Son in law sent ahead for the graphite deal to Japan before Sirsena !
(Lanka-e-News - 13.March.2018, 12.30PM) Maithripala Sirisena who is now considered as a two penny half penny worth president because of his political misadventures and untrustworthiness to the detriment of the entire country and who is precariously hanging on a 4 % popularity in the country, had sent his wheeler dealer son in law Thilina Suranjith to Japan on the 10 th prior to his own departure to Japan today on an official visit. All these arrangements are to ‘fix’ a deal as usual.
The new chairman of Geological and mining Bureau Dissanayake has accompanied Thilina to Japan to put through the graphite deal of the wheeler dealer son in law of the president.
It is to be noted the Geological Survey and mining Bureau is under the president , and his son in law Thilina had taken over the monopoly of graphite sale business to himself and the company associated with him - Sirisena family never had it so good !
President is Sri Lanka’s third richest politician !
Maithripala Sirisena who became the president on 2015-01-08 and created a unique record by dishonoring every promise he gave to the masses ,however has earned the crown – the third richest politician in Sri Lanka ! The Sunday Observer newspaper of the government based on the world famous Forbes report had made this disclosure.
At the moment president Sirisena ‘s wealth is worth US dollars 14 million. Mahinda Rajapakse the ex president who is at the top is worth US dollars 18 billion , according to Forbes report as revealed by Webster newspaper. Mahinda took ten years to amass 18 billion dollars , whereas Maithripala has taken just 3 years to amass 14 million dollars.
It means if any pauper wants to fulfill his dream of becoming a billionaire in Sri Lanka he must by fair or foul methods become the president of SL.
Meanwhile based on reports reaching Lanka e news inside information division, Sirisena’s son in law has proposed to invest US dollars 6 million in the Laugfs Gas business belonging to Wegapitiya , when the latter has told , he hasn’t that amount of business for such a colossal investment. Thereafter Thilina the wheeler dealer son in law of the president had managed to get around SL’s billionaire Dhammika Perera the most wealthy Sri Lankan, to invest Thilina ‘s huge amount of money in Dhammika’s business.
The 6.4 million people who voted to the Polonnaruwa farmer son and made him president to abolish the executive presidency and introduce good governance based on his solemn and loud promises must be cursing themselves for the historic blunder they committed !
--------------------------- by (2018-03-13 07:48:39)
Recent media over the weekend has been highlighting the blockage of Facebook and social media networks. Whilst there are arguments for and against the argument, for a typical youngster it’s almost like part of their life has been taken away. This is why they have resorted to using technologies like VPN and going back to their old behaviour of using Facebook as a part of their lifestyle.
Palihapitiya’s view
The views of the youngsters of Sri Lanka mirror the arguments made by the former Facebook Vice President for User Growth – Sri Lankan Chamith Palihapitiya. In his recent press conference he has voiced that the “like” culture is building a feeling to turning people for validation and happiness which is not very healthy. The logic being that the response received may actually be not genuine and frank which gives a reinforcement for repeat of the behaviour which can be actually irregular.
The very words used by Palihapitiya were, “We have created a tool that is ripping apart the social fabrication of how society works,” which is an interesting view that can only be justified by doing a usage and attitude study among FB users in Sri Lanka.
A former First President of Facebook Sean Spen also voiced: “I regret the part I played at Facebook’s history, as we do not know what it does to the brain of a child.”
These expert views come at a point when turnover is reaching $ 13 billion as at end 2017 and user ship increasing to 2.13 billion which means that half the world’s internet users have got adapted to the brand Facebook.
Sri Lankan’s attitude
A point to note is that Sri Lankans are not very aggressive or vocal but are expressive in a subliminal manner which is why FB as a medium is popular. But the reality is that Sri Lanka is very decisive in nature; 8 January 2015 and 10 February this year were classic examples to the world of Sri Lankan behaviour.
FB response
The response to Palihapitiya by FB was interesting, given that Mark Zuckerberg is totally a consumer interested human being. The views expressed on media was that Facebook has done extensive research on the service it provides to people and humanity and will continue to adjust to the needs of the people with product development.
However, a point that was emphasised was that in the future a dent in profits was forecasted so that technology development and process improvements can be made. This insight made me do a deep dive on the numbers and the brand health of FB. The findings were very interesting. To be honest FB as a brand is in trouble.
FB performance
– Deep dive
The fourth quarter performance of FB globally last year was outstanding on revenue at a 48% growth as per the New York Stock Exchange. Turnover had crossed $12.9 billion whilst profits had picked up by 20% to reach $ 4.27 billion.
Whilst the numbers may look strong the brand health issues are emerging with usage dropping and percentage growth declining drastically. The graphical illustration is seen from the period 2011 to 2017, which clearly indicates that in the product lifecycle it is reaching maturity and unless an innovation is done to the brand it is heading for decline.
Sri Lanka’s view
Whilst we see that the brand health of FB is in question, the challenges faced by FB are fake news, metric mistakes, foreign entities getting involved in elections and now the Sri Lankan Government banning FB due to the alleged instigating of racial tension.
The voice of the public stated that 73% of the people mentioning that banning FB was good to stop the violence, what the research study did not say was the impact to business, especially in the industry of tourism which is already in the red due to the increasing room stock and the rising costs of food and beverage.
An industry that is driven via FB, WhatsApp, Instagram, IMO and other viral media with the online travel bookings getting popular, I guess the way forward needs to be carefully architectured to ensure that Sri Lanka’s economic growth will not get stunted.
