate Effects

Organizational Resources of the firm affect its competitive advantage. They can strengthen assets such as in-house knowledge, skilled personnel, superior strategies, and financial reserves.

by
Valbona Zeneli, Marshall Center, Germany
Michael R. Czinkota , Georgetown University USA and University of Kent, UK
Gary Knight, Willamette University, USA
( February 16, 2018, Washington DC, Sri Lanka Guardian) The scientific approach is largely driven by hypotheses which are analyzed as to their likelihood of being acceptable, true and robust. We present thoughts on the odds and consequences of relationships between international marketing and terrorism. We suggest arm’s length and reliable insights which improve our contextual understanding and decision making. Here are several hypotheses which we postulate are associated with terrorism and corporate action.
First are increases in Marketing Costs, accompanied by disruptions of supply chains. Interruptions in global supply chains tend to cause shortages or delays of critical inputs, which affect corporate strategies and performance, shrink shareholder value, and reduce the consumption of goods and services. Perhaps the entire “just in time” production processes of a firm and its supply chain may need to be reconfigured. Increased security measures heighten the complexity of motion which increases costs. Contextual volatility raises the cost of coordination, as suppliers and distributors devote more resources to environmental scanning, information processing, and negotiating with their suppliers for synchronized responses to rapid changes within all affected organizations.
For marketing planning, design, and organization we believe that an increase in the threat or occurrence of terrorism, makes management select its risk as a salient factor in the firm’s international marketing planning, supply chain management and organization of global distribution channels. To develop business strategies which minimize the firm’s exposure, managers tend to avoid direct investment and to require higher returns on investment. Exports can rise but with higher cost assessments for the development of new infrastructure in terrorism-prone areas. Terrorism also appears to depress buyer psychology and consumption.
International Experience plays a major role in the firm’s marketing planning, and the design and organization of the firm’s global distribution channels. The acquisition, interpretation and distribution of knowledge are critical for optimizing performance of global supply chains, and achieving superior resilience and market share. Reducing the firm’s risk due to unfamiliarity with a market, also called the “liability of foreignness”, pays off by decreasing market operational uncertainties, and shrinking surprises. It pays off to be on site, a motto which argues for multi-dexterity in international strategy. Substantial experience in numerous foreign markets is greater than the sum of its parts, and becomes a strategic asset when a firm must confront terrorism in its global operations.
Organizational Resources of the firm affect its competitive advantage. They can strengthen assets such as in-house knowledge, skilled personnel, superior strategies, and financial reserves. The ability of firms to succeed in light of international business adversity is largely a function of the resources available to explore alternatives.
Resource-restricted firms face greater challenges to create a solid business foundation by researching foreign markets and potential partners. Conversely, well-resourced firms have a greater capacity to undertake international ventures that will perform well. Therefore, we expect that firms with comparatively abundant resources will be better positioned to undertake sophisticated international marketing preparations. They can incorporate the environmentatl contingencies of terrorism into their planning, their development of supply chains, and their distribution channels, all key components of international success.
Michael Czinkota teaches international business and trade at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business and the University of Kent. His key book (with Ilkka Ronkainen) is “International Marketing” (10th ed., CENGAGE).

Three held as $1.8 billion fraud ripples through Indian banks


FEBRUARY 17, 2018

NEW DELHI/MUMBAI (Reuters) - The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) detained two employees of Punjab National Bank, the state-run lender that says it has been the victim of a $1.77 billion fraud, in the first arrests in a fast-widening probe into the country’s biggest-ever bank scam.

Police escort a man suspected of steering fraudulent loans to companies linked to billionaire jeweller Nirav Modi, at a court in Mumbai, India, February 17, 2018. REUTERS/Danish Siddiqui
Gokulnath Shetty and Manoj Kharat are suspected of steering fraudulent loans to companies linked to billionaire jeweller Nirav Modi and entities tied to jewellery retailer Gitanjali, which is led by Modi’s uncle, Mehul Choksi.

The Income Tax department warned in an internal note seen by Reuters that domestic banks could take a hit of more than $3 billion from loans and corporate guarantees provided to Modi and Choksi.
The arrests, late on Friday, came two days after India’s second-largest state-run lender said it had been hit by massive fraud, sending its share price tumbling.

The accusations against the two relatively junior PNB officials were detailed in the lender’s disclosure, and also contained in a preliminary police report.

