How Facebook protects Israel

Palestinian journalists protesting Facebook’s persistent blocking of Palestinian accounts in Gaza City on 5 March. Ashraf AmraAPA images

 

Tamara Nassar-15 March 2018

The Israeli authorities are exerting pressure on Facebook to comply with more of their demands.
Earlier this month, members of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, discussed how to suppress content of which they disapproved on the social media website.

One objective was to get Facebook to ban pictures of Ahmad Nasser Jarrar, a Palestinian extrajudicially executed by the Israeli army in February. Human rights groups have concluded that the military sought to kill, rather than arrest, Jarrar, a suspect in the shooting death of an Israeli settler in the occupied West Bank.

Uri Maklev, an Israeli lawmaker, claimed there is a “correlation between social networks and terror operations,” and that “Facebook is responsible for what is being done on its platform” and must do “everything to remove such content.”

According to Israel’s state attorney office, the Israeli government requests an average of 12,000 cases of content to be removed from Facebook each year.

This information was relayed by Itai Gohar, representing the cyber department at the state attorney’s office, during the recent discussion in the Knesset.

Gohar added that Facebook complies with “only” 85 percent of reports from Israel’s state attorney office. The response rate is as quick as a few hours “during periods of security escalation,” and 24 hours otherwise.

This claim suggests that Facebook works in favor of Israel’s security apparatus.

Contradiction

However, the claims by Israel’s state attorney office directly contradict Facebook’s transparency reports, which are available on its site.

Facebook’s documentation reveals that content removed at the request of the Israeli government averages about 550 pieces of content each year. That is many times lower than the figure indicated by the Israeli authorities.

The number of pieces of content removed each year at the request of the Israeli government was 113 for the second half of 2013, according to Facebook. The removal figure came to 30 during the entire year of 2014 and 431 in 2015.

The number of removals rose to 1,623 in 2016, according to Facebook data. And the figure for the first half of 2017 was 472.

Facebook stated last year that the main reason why it restricted access to certain items at Israel’s request was because the posts in question promoted denial of the Holocaust.

This data demonstrates that either Facebook transparency reports or Israel’s state attorney office have presented false data. The data presented by one of them can’t be true.

“Another face of occupation”

Palestinian journalists held a demonstration in Gaza City on 5 March, to protest Facebook’s persistent blocking of Palestinian accounts.

Protesters held banners that read, “Facebook collaboration with Israel transforms it from [a] social media platform for all to another face of occupation,” and used the hashtag “#FBfightspalestine” on social media.

In 2016, Israel struck an accord with Facebook. Under it, the corporation agreed to collaborate in monitoring what Israel claims is “incitement” by Palestinians.

Since then, the number of Palestinian posts removed by Facebook at the request of the Israeli government has risen. Some Palestinian news organizations have been obstructed from publishing material on the website.

While Palestinians have been subject to greater censorship, a large number of Israelis have used Facebook for posting racist material.

One out of every nine Facebook posts written about Palestinians contains a call for violence or a curse, according to a new study conducted by the Palestinian campaign group 7amleh.

A new post containing incitement against Palestinians is uploaded every 71 seconds, the group has calculated.

The study also found that the number of right-wing Israeli Facebook groups and pages that incite against Palestinians dramatically increased in 2017.

The report complains that while “Facebook intensifies its efforts to suspend, delete and ban Palestinian accounts and pages under the pretext of ‘incitement,’ the social media giant expanded its platform for Israeli incitement.”

Israeli online violence is especially directed towards Palestinian politicians. Ahmad Tibi and Haneen Zoabi, both Palestinian members of the Knesset, are regularly subjected to violent threats on Facebook.

Israel court suspends plan to deport thousands of African migrants

Prime Minister Netanyahu in January announced implementation of the programme to remove migrants who entered illegally

African migrants march from Holot detention centre to the Saharonim Prison, an Israeli detention facility for African asylum seekers on 22 February (AFP)

Thursday 15 March 2018

Israel's supreme court on Thursday suspended a controversial government plan to deport thousands of Eritrean and Sudanese migrants in response to a challenge from those opposed to the move.

The court said in its decision the state was given until 26 March to provide further information and the suspension on deporting them to a third country would remain in place until then.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in January announced implementation of the programme to remove migrants who entered illegally, giving them a choice between leaving voluntarily or facing indefinite imprisonment with eventual forced expulsion.

According to interior ministry figures, there are currently some 42,000 African migrants in Israel, half of them children, women or men with families, who are not facing immediate deportation.

As the migrants could face danger or imprisonment if returned to their homelands, Israel is offering to relocate them to an unnamed African country, which deportees and aid workers say is Rwanda or Uganda.