Next steps
Whilst Sri Lanka is awaiting the FB response to quelling any racial tension, Sri Lanka will have to determine the balance between economic growth and social stability. Sri Lanka will have to determine between freedom of expression and how to ensure peace.
The Government will also have to decide the importance of the youth vote at the next elections and what their needs are. I guess time will tell given that all other important issues have been put into the kitchen closet.
(The writer is a thought leader and business profession. The thoughts expressed have no links to the organisations he serves. Writing is only a hobby he pursues. He is an alumnus of Harvard Kennedy School Executive Education.)
The recent interviews of would be Presidential Candidate and former Secretary to the ministry of Defence Gotabaya Rajapaksa with Kalum Bandara and Gagani Weerakoon shows him up for his lack
of any political acumen. It would be most dangerous for Sri Lanka even to consider such a pseudo patriot ever running for any political office let alone for Presidency.
Gota
The erstwhile younger Rajapaksa in his interviews say ON RECORD that the USA and other Western Countries brought pressure on the Mahinda Rajapaksa government to stop the war
during the last stages and that they (including him) did not allow it and the rest is now history.
Gotabaya Rajapaksa is highlighted in the media carrying floral tributes and such from Temple to Temple seeking to veer Buddhist majority to accept that Sri Lanka is predominantly for Buddhists only. This is the implied sentiment in capturing the required majority through Sinhala Buddhist votes.
Let us accept that the USA and Western powers did use pressure to stop the war during the last stages as he goes on record. Let us accept that his brother Mahinda Rajapaksa and himself
resisted vehemently and finished off the LTTE leadership and thereby won the war. Good.
So if Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the self appointed future leader of the Sinhala Buddhists (the monks think so too as do the extremist Buddhists) did all to resist the USA and Western powers to stop the war during the last stages CONTINUE TO RETAIN HIS US CITIZENSHIP even to this date, as admitted by him? Is he not the biggest traitor? Should not Field Marshall speak to Hard Talk’s Stephen Sackur the same way Gota did?
The problem …is that no one in the other political parties could come anywhere near Sarath Fonseka’s achievements
“When it is obvious that the goals cannot be reached, don’t adjust the goals, adjust the action steps.” ~ Confucius
Great devotion to the task at hand is a prerequisite for handling the Ministry of Law and Order.
There was so much of hope that Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka would be appointed Minister of Law and Order.
Such men with a sense of urgency and undeterred sense of results-orientation are few and far between.
The issue with Fonseka is that no one in the other political parties could come anywhere near his achievements.
Fonseka’s capabilities are rotting away in a Ministry that has no portfolios. It is a travesty of national proportions.
There was so much of hope, at least amongst the ordinary folks, that Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka would be appointed Minister of Law and Order.
The logic behind such hope is quite legitimate and sound. Sarath Fonseka, when he was the Commander of Sri Lanka Army, delivered the goods.
Fighting against one of the most dreaded terrorist armies in the world-the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE)-and its charismatic leader Prabhakaran, Sarath Fonseka not only exhibited raw gallantry and bravery, he displayed his acute knowledge about modern-day terrorist warfare and strategic battling on the field.
He never sent his men and women where he couldn’t go himself, a characteristic of a charismatic leader. He may be detested by the Tamil Diaspora. He is certainly feared by our politicians, amongst whom are the Rajapaksas, who were quite comfortable to give orders from their air-conditioned rooms in Colombo.
Battlefield experience is a rare quality. Those who gather such experience, especially as battlefield commanders, are even rarer.
That is why all over the world, those who excel as winning commanders end up capturing most lucrative civilian jobs in any administration. Whether it’s in the democratic West or any other administration in the ‘Socialist’ world, Russia or China, such men and women end up occupying very commanding positions in the civilian management of governing affairs. As far as Sarath Fonseka is concerned, he seems to be in a unique position in that, he was dreaded by the Rajapaksas.
The current leaders of the Government, whose original election pledge on election platforms was to expose the Rajapaksas and bring about law and order to a society so corrupt and placid, seem to be fearful of Fonseka’s ability to just that- elimination of corruption and bringing a sense of sensibility and order.
A totally different mindset is necessary in the present set of circumstances. A mind that is bold, a mind that is not scared and a one that is fundamentally results-oriented and unrelenting is the need of the hour.
The recent ethnic violence and racial mayhem in the Kandy district cannot be disregarded as a minor clash between two clans. Minimizing a looming danger is a trait of a coward. For he or she thinks that such treatment would place him or her in a comfort zone within which they feel quite secure and safe. Such men and women do not dare. They don’t venture outside the proverbial ‘box’, the comfort zone.
The Government seems to be glued to that comfort zone. Sri Lanka’s post-Independence history has known only a very few leaders who dared to venture outside the box/comfort zone.
Such men changed the course of the nation’s journey. Whether that change, of course, was for the good or bad is a different argument altogether.
Future historians will pass judgment on them. Yet, such change of course, if initiated in a timely manner, by credible leaders whose daring and idealism was more precious to them than political expediency, could shape and define the character of a nation which would embrace such a character as an alternate personality.
However, if this alternate personality of a nation is to be sustained for a calculable time of its journey, a great process of education and information, independent of political ideology, needs to take place. That process will not happen overnight nor would it occur as a matter of course. It needs to be deliberately engineered and monitored from a centre.