The CBI also arrested a third person, Hemant Bhat, whom a source described as the “authorised signatory” of the companies tied to Nirav Modi.

All three appeared before a hot, packed courtroom in Mumbai on Saturday afternoon, where they were ordered to remain under police custody until March 3 to allow the CBI to continue its investigation. No charges have yet been laid.

“CBI must get fair chance to investigate this very serious offence, which has consequences for the country’s economy,” said judge S R Tamboli, as PNB employee Shetty shifted nervously and blinked frequently. The other two stood passively.

Family members of the accused present at the court defended them, saying they were innocent.
Kharat’s uncle told Reuters the PNB employee was “just following orders of superiors” and added “he wasn’t aware of what he is doing”.

PROBE WIDENS

A police source said six more PNB employees were “being examined” after the CBI conducted additional searches at the PNB’s branch in southern Mumbai where the alleged fraud took place.

Police sources say Modi, whose high-end jewellery has been worn by Hollywood stars including Kate Winslet, and Choksi left India last month and their whereabouts are unknown. Neither Modi nor Choksi have so far commented on the allegations.

Gitanjali has previously denied Choksi’s involvement in the fraud and said he would take “necessary legal action” to get his name removed from the police case.

People wait in a queue outside a Punjab National Bank ATM in New Delhi, India, February 16, 2018. REUTERS/Saumya Khandelwal

TV station NDTV on Friday reported Modi was at a suite in a New York hotel, citing household staff who answered the door.

On Saturday, a police source said that the CBI had sent a notice through Interpol in a bid to help locate Modi.

Meanwhile the Enforcement Directorate, India’s financial crime agency, said on Saturday it conducted additional searches at 21 locations of companies tied to Modi, seizing 250 million rupees ($3.89 million) in precious stones, metals and jewellery.

Both authorities have conducted dozens of raids since PNB disclosed the fraud, targeting PNB, Modi and Choksi, with the Enforcement Directorate now having seized diamonds, gold and jewellery worth 56.7 billion rupees.


A tax department spokeswoman told Reuters officials had seized 29 properties and 105 bank accounts linked to Modi.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The biggest bank fraud in India’s history has sent rumbles through India’s financial system, raising fears about the scale of problems in the banking sector that is already saddled with $147 billion of soured debt.

PNB said on Friday it was running an audit of its systems to prevent a recurrence of such a fraud, but did not see a long-term hit to its operations. The bank, which has $120 billion in total assets, has lost more than a fifth of its market value since it disclosed the fraud.

The Hindu newspaper reported on Saturday that the Central Vigilance Commission, which investigates corruption in the government, has summoned senior officials of the Reserve Bank of India and the Finance Ministry to assess how all internal checks and balances failed to detect the fraud.

PNB officials were also summoned, the report said, citing an official aware of the development.
The RBI did not reply to an emailed request for comment. A Finance Ministry spokesman was not immediately reachable.

Scrutiny of banks’ technical systems will intensify even further after India’s City Union Bank Ltd on Saturday said it had suffered three “fraudulent remittances” of nearly $2 million that had been pushed through the SWIFT financial platform.

The case was reminiscent of the $81 million cyber heist that hit Bangladesh’s central bank in 2016.

($1 = 64.2400 Indian rupees)

Ethiopia declares national state of emergency


Supporters of Bekele Gerba, secretary general of the Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC), chant slogans to celebrate his release from prison, in Adama, Oromia Region, Ethiopia, 14 February 2018
Demonstrators celebrate the release of political prisoners in Adama, Oromia


16 February 2018
BBCA national state of emergency has been declared in Ethiopia just one day after the unexpected resignation of Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn.
A statement by the state broadcaster said the move was necessary to stem a wave of anti-government protests.
Hundreds of people have died in three years of unrest in the country.
A 10-month state of emergency that ended last year failed to stop the protests, as did the release from jail of thousands of opposition supporters.


No details were given of how long the latest state of emergency will last or what the restrictions are.
The government has been under pressure because of continuing street protests.
In recent weeks it has released hundreds of prisoners including opposition politicians but the protests have shown no sign of ending.
On Thursday, Mr Hailemariam said he had made his decision to stand down in the hope that it would help end the years of unrest and political upheaval.
"I see my resignation as vital in the bid to carry out reforms that would lead to sustainable peace and democracy," Mr Hailemariam said.
The political demonstrations in Ethiopia began in Oromia in November 2015. Protests later sprung up in the Amhara region.
Oromia and Amhara are the homelands of the country's two biggest ethnic groups.
Many people in these communities feel they have been marginalised since the current government took power in 1991.