Migrants began entering Israel through what was then a porous Egyptian border in 2007. The border has since been strengthened, all but ending illegal crossings.

Israel's deportation or imprisonment plan has drawn criticism from the United Nations refugee agency as well as from some Israelis and rights activists.

'Infiltrators'

On Wednesday, Israel closed the Holot detention centre for migrants in the southern Negev desert as part of the deportation plan.

Since Netanyahu announced the deportation plan, some Holot inmates have been transferred to the nearby Saharonim prison.

Others who had submitted asylum requests before January 1 were released pending a decision, Haaretz newspaper reported.

Immigration authority spokeswoman Sabine Haddad said 300 had been freed after agreeing to leave the Jewish state.

Those released were barred from living or working in seven cities with high migrant populations, including Tel Aviv -- where most are concentrated -- Jerusalem and the Red Sea resort of Eilat, she said.

Holot, an open facility where inmates were free to leave during the day but had to return at night, was opened in 2013 with the aim of siphoning migrants away from the cities, the immigration authority says.

Israeli officials say that no one they classify as a refugee or asylum-seeker will be deported, though the process of granting asylum has been criticised as extremely slow and biased against claims.

Only a handful of asylum claims have been approved in recent years.

The migrants' presence in Israel has become a political issue.

Religious and conservative politicians have portrayed the presence of Muslim and Christian Africans as a threat to Israel's Jewish character.

Netanyahu has pledged to "return south Tel Aviv to the citizens of Israel", adding that the Africans were "not refugees but illegal infiltrators".

Those opposed to the plan include Holocaust survivors who say the country has a special duty to protect migrants.

Haley: Vote With U.S. at U.N. or We’ll Cut Your Aid

In a proposed aid overhaul, Nikki Haley embraces an “America first” foreign policy.

Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., tours a U.S.-funded supermarket in the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan on May 21, 2017. (Raad Adayleh/AFP/Getty Images)

BY COLUM LYNCH-

 MARCH 15, 2018, 3:41 PM
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley is proposing a sweeping reassessment of U.S. foreign assistance with a view to punishing dozens of poor countries that vote against U.S. policies at the U.N., according to a confidential internal memo drafted by her staff.

The move to make foreign aid conditional on political support follows a U.S. decision to cut tens of millions of dollars in assistance to Palestinian refugees, a cut made in retaliation for Palestine’s sponsorship of U.N. resolutions denouncing U.S. President Donald Trump’s controversial recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Haley now wants to apply a similar principle to decisions about aid to other needy countries.

“It is the opinion of the U.S. mission to the U.N. that all U.S. foreign assistance should be reevaluated to ensure that taxpayers dollars are spent to advance U.S. interests, not to fund foreign legacy programs that provide little or no return on investment,” according to the 53-page memo, which was reviewed by Foreign Policy. The Palestinian aid cuts “should serve as a fulcrum from which we use our foreign assistance leverage and measure its impact.”

The memo, titled “America First Foreign Assistance Policy” and marked sensitive, echoes Trump’s oft-repeated claim that the world takes advantage of U.S. largesse while opposing American goals. The proposal also underscores the dramatic shift in Haley’s own stance on foreign assistance; she began her term pledging to preserve humanitarian aid for Palestinian and Syrian civilians and to oppose “slash and burn” cuts at the United Nations.

The document is part of a broader interagency review of U.S. foreign assistance initiated by Trump, who appealed to Congress during his State of the Union address to “pass legislation to help ensure American foreign-assistance dollars always serve American interests and only go to America’s friends.”

The memo recognizes that support for U.S. positions at the U.N. is not the only condition for aid, and that in many cases it must be “disregarded in favor of US security or economic needs.” Some of the largest recipients of U.S. aid, including Iraq, which votes against the U.S. 60 percent of the time, and Egypt, which “often has a more antagonistic approach to the United States in the U.N. than Russia, China and Venezuela,” would likely be spared, according to the memo.

But “the autopilot nature of many U.S. foreign assistance efforts is leaving far too much ‘low-hanging fruit’ that should be either eliminated or leveraged into greater support at the U.N. and elsewhere.”

The paper proposes subjecting to review nearly 40 countries that received a total of $100 million in U.S. assistance in 2016, but that vote against the United States 54 percent of the time. It notes that South Sudan, one of the top 10 recipients of U.S. aid in 2016, “votes for U.S. interests at the United Nations a paltry 47.9% of the time.”

The document primarily targets development programs, including infrastructure, education, and energy projects, even though those kinds of overseas assistance programs are often explicitly designed to advance U.S. foreign-policy interests. Development and education investments help curb radicalism, while energy and development assistance boosts economic growth and stability, lowering the chance for conflict.