That is precisely where a fully focused mind like that of Sarath Fonseka comes to play. Great devotion to the task at hand and unimpeachable commitment to the end-goal is a prerequisite for any candidate to be responsible for handling the Ministry of Law and Order.
That dedication and commitment are not forthcoming from any personality in Parliament today except Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka. Any person in my personal opinion, who could offer some competition in the sphere of commitment to a task and being focused, is Navin Dissanayake, the Minister of Plantation Industries and elder son of the late Gamini Dissanayake.
Such men with a sense of urgency and undeterred sense of results-orientation are few and far between. It is even more so in post-Independent Sri Lanka.
That is another tragic feature of our storied nation’s history. Reverting to the current context, the recent turmoil in the Kandy district and its assumption of racial tones coupled with the prelates of Maha Sangha being silent on the initial involvement of the likes of Galagodaaththe Gnanasara and other thugs in saffron robes, have aroused the appetite of tour global partners to warn their citizens to be more discerning when travelling to Sri Lanka.
This consistent process of intended or unintended intervention into our internal affairs under the facade of human rights will continue.
The dishonourable genocide committed in 1983 is still fresh in the human rights-activists world over. A totally different mindset is necessary in the present set of circumstances. A mind that is bold, a mind that is not scared and a one that is fundamentally results-oriented and unrelenting is the need of the hour.
If Sarath Fonseka is that mind, why is everyone scared of him? A soldier who nearly sacrificed his life during the war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE), a Presidential Candidate, who dared challenge the Rajapaksas in the 2009 Presidential Election, almost single-handedly with lukewarm assistance from the United National Party (UNP), cannot be discarded as an unwelcome guest?
The problem lies there; the issue with Fonseka is that no one in the other political parties could come anywhere near his achievements.
A singular sense of envy and fear has overwhelmed our Sinhalese politicians.
One can understand the fear and dread that stems from the Rajapaksas for Sarath Fonseka, but the fear and jealousy others seem to have is unpardonable.
Fonseka’s capabilities are beyond question. As at now, he is rotting away in a Ministry that has no portfolios. It is a travesty of national proportions.
The writer does not to intend to belittle Ranjith Madduama Bandara, who has just been sworn in as Minister of Law and Order. But to compare the two, Fonseka and Madduama Bandara is not fair, by both of them.
The Government has failed miserably on the very platform that they were elected to office on. The unmitigated condition of bringing justice to those who played out the coffers of the Treasury and conducted crude and inhuman acts of violence and viciousness towards those who protested against their regime is still not fulfilled.
It is that condition the majority of the country wanted satisfied. The majority of the people in the country know that Sarath Fonseka, more than anyone else in the current administration, is the person who is qualified to undertake that brutally honest task. Then why not ask him to do that?
If the Rajapaksas come out clean after swift and justly concluded inquiries, then that is also alright. But dragging these inquiries without any end on the horizon only strengthens the Rajapaksas and weakens the Government’s hand.
On the other hand, a weakened hand at the beginning of the inquiries has further eroded the confidence of those who are eagerly looking forward to a rapid finish to the nagging questions that surround the last regime.
Obviously, the untoward laziness, which was displayed by the Government-led inquiring officers and those who matter in the Department of Attorney General during the last two-and-half-years definitely was factored in by a sizeable majority of the voters in the Local Government elections and the results confirmed that.
The context is very clear. It is as crisp and unambiguous as crystal. Within that vast yet well-defined context, rejection of Sarath Fonseka’s name for the Ministry of Law and Order is unfathomable.
Our politicians have not learnt to sacrifice their personal agendas for the good of the country. Nor have they learnt the fine art of negotiation- a craft that is essentially having a bind and abiding attachment to detach oneself from the immediate advance or retreat.
Such nuanced politicking has lost its way. One can understand if those who reject Sarath Fonseka are uneducated nincompoops. But when such opposition stems from the educated quarters, it is quite evident that something more than a calculated gamble is at stake.
Once again, it may be redundant to emphasize the significance of seeing the finality of the inquiries against the Rajapaksas and their cohorts.
It may also be redundant to say that no one other than Sarath Fonseka in the current Government has the curriculum vitae to take over such a job and produce results.
The erosion of Sinhalese Buddhist votes from the UNP is evident. Election after election has shown that an overdependence on the Tamils and Muslims might backfire to such an extent, the net UNP votes might reduce to an abysmal few.
The increasing numbers of independent voters who are not attached to any political party yet matter most, when elections are held, would undoubtedly go away to the UNP and seek refuge elsewhere. The writer is not of the opinion that Prime Minister would like to share the inglorious distinction with President, of presiding over the disintegration of his party during his leadership.
The writer can be contacted at vishwamithra1984@gmail.com
Public interest litigation activist and attorney-at-law Nagananda Kodituwakku has filed a motion requesting Chief Justice Priyasath Dep to relist contempt of court case regarding failure on the part of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) to inquire into MPs abusing tax free permit scheme to deprive the government of revenue to the tune of Rs. 7 bn.
Kodituwakku alleged that in spite of CIABOC’s assurance given to Supreme Court on March 16, 2017 that it had initiated an inquiry into large scale permit abuse, followed by it reassuring the Court on June 15, 2017 of an inquiry into abuse of members’ tax free permits, nothing of the sort had been done so far.