Three ways East Asia can avoid a North Korean refugee ‘crisis’

China and South Korea will need to learn from other refugee emergencies by making three key policy decisions. EPA/KCNA
The ConversationFebruary 14, 2018 2.05pm EST
With tensions in the Korean peninsula seemingly never-ending, the possibility of conflict erupting in East Asia is keeping everyone on edge. North Korea’s continuous launching of missile and nuclear tests has been met with fresh sanctions from the UN Security Council – an action Pyongyang considers an “act of war”.
In the event of conflict breaking out, analysts are expecting a large human toll. With a 1,670 kilometre shared border with North Korea, both China and South Korea would undoubtedly witness a mass refugee spillover.
To avoid another refugee “crisis” that would take the world, the humanitarian aid system and neighbouring countries by surprise, both China and South Korea need to be prepared. To do so, they will need to learn from other refugee emergencies by making three key policy decisions.


1. Adopting a temporary protection regime

As party to the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, China and South Korea are bound by the principle of non-refoulement, which requires states not to return refugees to countries where they face potential threat.
Since this principle is also enshrined in customary international law, the international community will be expecting both countries to admit those seeking refuge to their territories.
Ideally, people fleeing persecution should be granted “refugee” status, as envisaged by the 1951 Convention. However, in the case of a mass influx situation, governements’ capacities to process refugee claims individually are often overwhelmed. Therefore, some countries have opted for a temporary protection regime instead.
Since 2011, for instance, the Turkish government has been providing asylum to Syrian nationals under a temporary protection scheme, which provides them with a set of rights, including the right to protection from forcible return, until a solution to their situation is reached.
A refugee influx can turn into a crisis if countries aren’t prepared. Samuel Boivin/AAP
To benefit from this regulatory scheme, Syrian nationals must register themselves with the authorities within a designated time, and are issued identity cards, without which they cannot access vital services such as health care.
Temporary protection then ends with return to Syria when conditions are deemed safe, or resettlement to a third country.
This scheme may prove useful in the context of a North Korean refugee spillover.


2. Allowing them choice of settlement

Over the years, practices have varied between housing refugees in camps and allowing them to self-settle in urban areas.
Both practices have their pros and cons. While camps make the provision of aid logistically easier, allowing refugees to self-settle reduces their sense of imprisonment and idleness, which can have negative social manifestations such as gender-based violence.
The best approach would be something in the middle. China and South Korea can emulate the Jordanian model, where Syrian refugees were given a choice to self-settle or stay in one of the designated refugee camps.
Since women and children make up the majority of refugee movements, it makes sense to provide encampment for the most vulnerable, while avoiding the situation where camps turn into cities themselves as a conflict becomes protracted.

3. Including them in the formal economy

While needs in the early emergency phase mainly revolve around relief assistance, as time goes by refugees’ needs change. When refugees do not have a source of livelihood, they resort to negative coping mechanisms, such as child labour and street begging.
China and South Korea can get inspiration from the Ugandan model if a refugee influx occurs. In this model, refugees work, pay taxes, and use their entrepreneurial skills to boost the formal economy.


Engaging refugees in the labour market avoids their otherwise inevitable inclusion in the informal economy, reduces their reliance on assistance, and avoids trapping them in a vicious cycle of dependency.
Regulating the refugee influx, rather than restricting or barring it, is not only the humane thing to do, but it is also smart management. Refugees can be a power to harness if they are considered a source of added value, rather than a threat.
Allowing refugees in, while regulating the influx, can help China and South Korea uphold their obligations while simultaneously staying in control of the situation.
And as with every refugee crisis that came before it, and every one that will sadly but inevitably follow, there can be no greater effort than the effort made in reaching a political resolution to the underlying conflict in the Korean peninsula. Diplomacy between countries can help the world avoid another tragic and protracted humanitarian crisis.

Nearly 2 Million Americans Exposed to Potentially Toxic Level of Lead in Tap Water


Children are particularly vulnerable.

February15,2018, 12:00 PM GMT




HomeTests by drinking water utilities serving 1.8 million Americans in 45 states detected lead above the Environmental Protection Agency’s action level, according to EWG’s analysis of the latest available federal data.