Haley’s staff cite three U.S.-funded projects worth reconsidering in view of the recipient countries’ frequent lack of support for U.S. positions: A $3.1 million job training program in Zimbabwe, a $6.6 million climate change program in Vietnam, and a $4.9 million school construction program in Ghana. The memo tallied $580 million in total U.S. support for those three countries in fiscal year 2016, but saw support for U.S. positions in the U.N. only 54 percent of the time from Ghana, 38 percent of the time from Vietnam, and 19 percent of the time from Zimbabwe.

“None voted with us on Jerusalem, even though none have a strong domestic constituency compelling the vote,” the memo adds.

Haley’s office suggested that congressional support for such a policy would strengthen its impact, but said U.S. diplomats could get better voting outcomes if they underscored the threat of losing aid money.

“If our warnings fail, then, as the president said, ‘we would save a lot of money,’” the memo reads.
Some conservatives have long bridled at the fact that countries that receive U.S. aid routinely vote against the United States in the U.N. General Assembly. “I’ve been of the view that votes in the United Nations should cost people, cost countries that vote against us,” John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and rumored next national security advisor, recently told Fox News.

Bolton recalled that former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker said that Yemen’s 1990 vote against the authorization of force against the then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would be the most expensive vote they ever cast. “And we did cut their foreign aid,” Bolton said. “And there needs to be more of that.”

Haley, who has frequently sought Bolton’s counsel on U.N. matters, agrees. “For decades, the U.S. has been by far the world’s single-largest provider of foreign assistance,” her staff writes in the memo. “Numerous countries have taken advantage of this assistance while routinely opposing us in the U.N.”

The memo says there is a “historic reflex” among American administrations to continue providing assistance year after year to legacy aid programs. “It should stop,” it states.

Humanitarian aid advocates have voiced alarm. “To walk away in a casual and cavalier manner from decades of U.S. policy on humanitarian assistance is profoundly depressing,” says Eric Schwartz, the president of Refugees International. “It’s wrong morally and it’s wrong geostrategically.”

He says that such a posture could undermine U.S. soft power around the world.

“The goodwill that the U.S. has in the world has largely been the result of the perception of international good citizenship,” Schwartz says. “To walk away from that is shameful.”

Allies back UK to condemn Russia over Salisbury nerve agent attack

Statement by UK, US, Germany and France ramps up rhetoric against Moscow, with Russia expected to retaliate over expulsion of diplomats


Theresa May talks with Wiltshire police’s chief constable Kier Pritchard in Salisbury on Thursday. Photograph: Toby Melville/AFP/Getty Images

Peter Walker, Julian Borger and Ewen MacAskill-Thu 15 Mar 2018 19.33 GMT

International pressure on Russia following the Salisbury nerve agent attack has been strongly ratcheted up, with Britain, the US, France and Germany jointly condemning an “assault on UK sovereignty”, as Washington boosted its own sanctions on Moscow.

With Russia still promising retaliation to the expulsion of 23 of its diplomats from the UK, Theresa May’s frantic telephone diplomacy in the wake of the attack seemed to have coalesced the UK’s allies into a united response.

The joint statement from May, Donald Trump, Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel dispensed with any earlier equivocation to say there was “no plausible alternative explanation” for the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, other than Russian action.

It said the Salisbury attack came amid “a pattern of earlier irresponsible Russian behaviour”. This message was reinforced hours later as the US increased sanctions over Russian interference in the 2016 elections, and accused Russia of a cyber-attack against its energy grid and other infrastructure.
US officials said malware had been found in the operating systems of several organisations and companies in the US energy, nuclear, water and “critical manufacturing” sectors, with the attacks allegedly traced to Moscow.

The statement – described by Downing Street as the first time the leaders of the four nations had spoken together in such a way – marked a toughening of the rhetoric against Moscow, which continued to insist it had nothing to do with the attack.

The leaders said they “abhorred” the Salisbury incident, and the involvement of the Russian-made novichok “constitutes the first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the second world war”.

“It is an assault on UK sovereignty and any such use by a state party is a clear violation of the chemical weapons convention and a breach of international law,” their statement said. 

 

The UK had “thoroughly briefed its allies that it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for the attack”, the statement said, adding: “We share the UK assessment that there is no plausible alternative explanation, and note that Russia’s failure to address the legitimate request by the UK government further underlines its responsibility.”

The joint response followed calls between May and the three other leaders in the days since the attack. They included a talk with Macron on Thursday morning, a day after the French president’s spokesman had warned the UK against what he called “fantasy politics”, prompting concerns in No 10 that Macron might hold back on attributing blame.

After the statement was released, Trump told reporters: “It certainly looks like the Russians were behind it. Something that should never, ever happen, and we’re taking it very seriously, as I think are many others.”