Pointing out that the case had been de-listed on Nov 9, 2017 in the wake of several Supreme Court judges declining to hear it, Kodituwakku has requested CJ to re-list it for support on April 2, 4 or 6. Kodituwakku has further appealed the apex court to leave out two Supreme Court judges against whom he had filed corruption cases (SC/Writs/3/2016) and (SC/Writs/3/2017). Kodituwakku said that the matter had been also brought to the notice of the Attorney General. (SF)
Fawzi Abu Jarad is preparing to move and the 62-year-old former shepherd wants to bring his entire extended family of 28 people with him.
He won’t go far, however. A resident of Gaza, he can’t go far. But he will go deeper inside the Gaza Strip in search of some safety, however illusory. Anywhere is safer than home for the Abu Jarads.
Home is the Bedouin village of Um al-Nasser. Located in the far north and almost flush against the boundary with Israel, it is not only an impoverished, isolated and underdeveloped part of Gaza. It is also directly in the line of any invading Israeli army, should another offensive start.
Um al-Nasser’s villagers have been there before. On 17 July 2014, just around sunset, the Abu Jarads and other families found themselves trapped in the village when it became one of the initial targets of the Israeli army’s ground invasion at the outset of that phase of Israel’s 51-day assault on Gaza.
More than 3,600 residents were then forced to evacuate and the village was badly damaged.
According to local residents, the first casualty of the Israeli ground invasion was from here: Muhammad Ishtawi, 28, a member of Hamas’ armed Qassam Brigades.
According to Ziyad Abu Fraya, village mayor, 100 homes were completely destroyed during the war, another 100 were damaged, while two mosques out of three were demolished and an EU-funded Children’s Land project, meant to cater to war-traumatized children, was razed to the ground.
In the line of fire
Um al-Nasser is not big and it is not developed. Mostly farmland, the village’s built-up area spans just some 800 meters. Most of the houses here are cheaply constructed of corrugated iron, sheet metal and tarpaulin, similar to Bedouin villages elsewhere.
In 2007, the village briefly hit the headlines when a water treatment reservoir burst, flooding the village, killing four and damaging homes.
Its location some 500-700 meters from the boundary fence lies within an area Israel has unilaterally declared a no-go zone and leaves residents at the mercy of regular shootings targeting shepherds and farmers.
Muhammad Abu Jaame, a 59-year-old farmer, was shot and killed by soldiers while working his land in southern Gaza near the boundary with Israel earlier this month.
Its proximity to the boundary also means that should there be a new Israeli offensive, Um al-Nasser, if 2014 is anything to go by, will again be in the way of invading Israeli forces. And residents of the village worry there might be another conflagration soon.
Certainly, the Israeli media is regularly full of speculation about another Gaza offensive, not least since the Israeli military often issues warnings to Hamas that it is “playing with fire,” whether because of rocket fire or someone being cheeky with a laser pointer.
When the Israeli troops came in 2014, families spent eight hours holed up in their homes. The military, said Silmi Abu Muammar, head of the village council’s emergency committee, would not allow the Red Crescent to evacuate families. In the end, residents took matters into their own hands, held up white flags and walked to displacement areas – mostly set up in United Nations-administered schools – leaving almost everything they owned behind.
It is the reason Abu Jarad is keen to leave now. “I’ll not wait for a fourth war to see my family displaced again,” he said, referring to the preceding massive assaults in winter 2008-2009 and November 2012. “My grandchildren experienced the fear of death three times before and I’ll not let that happen again.”
The former shepherd is still bitter over the 2014 displacement. No one, he said, paid attention. They were so cut off journalists couldn’t tell their stories and even “ambulances could only wait at the outskirts.”
Trouble at the edge
Fatima Abu Jarad, 14, remembered how she froze as they fled. Interrupting her grandfather, she spoke of “shells and shrapnel” flying over her head. “At first, I froze. I was not able to move.” She was brought to safety by an older brother, who returned and carried her on his back.
Um al-Nasser’s residents had to shelter some 40 days in UN schools in the Jabaliya refugee camp, according to Abu Muammar. They were distributed into classrooms, 45 villagers in each, over five different schools.
“I couldn’t wash my three children for two weeks, there just was not enough water,” said Sultana Abu Rashed, 48. “I thought I was dying slowly. I hope we never live those conditions again.”
No one wants to relive those days and Abu Muammar says the village council has already coordinated with UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestine refugees, to prepare in case of another escalation. The council has delivered the UN body a list of names, ages and genders of villagers in order to ensure that should another evacuation be necessary, there is enough space.
In the meantime, everyone’s anxiously following the news. While 2017 may have seemed largely quiet from the outside, Gaza is never far from violence. Headlines may have been made by rockets fired from Gaza after US President Donald Trump’s Jerusalem announcement in December, but there is a constant level of violence, most of it from Israel into Gaza.
In December alone, eight people were killed in demonstrations protesting the Trump announcement and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights also reported 12 shellings and 77 shooting incidents in boundary areas, injuring 484 people, among them 96 minors.
In January, Israel destroyed what its officials call an “attack tunnel.” This one was reportedly leading from Gaza into the Egyptian Sinai. The lack of response by Gaza’s resistance groups, wary that Israel is poised for a full-blown conflagration, is keeping tensions and uncertainty high as it gives the impression that Hamas has calculated that another war could be imminent.
Yahya Musa, a Hamas legislator, told The Electronic Intifada that any escalation would not be forced upon Gaza but that continued bombings also would not go unanswered.
“If they want escalation, we’re ready for it.”