The analysis was released before EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt hosts a lead summit at the EPA headquarters tomorrow. In testimony to a Senate Committee last month, Pruitt declared a “war on lead,” but the Trump administration’s proposed 2019 budget cuts the EPA’s programs for lead abatement.

In the most recent tests of tap water conducted by utilities through the end of 2017, 1,124 community water systems exceeded the action level, according to the EPA’s Envirofacts database. Under the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule, the action level is the amount of lead that, if exceeded in more than 10 percent of samples of tap water, requires utilities to take further steps to reduce pipe corrosion and warn their customers.

Natural Resources Defense Council analysis of lead testing data for 2015 reported that 1,110 community water systems showed lead levels in excess of the action level in at least 10 percent of the homes tested. EWG’s analysis finds that two years later, the number of systems exceeding the action level is essentially unchanged. While the majority of systems that detected lead above the EPA’s action level serve small populations, there are some that provide water for large service areas and populations, including Newark, N.J.; Quincy, Mass.; and Pennsylvania State University.

Although the action level for lead is defined at 15 parts per billion, or ppb, there is strong scientific consensus that any amount of lead exposure during childhood is harmful. Lead is a potent neurotoxin that impairs children’s intellectual development, and alters their behavior and ability to concentrate. The impacts of lead exposure during childhood are permanent.

Because any level of lead in drinking water is dangerous for children, simply complying with the EPA's lead rules doesn't mean that water is safe for children to drink. To address this problem, in 2009 the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, or OEHHA, set a public health goal of 0.2 ppb for lead in drinking water to protect against IQ loss for children. OEHHA said the goal was set “on the basis of new studies relating neurobehavioral deficits to lower lead concentrations in the blood than previously reported.” Public health goals are not legal limits, but represent the levels OEHHA scientists say do not pose a significant health risk.

“I am delighted that a few large drinking water systems across the country and a few states are moving forward aggressively to protect children against lead in drinking water, but I am very distressed that hundreds of community water systems across the country are still delivering water with elevated levels of lead,” said Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, dean for global health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai in New York. Landrigan, whose early research in the 1970s helped eliminate the use of lead in paint and gasoline, is one of the foremost authorities on children’s environmental health.

“This widespread exposure to lead in drinking water poses a clear and present danger to the health of America’s children,” Landrigan said. “It will reduce children’s IQs, shorten their attention spans and disrupt their behavior, and it is ultimately a threat to America’s future. It is an exposure that needs urgently to be ended.”

The administration’s proposed budget would eliminate funding for a program to reduce risks from lead in paint, dust and soil, and eliminate some grants provided to states to carry out lead reduction activities. Although the proposed budget would increase funding for some infrastructure projects like lead pipe replacement, overall it slashes the EPA’s funding for clean and safe water by one-fifth and eliminates some water quality programs. It would also reduce the EPA’s funding for outreach to children and other sensitive populations by almost $4.5 million, or 69 percent.
What You Can Do

EWG recommends that parents take measures to reduce children’s exposure to lead from all sources, paying special attention to old lead paint and lead pipes in their water supply systems.

Public drinking water utilities are required to disclose their water quality testing results to customers. But lead tests performed in your city might not reflect specific lead risks in an individual home.

Consider testing your own tap water if you are pregnant or have young children. You should definitely test your drinking water if your water company says your house or community is served by lead-based water lines, or if lead has already been detected in the tap water in your neighborhood.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends these steps for decreasing lead ingestion from tap water:
  • Run your faucet in the mornings to flush out all the water has accumulated lead overnight.
  • Use only cold water for cooking.
  • Use a water filter that is certified to remove lead.
Ultimately, replacing lead pipes is the only permanent way to remove lead from drinking water. Children’s health advocates, such as the Lead Service Line Replacement Collaborative, are pushing for the federal government to more vigorously address the lead problem in drinking water. This means speeding up the replacement of aging lead water pipes, paying for the replacement of pipes that run from the street to the home entrances, and requiring water companies to provide local health departments and the general public with more detail about lead problems in their neighborhoods.
Olga Naidenko, Ph.D., is Senior Science Advisor for Children's Environmental Health at the Environmental Working Group.

Sonya Lunder is a senior analyst at the Environmental Working Group. Prior to joining EWG in 2002, Sonya managed a community health intervention at a Superfund site and worked on epidemiology studies at California's Environmental Health Investigations Branch.