May spent some of the Thursday visiting Salisbury, where she met DS Nick Bailey, who became seriously ill after going to the aid of Skripal and his daughter, Yulia.She did not meet the two Russian victims, who remain in a critical condition.

May said the four countries were “very clear in attributing this act to Russia”. The statement showed that “allies are standing alongside us and saying this is part of a pattern of activity that we have seen from Russia,” she said.

Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, used a speech in Bristol to accuse Russia of “ripping up the international rulebook” through actions aimed at subverting other countries. The Salisbury attack was “atrocious and outrageous,” Williamson said.

Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, said the evidence against Russia was “overwhelming”. He told the BBC: “There is something in the kind of smug, sarcastic response that we’ve heard that indicates their fundamental guilt. They want to simultaneously deny it, yet at the same time to glory in it.”

While Johnson reiterated Britain’s plan to not send any dignitaries to this summer’s World Cup in Russia, he said the England team should take part.

Johnson said the UK would provide samples of the nerve agent to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), based at The Hague, for more tests.

Johnson also drew a connection between the Salisbury attack and the Syrian civil war, pointing to the way Russia had repeatedly protected the Assad regime from UN punishment over the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons. Successive UN inquiries found Assad’s troops had deployed chemical weapons, but the findings were vetoed by Russia.

Writing in the Washington Post, Johnson said: “The common thread that joins the poisonings in Salisbury with the annexation of Crimea, the cyber-attacks in Ukraine, the hacking of Germany’s parliament and Russian interference in foreign elections is the Kremlin’s reckless defiance of essential international rules.”

With Russia expected to expel UK diplomats as part of retaliatory counter-measures, Sergei Ryabkov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, denied that novichok, the nerve agent identified as used in Salisbury, was of Russian origin.

Along with the cybersecurity alert, the US treasury announced new sanctions against Russian individuals and entities – including the FSB and GRU intelligence agencies – as well as the Internet Research Agency in St Petersburg.

As a result of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, US officials said that thousands of Russian-planted stories reached millions of people on the internet.

The new sanctions represent the broadest set of US punitive measures against Russia since the start of the Trump administration, and many of their targets are the same as those identified by an indictment by Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign.

Thousands flee in first mass exodus from Syria's besieged eastern Ghouta

People walk with their belongings as they flee the rebel-held town of Hammouriyeh, in the village of Beit Sawa, eastern Ghouta, Syria March 15, 2018. REUTERS/Omar Sanadiki

MARCH 15, 2018

EASTERN GHOUTA, Syria (Reuters) - Thousands of Syrian civilians fled from a rebel pocket in eastern Ghouta on Thursday, crossing by foot to army positions in the first mass exodus from the besieged enclave since Syrian government forces launched an assault to capture it a month ago.

Men, women and children staggered under the weight of blankets, bags and suitcases as they walked along a dirt road to army lines on the outskirts of Hammouriyeh town. Some wept.

One man carried a baby in a suitcase, the child’s head and arms peaking out through the zipper. Others reached government positions in the nearby town of Beit Sawa on wheelchairs.

 

“We had been trapped in the basements and did not dare come out, in the cellars and tunnels,” a man who left the rebel pocket to government territory told Reuters on the outskirts of Hammouriyeh. “We could not do anything.... There was no food.”

“There was no water, no electricity, no education for the children,” said another man from Hammouriyeh, Amer al-Shourbaji.

Another man, who gave his name as Abu al-Nour, told Reuters he had been in contact with people in army territory for days trying to arrange safe passage out.

“For eight days, we have coordinated with the soldiers, telling them we want to get the civilians out,” he said.

The exodus could prove a key moment in eastern Ghouta, one of the seven-year-old war’s biggest battles, in which the fate of civilians trapped in the siege zone has been central.

The United Nations has estimated 400,000 people had been under siege in eastern Ghouta, the last large rebel bastion near the capital Damascus, with little access to food or medicine.

The government and its Russian allies have been pounding the area with air strikes since mid-February and launched a ground assault that has seized much of the territory since last week, cutting towns off from each other.

 

Fighting has raged on there despite a U.N. Security Council demand for a ceasefire. Moscow and Damascus argue the enemies they target are members of terrorist groups unprotected by the truce. They say rebels are preventing civilians from escaping.

The rebels deny this and say most residents are now fleeing because of the government’s bombs falling on Ghouta.

The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the conflict, said at least 12,500 people left towards government territory. They came out of Hammouriyeh and Jisreen, which the army advanced into on Thursday, and other towns nearby.

“Every hour, over 800 people are leaving,” Russia’s RIA news agency cited Major General Vladimir Zolotukhin as saying.