An ill wind with a chance of death
Analysts are divided over prospects for a full-blown conflagration. Omar Jaara, an Israel affairs professor at An-Najah National University in the occupied West Bank, argued that war was “only a matter of time.”
“Israel is the one who is controlling the situation here. The resistance will not stay silent in front of Israeli attacks on its weapons, especially the tunnels which are a strategic weapon of Hamas. Any continued threat to this weapon will lead to a fourth war.”
Wesam Afifa, a journalist and director general of the Gaza-based al-Aqsa media network, suggested however that Israel is not interested in another war because it is already achieving its objectives, notably on Jerusalem and the US embassy, and doesn’t want to rock the boat.
“Israel is afraid of escalation in Gaza in light of popular anger against Trump’s decision. That could easily spread to the West Bank and Jerusalem.”
Nevertheless, he conceded that the context in Gaza is “unique.” Any misstep, by any party, Afifa said, could lead “towards a brutal fourth war.”
Abdullah Armalat, 31, tends his extended family’s 70 camels and two cows. A shepherd, like his forefathers, he too has prepared for the eventuality of war. In Jabaliya, four kilometers away, Armalat has rented a large garage to house his livestock should it come to that.
His contingency plan is a result of bitter experience. In 2014, he lost 60 sheep, he said.
“Israel doesn’t differentiate. Humans, animals, or plants, they’re all targets. I lost my livelihood in the last war and I’ll lose it again.”
Fatima Abu Jarad, the young teenager who froze in fear during the 2014 onslaught, had no compunction about the choice facing her. “I’d rather leave the place I was born and raised in. I don’t want to die.”
Hamas condemns bombing and denies any responsibility for attack on Rami Hamdallah's convoy, which it blames on Israel
Palestinians inspect the site of an explosion that targeted Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah's convoy (Reuters)
Tuesday 13 March 2018
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah and the PA's influential intelligence minister survived an apparent assassination attempt on Tuesday, as an explosion hit his convoy shortly after it had entered the Gaza Strip.
Neither Hamdallah nor Majid Faraj, the intelligence minister, were injured, security sources said, but seven people were wounded and several vehicles damaged.
A statement on official Palestinian media said PA President Mahmoud Abbas considered it a "cowardly targeting" of Hamdallah's convoy and held Hamas responsible for not providing adequate security.
Hamas has controlled Gaza since winning elections in 2006, driving out Abbas's Fatah party in fighting in 2007.
Both factions signed a Palestinian unity deal in October last year which was supposed to lead to the gradual transition of power back to the PA, but little progress has been made.
Hamas's spokesperson condemned the attack and rejected accusations from the PA that it held any responsibility.
Abbas's spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, said the attack on the consensus government was an attack on the unity of the Palestinian people, according to Palestinian news agency WAFA.
Fawzi Barhoum, Hamas's spokesperson, told Middle East Eye that "Hamas condemns the crime of attacking the convoy of Dr Rami Al-Hamdallah".
Hamas considers this crime as part and parcel of trying to destabilise the security in Gaza Strip and attacking reconciliation and solidarity
- Fawzi Barhoum, Hamas spokesperson
"Hamas considers this crime as part and parcel of trying to destabilise the security in Gaza Strip and attacking reconciliation and solidarity. The hands behind this crime are the same hands that killed Mazen Fuqaha, and tried to kill General Tawfiq Abu Naim."
Mazen Fuqaha was a commander of Hamas's military wing, and was killed last year in Gaza. Tawfiq Abu Naim, commander of Hamas's internal security forces in Gaza, survived an assassination attempt in October, after his car was blown up in the Nuseirat refugee camp in the middle of Gaza City. Hamas holds Israel responsible for both incidents.
Barhoum added that Hamas dislikes "the ready-made accusations" made by the PA officials in Ramallah against it, and asked the PA to open an investigation into the incident.
PM from Gaza: we will continue to serve our people, and national unity is our strategic option. We are determined to serve Palestine and achieve the national unity
The PA's intelligence minister, Majid Faraj, who was travelling in the convoy with Hamdallah, told MEE: "This crime will not put us down in caring about the homeland. The attack is an attempt to blow up the unity of the homeland."
Faraj said that Abbas "insisted" that they remain in Gaza and carry on with their scheduled meetings.
He did not name any perpetrators, but he said that "those who have a presence on the ground have a responsibility to guarantee safety", referring indirectly to Hamas.
The explosion happened after Hamdallah's convoy passed through the Erez checkpoint from Israel near Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza.
Hamdallah travelled on to Gaza City, where he was met by Hamas security officials, according to AFP. He also attended the opening of a water treatment plant, part-funded by the PA, and the main purpose of his visit to Gaza.
Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah waves to the crowd upon his arrival in Gaza City on 13 March (AFP)
Gaza's interior ministry spokesperson, Iyad al-Buzom, told Al Jazeera that pointing blame in the attack "has a political dimension".
"Here in Gaza we take all security precautions to welcome all the convoys and delegations and particularly the prime minister as he entered Gaza," he said.
An investigation into the incident had begun, he added.
Hamdallah was also due to meet with senior Hamas officials to discuss reconciliation talks between Hamas and the PA.
Leaders of both Fatah and Hamas hailed the unity deal signed in Cairo in October as an opportunity to end the decade-long rift between the rival Palestinian factions.
The deal saw the PA take over control of the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt, but other elements including the proposed deployment of 3,000 PA police officers in Gaza have yet to be fulfilled.