Moscow has offered safe passage out to rebel fighters willing to surrender the territory, a tactic that has helped Damascus and its allies regain control over major cities in western Syria. The opposition says that amounts to forced displacement.

A child sleeps in a bag in the village of Beit Sawa, eastern Ghouta, Syria March 15, 2018. REUTERS/Omar Sanadiki

SPLINTERED

Last week, pro-government forces splintered the rebel territory of eastern Ghouta into three separate pockets. Rebel fighters, who have vowed not to surrender, have been pulling out of some towns in the face of the advance.

“We have withdrawn to Ain Terma,” Mahmoud, 23, a fighter with the Failaq al-Rahman rebel faction in Hammouriyeh told Reuters by telephone, referring to another nearby town.

“The situation is very mixed up. we didn’t understand anything at all,” he said. “We don’t want anything other than for the civilians to be safe, and whatever happens to us happens. We don’t know what will happen.”

The Syrian army seized swathes of farmland and factories in in the northeast of Hammouriyeh, said a military media unit run by Iran-backed Hezbollah, which fights alongside Syria’s army.

Wael Olwan, spokesman for Failaq al-Rahman, accused the army in a tweet of storming Hammouriyeh and exploiting the plight of civilians fleeing air strikes.

Earlier this week, small groups of sick and wounded people were evacuated from another zone further north, around the town of Douma, under a deal between the Jaish al-Islam rebel faction and Russia. There has so far been no mass exodus from there.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said 25 aid trucks entered that besieged pocket and headed to Douma, eastern Ghouta’s biggest town.

“This is just a little of what these families need,” the ICRC in Syria said in a tweet. ICRC spokeswoman Iolanda Jaquemet said the convoy, which entered through the al-Wafideen crossing with the United Nations, contained food aid for 26,100 people for one month, among other items.

The Observatory said government warplanes and shelling had pounded the Failaq zone overnight. Air strikes on the town of Zamalka there killed 12 people on Thursday, it said. The Douma town appeared quiet on Thursday while the aid convoy entered.

The army’s month-long onslaught of air and artillery strikes on eastern Ghouta has killed more than 1,100 people and injured thousands more, the United Nations says.

The Syrian government and its key ally Moscow say their forces only target armed militants. They have said they seek to end the rule of Islamist insurgents over civilians and stop mortar fire on Damascus.

“Praise God...the families are coming out to suitable locations to the state’s embrace,” an army officer said on state television on Thursday.

State TV showed interviews with people crossing the front, in which they said the Ghouta insurgents had not let them out before. They were coming through a crossing in Hammouriyeh, and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC) would move them to temporary shelters in rural Damascus, it said.

Dozens of people crowded into trucks and tractors waved or chanted as they drove by.

One man cried and thanked the Syrian army in the broadcast. Another from Hammouriyeh said militants had attacked somebody who tried raising the Syrian flag there in recent weeks. “They fired at him and brought down the flag,” the unnamed man said.

Burma will only take back fewer than 400 Rohingya refugees

 15th March 2018

Myanmar border guard police force patrol near the Myanmar-Bangladeshi border outside Maungdaw, northern Rakhine state, Myanmar, November 12, 2017. Source: Reuters/Wa Lone

ONLY 374 Rohingya Muslim refugees have been verified by Burma (Myanmar) for possible repatriation from Bangladesh, officials said on Wednesday, starting a repatriation process that has been criticised by rights groups as being premature.

Burmese officials blamed their neighbour for not providing the correct information and paperwork authorities have deemed essential under the strict requirements of repatriation.

Nearly 700,000 Rohingya fled Myanmar after militant attacks on Aug 25 sparked a crackdown led by security forces in the western Rakhine state that the United Nations and United States have said constituted ethnic cleansing.

SEE ALSO: Rohingya repatriation faces many hurdles

The administration of Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi has sought to counter the allegations by forging ahead with development in Rakhine and by readying reception centres and a camp for returnees.

Part of the repatriation deal includes Rohingya being held in these holding centres, which Rohingya activists have called “concentration camps“.

The two countries reached a deal in November to begin repatriation within two months, but repatriation has not begun, with stateless Rohingya, who face restrictions on their movements in Burma, still crossing the border.

People work inside a camp set up by Myanmar’s Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement Minister to prepare for the repatriation of displaced Rohingyas, who fled to Bangladesh, outside Maungdaw in the state of Rakhine, Myanmar January 24, 2018. Source: Reuters

Myint Thu, permanent secretary at Myanmar‘s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said officials had checked documents handed over by Bangladesh in February relating to 8,032 refugees.

“Out of 8,032, we verified 374. These 374 will be the first batch of the repatriation,” Myint Thu said at a news conference in the capital, Naypyitaw.