Palestinian political factions met again in November in the Egyptian capital, but reconciliation efforts have largely stalled since then.
There are two key factors which govern the civil liability of airlines. They are, the presumption of liability that is imposed upon the airline and the liability limits that apply to the protected the airline from unlimited liability and spurious claimants.
by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne-
( March 14, 2018, Montreal, Sri Lanka Guardian) On Sunday 10 March an aircraft operating Flight BS211 flying between Bangladesh and Nepal carrying 71 passengers veered of the runway upon landing and crash landed on Nepal’s Kathmandu airport, killing 49 people. Several others were injured, some seriously. This article is about how much the estate of the deceased can recover from the airline as compensation for death and how much the injured can recover from the airline. It is also about where an action for damages could be brought as well as what defences are available to the airline.
Applicable Legal Regime
First off, this was an international flight and therefore would prima facie be considered under applicable treaty law. Both Bangladesh and Nepal (the origin and destination) have ratified the Warsaw Convention of 1929 which makes its provisions applicable to this accident. The Warsaw Convention applies to all international carriage of persons, luggage or goods performed by aircraft for reward. The expression “international carriage” means any carriage in which, according to the contract made by the parties, the place of departure and the place of destination, whether or not there be a break in the carriage or a transhipment, are situated either within the territories of two States ratifying the Convention or within the territory of a single ratifying State other than the origin and destination, if there is an agreed stopping place within a territory of that another ratifying State.
According to the Warsaw Convention the carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking. In this case all passengers were on board at the time of the crash and therefore the question of embarkation and disembarkation does not arise.
In the carriage of passengers, the liability of the carrier for each passenger is limited to the sum of 125,000 French francs (about US $ 23,588). Where, in accordance with the law of the Court seized of the case, damages may be awarded in the form of periodical payments, the equivalent capital value of the said payments must not exceed 125,000 francs. Nevertheless, by special contract, the carrier and the passenger may agree to a higher limit of liability.
Jurisdiction
Where institution of action is concerned, the claimant can bring an action under any of the following jurisdictions: in the territory of one of the States (origin or destination); where the carrier is ordinarily resident; or its his principal place of business or has an establishment by which the contract has been made or before the Court having jurisdiction at the place of destination.
Liability of the Airline
Generally, in law an accusation must be proved by the person who alleges it. Therefore, a presumption of innocence applies to an accused person until he is proven guilty. However, in the instance of carriage by air of passengers the airline is presumed liable if a passenger alleges personal injury or if his dependants allege his death as having been caused by the airline. Of course, the airline can show in its defence that it had taken all necessary measures to avoid the damage or that there was contributory negligence and obviate or vitiate its liability.
In order to control the floodgates of litigation and discourage spurious claimants the Convention admits of certain defences the airline may invoke and above all limits the liability of the airline to passengers and dependents of deceased passengers in monetary terms. The Warsaw Convention therefore presents to the lawyer an interesting and different area of the law which is worthy of discussion.
There are two key factors which govern the civil liability of airlines. They are, the presumption of liability that is imposed upon the airline and the liability limits that apply to the protected the airline from unlimited liability and spurious claimants. There are two other factors which operate as adjuncts to the initial concepts. They are that the airline may show certain facts in its defence to rebut the presumption and that if the airline is found to be guilty of wilful misconduct it is precluded from invoking the liability limits under the Warsaw Convention. Viewed at a glance, the said four concepts seem to the grouped into two sets of balancing measures. The end result is that whilst on the one hand the airline is subject to stringent standards of liability, on the other, it is protected by two provisions which limit its liability in monetary terms and allows a complete or partial defence in rebuttal of the presumption.
The Warsaw Convention provides that the airline shall not be liable if it proves that the airline and its agents had taken all necessary measures to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for the airline and its agent to take such measures. The airline usually takes such precautions as making regular announcements to passengers on the status of a flight starting with instructions on security and safety measures that are available in the aircraft. These measures are taken by the airline to conform to the requirements of the Warsaw Convention that the airline has to take all necessary measures to prevent an accident in order that the presumption of liability is rebutted. Thus in a case decided in 1963 it was held that a passenger who leaves her seat when the aircraft goes through turbulent atmosphere is barred from claiming under the Warsaw Convention for personal injury. Here it was held that an admonition of the airline that the passengers were to remain seated with their seat belts fastened during the time in question was proof of the airline having taken the necessary measures as envisaged in the Warsaw Convention. A similar approach was taken in a subsequent case where the court held that the airline should show more than the fact that it was not negligent in order to invoke the defences prescribed by the Warsaw Convention. In a 1977 case it was emphasised that the airline must show that all reasonable measures had been taken from an objective standpoint in order that the benefit of the defence be accrued to the airline. Some French decisions have also approached this defence on similar lines and required a stringent test of generality in order that the criteria for allowing the defence by approved.
The airline which has the burden of proof cannot seek refuge in showing that normal precautions were taken. For example, normal precautions in attending to the safety of the passengers prior to a flight is not sufficient. If therefore the airline cannot adduce a reasonable explanation as to why the accident occurred despite the reasonably necessary precautions being taken it is unlikely to succeed in its defence. Insofar as the requirement of impossibility to take precautions is concerned, the courts have required clear evidence of the difficulties faced by the airline in avoiding the disaster. In one case of a crash landing the court required that it was insufficient for the airline to show that the aircraft was in perfect condition and that the pilot took all steps to affect a good landing. The airline had to show that the weather conditions were so bad that the aircraft could not land in another airport
If the airline proves that the damage was caused by or contributed to by the negligence of the injured person the court may, in accordance with the provisions of its own law, exonerate the carrier wholly or partly from his liability. Contributory negligence under the Warsaw Convention has been treated subjectively as and when cases are adjudicated. In a 1983 case it was held that a passenger is not guilty of contributory negligence if he keeps his seat belt unfastened through the flight and suffers injury when there is no sign given by the aircraft control panel to keep the seat belt on. However, if a passenger removes a bandage or brace that he is required to keep on for an existing injury and he suffers injury in flight due to the removal of the support he would be found to have contributed to the negligence resulting in his injuries.
The Warsaw Convention further states that the airline will not be entitled to avail itself of the provisions of the Warsaw Convention which excludes or limits its liability, if the damage is caused by the wilful misconduct or by such default on the part of the airline as, in accordance with the law of the court to which the case is submitted, is considered to be equivalent to wilful misconduct.
The limitation of liability of the carrier that the Warsaw Convention imposes could be circumvented by the plaintiff proving that the carrier was guilty of wilful misconduct in causing the injury. Wilful misconduct as an exception to the limitation of liability rule appears in all three air law conventions that admit of liability limitations.
The Author is an aviation law consultant practicing in Montreal. He is former Senior Legal Officer at the International Civil Aviation Organization and is currently Senior Associate, Air Law and Policy at Aviation Strategies International.
Everyone's favorite historical analogy makes for disastrous foreign policy today.
Vladimir Putin talks to former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev before a press conference in Germany. (JOCHEN LUEBKE/AFP/Getty Images)
BYSTEPHEN M. WALT-
A lot of smart people seem to think the United States and Russia are in a “new Cold War.” You can find articles on the subject in Politico, the New Yorker, and the Nation, and a quick Google search will take you to an entire website devoted to the topic, yet the more balanced views of a couple of years ago are harder to find these days. Politicians in both countries are using increasingly harsh language to describe each other and people on both sides are convinced the other is engaged in various dark plots against them. There are even signs of a new arms race, with Russian President Vladimir Putin boasting about sophisticated new nuclear weaponry and the United States preparing to launch a costly program of nuclear modernization.
The current situation is bad. But to call it a “new Cold War” is misleading more than it is enlightening. If one compares the two situations more carefully, what is happening today is a mere shadow of that earlier rivalry. Viewing today’s troubles as a new Cold War downplays the role that human agency and bad policy decisions have played in bringing the United States and Russia to the current impasse, distracts us from more important challenges, and discourages us from thinking creatively about how to move beyond the present level of rancor.
To see why this is so, remember what the original Cold War was like.
For starters, the Cold War was a bipolar competition in which the United States and the Soviet Union were far and away the two most powerful countries in the world. Although other factors contributed to their rivalry (see below), each was the other’s greatest potential threat and by necessity each kept a wary eye on the other. To a large extent the Cold War was structurally determined by the global distribution of power among states, and some sort of rivalry was probably inevitable (even if other factors were involved and helped determine its intensity).
Moreover, the two superpowers stood in rough parity with each other, although the United States was, on balance, in a much better position. The United States’ economy was about twice as large as the Soviet Union’s and its allies were far more capable and reliable than theirs. After all, the United States had West Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Israel, and a number of other powerful states on its side; the USSR had the likes of South Yemen, Cuba, Angola, and a bunch of restive satellites in the Warsaw Pact. China was Moscow’s junior partner at first, but the two communist giants soon had a nasty falling out and Beijing tacitly realigned with the United States in the 1970s (as did Egypt, another Soviet client state). The United States had vastly greater power-projection capabilities, a superior navy and air force, more sophisticated technology, and better training. But the Soviet Union did have a large and well-equipped army that was designed for offensive warfare and its forces lay close to Western Europe and not that far from the Persian Gulf. And it eventually acquired a large arsenal of nuclear weapons. On balance, the United States was ahead, but never by a big enough margin to relax. So, the two superpowers competed constantly for additional influence, and did whatever they could to weaken the other without provoking World War III.
At the same time, the Cold War also featured an intense competition between rival political ideologies: liberal capitalism and Marxism-Leninism. Both were inherently universalistideologies, insofar as their proponents believed that each provided a model for organizing society that was broadly applicable everywhere in the world. Liberal capitalism rested on claims about basic rights that all humans were said to possess, while Marxism-Leninism rested on “scientific” laws of social and economic development that Marx and his followers had supposedly discovered. Because each ideology saw itself as universally valid, proponents felt obliged to try to spread them far and wide. Even worse, given each side’s universalist pretensions, the mere existence of one posed a fundamental challenge to the legitimacy of the other. For both ideological and power-political reasons, therefore, “live and let live” was never a serious option.
Finally, as my colleague Arne Westad has shown clearly, the Cold War was a global competition waged on every continent in the world. The rivalry between Moscow and Washington shaped much of the agenda of world politics from the 1940s onward, and had far-reaching (and frequently negative) effects in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
That was the real Cold War, ladies and gentlemen, and let’s not forget that it was punctuated by several intense nuclear crises, an arms race in which each side accumulated tens of thousands of powerful hydrogen bombs, and proxy wars in which millions died. While regrettable and maybe even dangerous, what is happening today is a very different animal.