“They can come back when it’s convenient for them.”

It was unclear whether the 374 people had agreed to return to Burma.

SEE ALSO: ‘Planning and organisation’ went into State-led Rohingya violence

Burma was unable to confirm whether the rest of the refugees had previously lived in the country, he said, because some documents did not include fingerprints and individual photographs.

The documents were “not in line with our agreement”, police Brigadier-General Win Tun said at the same news conference.

A man walks past the entrance of a camp set up by Myanmar’s Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement Minister to prepare for the repatriation of displaced Rohingyas, who fled to Bangladesh, outside Maungdaw in the state of Rakhine, Myanmar January 24, 2018. Source: Reuters

Burma had found three “terrorists” among the people Bangladesh was proposing for repatriation, Win Tun added.

Bangladesh officials have expressed doubts about Burma‘s willingness to take back Rohingya refugees.

Abul Kalam, Bangladesh’s Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner, said he could not comment in detail because he had not yet received Burma‘s response. But he questioned how more than 300 people could have been verified if the documents were in the wrong format.

Refugees must have identity documents issued by the government, along with proof of their residency in Burma. Such criteria are difficult to meet for most Rohingya who do not have official documents as they are considered illegal immigrants and remain stateless, despite residing in Burma for generations.

Additional reporting by Reuters.

Women’s Accessibility

Once women are at work, increasing the availability of high quality child care services, improving access to part time work and maternity leave and addressing constraints on women’s mobility through safe transportation and telecommuting are essential to helping them remain in the workforce.

by Valerie Layrol-Mar 15, 2018

( March 15, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Today, is exactly one week after the world celebrated International Women’s Day with the theme #PressforProgress. We, at the World Bank made a commitment last week to #PressforProgress everyday of the year towards getting women to access work and remain at work. As expressed in the Country Director’s statements last week, we are determined to walk the talk and to work with partners like you to press for progress in taking policy actions based on research findings. This is not something one organization or an individual can do alone. This is a collective task and we hope you will join us in these efforts.

Our research findings as captured in “Getting to work: unlocking women’s potential in Sri Lanka’s Labour Force” finds that despite steady economic growth, the number of women participating in Sri Lanka’s workforce has declined to 36 percent in 2016 from 41 percent in 2010. Sri Lankan women, especially younger ones do not sufficiently acquire marketable skills, face higher unemployment rates and can expect to receive lower wages than men.

Once women are at work, increasing the availability of high quality child care services, improving access to part time work and maternity leave and addressing constraints on women’s mobility through safe transportation and telecommuting are essential to helping them remain in the workforce.

There is a large degree of harassment of women on public transport in Sri Lanka. According to the findings of a UNFPA study, over 90 percent of women have experienced harassment but just 4 percent of women have sought help from the Police. This study initiated in 2015, covered the whole country with 2500 respondents included in the survey. Findings indicate a wide range of mistreatment on public transport including leering, verbal abuse and unwelcome advances. The majority of harassment was physical. Women in low income groups of Sri Lanka rely heavily on public transport. There is clear evidence that harassment and the threat of harassment are limiting women’s mobility, participation in public life and overall well-being. Removing these barriers to women’s paid work will encourage more Sri Lankan women to participate in the workforce. Among many recommendations, safe childcare and transportation and implementing gender equal labor laws and practices are policy recommendations of this study.

Today we are gathered here to exchange knowledge on the issue and identify gaps, share ideas based on experiences, especially initiatives led by the private sector and also identify ‘quick wins’ and small scale opportunities that could kick-start improvements to women’s accessibility and public transport experiences in the short term and also identify long term changes that would improve the livability of metro Colombo region for both women and men.

I believe all of us working in Sri Lanka are accountable to help expand women’s options for productive, safe and fairly compensated work which in turn would benefit her family and also the country.

I look forward to seeing the outcomes of this conversation and next steps taking it forward.

( The writer is an operations Advisor World Bank Sri Lanka and the Maldives, World Bank Office, Colombo)

The Illegal Wildlife Trade and Infectious Disease: The Deadly Risk to Humans

Image: The animal health company, Merial

Mar-14-2018

(PARADISE VALLEY, Arizona) - Although climate change is often in the headlines, the potential for consequential shifts in infectious diseases that could result receives scant attention.

As plants, animals and microbes continuously adjust to ecological stresses, there is a corresponding increased risk for the emergence of novel infectious diseases that should rightfully be among our primary concerns.

Certainly, the exact extent of man's influence on the extent or rate of climate change may remain controversial. However, there is an alternate form of direct human intervention on a planetary scale that is unequivocal and equally significant.

The Trump administration has lifted the ban on importing elephant and lion trophies to much uproar. However, there is still the rapidly growing illegal trade of other exotic wildlife as either pets, consumption as food, imagined medicinal purposes, ivory for ornaments or skins for decoration that also needs to be addressed.

Much of this illicit commerce intentionally concentrates on endangered or nearly extinct species. Want to own a baby tiger? It can be shipped with ease. In fact, according to the World Wildlife Fund, there are more tigers in American back yards than there are in the wild. The extent of this illicit worldwide trade is vast but is not widely known. It may be in the shadows but it is at least the fourth largest global illegal industry following drugs, human trafficking, and illegal arms.

The revenue stream of this illegal traffic amounts to tens of billions of dollars annually. Demand is voracious and the prices can be astronomical. A gorilla can be yours for $400,000. A baby giraffe is a relative bargain, only $60,000. Birds, mammals such as monkeys, lizards or other reptiles, snakes and insects are all commonly traded.

The market for uncommon and endangered species is particularly brisk. The prices are higher for nearly extinct species as they are the most prized for bragging rights in this perverse marketplace. The abusive treatment of these animals subject to this trade is heart-rending.They are confined to small cages and subjected to unnatural and cruel conditions.

Mortality is high during transport and their target owners are ill-equipped to provide adequate care. However, even as terrible as these abuses are, there is a further facet of this activity that is little discussed but of paramount importance.

There are a large variety of infectious diseases that can be inadvertently spread through this illegal trade that can put entire populations of animals including us humans at significant risk. The vast majority of the deadliest infectious diseases that have afflicted mankind throughout our history are termed zoonotic infections. These are infections that are spread from animal to man or indeed, man to animal.

Zoonotic disease also accounts for most emerging infections, estimated at over 60% of such deadly novel infectious diseases. Of these, the great majority (70%) originate in wildlife. For example, 

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) is now believed to have originated in bats, was spread to civets (small cat-like nocturnal mammals native to tropical Asian and Africa and coveted in the illegal wildlife trade) and then jumped to humans.

The 2003 SARS epidemic in China and Hong Kong infected over 8,000 people and was associated with more than 700 deaths. Other terrifying disease have similarly emerged. Ebola virus has been spread by the importation of primates from the Philippines but fortunately remained restricted to monkeys.

Aside from SARS, other recent zoonotic diseases include Ebola, HIV, and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).

Many infections such as these can also spread to man through intermediary insect vectors. For example, the European bubonic plague was spread by fleas on rats that came with trading ships arriving from distant ports during the Middle Ages. In that epidemic (1348-1350), it is estimated that 50% of the European population was killed.

The entire fabric of civilization was destroyed for generations. It may be hard to imagine that such events could ever be repeated in our modern context with available antibiotics and vaccines, but the fact that no recent crucial emerging infectious disease has similarly spread is simply a matter of good fortune rather than intelligent policy.

Clearly, every effort needs to be made to attempt to interdict this highly dangerous trade. Importantly too, a similar set of concerns applies to the abundant legal worldwide trade of domesticated and non-domesticated animals. Their importation often forces high density surroundings that include an unnatural collection of species.

This is a potent environment for the cross-species transmission of atypical pathogens. In such circumstances, the risks are great and the results are completely unpredictable. It is known that the majority of emerging infectious diseases are spread by drug-resistant pathogens and these circumstances are its breeding ground.

It is disturbing that there are few global resources directed towards disease prevention and emergence. Of the little that is available, much is poorly allocated.

Obviously, there is no disease surveillance program in the illegal wildlife trade, but even for legally imported animals, there is little oversight. Quarantine is required for only a few animal species. Mandatory testing of these imported animals exists for some diseases but ignores other consequential ones.

Even worse, this testing is often left in the hands of the importer rather than being conducted by an objective agency. Therefore, a critical focus on the illegal wildlife trade must be matched by a thorough re-examination our procedures and policies regarding legal animal importation.

At this moment, good luck has permitted complacency. However, the lack of a disastrous outcome to date does not mitigate the actual risks. It is an absolute certainty that there will be a next global pandemic since these occurrences are a part of our basic planetary biological system from the inception of life forward.

The only operative questions are these: when, where, and under what circumstances will it materialize?

Clearly, our best defense is to diminish the risk and mitigate the effects of that inevitable outcome prior to its emergence through scientifically grounded policies and rigorous procedures.

_________________________________________

Dr. Bill Miller had been a physician in academic and private practice for over thirty years. He is the author of The Microcosm Within: Evolution and Extinction in the Hologenome. Dr. Miller is an internationally recognized evolutionary biologist and an expert on the emerging science of the microbiome.