First, and most obviously, the world today is not bipolar. It is either still unipolar or some sort of heavily lopsided multipolar system, with the United States still No. 1 and the other major powers trailing behind. If bipolarity eventually returns, as many believe it will, China, not Russia, will be the other pole. And in a striking reversal of the early Cold War, Russia is now China’s junior partner and will be far weaker than its Asian neighbor for decades to come. (Russia will likely fall well behind India too, but that’s another story.)
Second, there was a certain rough parity during the Cold War, but today the United States is vastly stronger on nearly every dimension that matters. The U.S. economy is about $20 trillion, while Russia’s is less than $2 trillion. America is technologically sophisticated and highly innovative, while Russia’s wealth, such as it is, relies mostly on energy exports whose value is likely to decline as mankind gradually weans itself off fossil fuels. In the meantime, hardly anybody is saving up pennies (or rubles) to buy the latest Russian smartphone. The U.S. population is comparatively young and still rising; Russia’s population is aging rapidly and projected to decline sharply in the decades to come. Compared to the Cold War, today’s United States vs. Russia matchup is Godzilla vs. Bambi.
Third, there is no serious ideological rivalry at play today. America’s liberal brand may have been tarnished of late, but Russia’s ideological appeal outside its borders is minimal. Marxism-Leninism captured the imaginations and loyalties of millions of adherents around the world, but Putinism has appeal only to a handful of oligarchs or would-be autocrats. Donald Trump is probably the only person in America who truly believes strongman rule is preferable to democracy, but he won’t be president-for-life no matter how much he might want to be.
Fourth, the real Cold War was a global competition, whereas the geopolitical issues that divide the United States and Russia today are confined to areas close to Russia’s borders, like Ukraine, or to a small part of the Middle East. And for all the hot air that has been spouted about Putin’s “revisionism,” Russia’s role in most of these conflicts is essentially negative and defensive and very much the spoiler. Moscow may be able to keep Ukraine from moving toward the West or joining NATO, and it may be able to keep Bashar al-Assad in power in what remains of Syria, but like George W. Bush, Putin is discovering that clients are hard to control and getting into quagmires is easier than finding one’s way out. Moscow has shown little capacity to achieve positive ends on the world stage or to bring other nations together to work toward the goal of mutual betterment. When compared to Soviet leaders’ lofty dreams of world revolution, Putin’s “global agenda” is watered-down vodka.
But wait: What about those dastardly Russian attempts to manipulate the 2016 U.S. election, and to sow discord and disunity via bots, internet trolls, phony Facebook accounts, hacked emails, and other misdeeds? We still don’t know the full extent of Russian interference in our democracy, but Americans have every reason to be angry about it and should be demanding that the Trump administration take active measures to limit and or deter such behavior in the future. At the same time, our moral outrage ought to be tempered just a bit by the recognition that Washington has repeatedly interfered in other countries’ politics and used both overt and covert means to dispatch of governments we didn’t like. As far as we know, no Americans died as a result of Russia’s meddling, but there are hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who lost their lives because of our well-intentioned efforts to “liberate” them.
Equally important, Russia’s various activities were possible only because Americans had already allowed our democratic institutions to be seriously corrupted long before Moscow got involved. I’m not happy about whatever Putin, Fancy Bear, and other Russian agents may have done, but Newt Gingrich, Fox News, Breitbart, and the Drudge Report have done far more to fill American heads with claptrap than Moscow’s minions ever did.
Furthermore, we shouldn’t be at all surprised that someone like Putin — deeply resentful of repeated U.S. encroachments on Russian vital interests — saw this opportunity and seized it. Even a casual knowledge of American history would tell you that it only takes a little bit of foreign interference to get us to freak out completely. Remember McCarthyism, the Palmer Raids, or the “one percent doctrine”? No wonder Putin saw us as a fat target. But my point is that we mostly did this to ourselves.
Lastly, thinking of the current conflict between the United States and Russia as a new Cold War exaggerates its significance and distracts us from the far more serious challenge we facefrom a rising China. Even worse, it encourages us to take steps that are actively harmful to our own interests. Instead of trying to drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing (as realpolitik 101 would prescribe), the “new Cold War” mindset implies that U.S.-Russian rivalry is overdetermined and makes us less likely to look for ways to resolve our differences over time. Even worse, it will encourage us to fall back on the confrontational approaches we employed during the real Cold War, which will merely drive Beijing and Moscow closer together.
None of this is to deny that U.S.-Russian relations are in a bad state. It is also hard to imagine someone as compromised as Donald Trump doing much to fix it. But instead of embracing the language and imagery of the Cold War, we would do better to think seriously about the missteps and blunders that have brought the United States and Russia to the present impasse, and look for creative new ways to unwind them. And step one is to discard a lazy label that can only get in the way.
(Lanka-e-News - 13.March.2018, 12.30PM) Maithripala Sirisena who is now considered as a two penny half penny worth president because of his political misadventures and untrustworthiness to the detriment of the entire country and who is precariously hanging on a 4 % popularity in the country, had sent his wheeler dealer son in law Thilina Suranjith to Japan on the 10 th prior to his own departure to Japan today on an official visit. All these arrangements are to ‘fix’ a deal as usual.
The Bedouin village of Um al-Nasser is the front line of any future Israeli ground invasion.
Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah waves to the crowd upon his arrival in Gaza City on 13 March (AFP)
Vladimir Putin talks to former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev before a press conference in Germany. (JOCHEN LUEBKE/AFP/Getty Images)