He is the author/co-author of numerous academic papers on the microbiome and evolution, serves as guest editor of a major academic biology journal and is co-editor of a forthcoming textbook on developmental and evolutionary biology.

Source: Smith Publicity

SRI LANKA GOVERNMENT’S EFFORTS IN RESTRICTING ACCESS TO SOCIAL MEDIA IS AN EFFORT OF CONTROLLING OPTIONAL JOURNALISM. 

14/03/2018

(Press release 14th March 2018) We, the National Movement of Web Journalist of Sri Lanka, with severe contempt disagree with the decision of the Unity Government of Sri Lanka to restrict access to all social media in Sri Lanka. The particular decision is quite contrary to the best options that would have been taken by the Government of Sri Lanka to control the growing issue of communal violence in the country. In a case where communal violence were growing without leaving an enough space for the government to ensure a control of whatsoever, the ideal solution that should have been taken was identifying the racist individuals that fuel the communal violence in the society and taking legal actions against them. We would like to remind the Government of Sri Lanka, that there are enough laws already enacted for such a level of prevention of violence.

 

Despite these, taking actions to restrict the access to social media in a way that affect all of those who are in Sri Lanka is a clear indication of the Government’s attempt to control the optional journalism practices of Sri Lanka. Further, it is a clear restriction that imposed on the Freedom for Information of all Sri Lankans.

 

Sri Lanka has no lack of experiences of Governments that attempted on restricting / controlling optional journalism practices of the country in an attempt of concealing its own weaknesses. Particularly, during the Rajapaksha regime one could find a number of examples that implied the particular regime’s attempts of masking its failures by banning the optional Web media & web media which were politically opponent to them, and by threatening and intimidating the journalists of such media. However, what is more ironic is the Sirisena – Wickremesinghe Government which gained the political power on the very promise of ending such arbitrary practices on media and journalists has now taken the same as their approach. In their case, they have went further from restricting web media to restricting all social media. In simple, Sri Lankans now face a situation, regrettably, of which they have been forced in to the fire from the frying pan.

 

The Government’s decision to restrict social media creates an enormous number of communication issues to both of those who are in and out of the country. Government will also fail in providing a credible information on an accurate estimation of profit damage this might have generated in the Business sector of the country.

 

As the National Movement of Web Journalists of Sri Lanka, we believe the Government will utilize the social media restriction as the initiative event of their long-term plan of suppression. This could very well be Government’s trial on evaluating the possibilities of restricting social media-based optional journalism in an upcoming Presidential or a Parliamentary General Election in which such journalism could grow problematic to the political future of the Government.

 

If the Unity Government decide to continue its current abrupt and suppressive manner of governing, we, the National Movement of Web Journalists of Sri Lanka will not hesitate to take lead in initiating a democratic ideological change campaign which would end the Government’s lifetime just the way we the Sri Lankans did to the Rajapaksha regime. Therefore, we demand the Government of Sri Lanka to stop disguising undemocratic practices as solutions to the issues of the country. The Government should act to identify real issues and be accountable to solving them.

 

Suvin Wagaarachchi,

Convener

President against facebook :His secretaries ‘Muckthileke’ and ‘Wala payaiy Goda payaiy’ force Facebook Co. to ban facebook

-Conference against ban today!

(Lanka-e-News- 14.March.2018, 11.00PM)   The precariously perched  4 % embattled  president Maithripala Sirisena went  so far as even to ban the facebook pages which are criticizing him, falsely citing racial conflicts as an excuse.. There are two most  notorious and infamous characters among those  of the stone age facebook villains   by the name of Shiral Lakthileke (NGO crook) dubbed  Muckthileke for his worst filthy unscrupulous  ways and therefore was chased out of the UNP  , and ‘Wala payayi Godapayayi’ (one foot in grave pit and  other in cesspit)  . Shiral is the co ordinating secretary to the president and the latter is the president of TRC and president’s secretary.

The rascally duo had drawn the attention of  the Facebook Co. , to   the condition  which stipulates ,if the facebook ban is to be lifted , the account of the facebook which informs the TRC and CERT Institutions should be banned.  Though the CERT is a somewhat independent Institution , the TRC is president’s political organ. The Facebook Institution has not accepted the view of the rascally duo so far.

Based on reports reaching Lanka e news , within  the group of facebook accounts , it is Lanka e news which is in the first place .

This group of villains  without a court order proscribed Lanka e news  and obstructed its legion of viewers from accessing it. Fortunately however  it is because of the existence of  facebook account they were  able to  access it. Nevertheless , it is now the despicable motive of these villainous scoundrels to obstruct Lanka e news  at the moment when  exposures against racism are being made . A website aiding and abetting the move of  these rascals   posted  a report which added fuel to their fire  to the detriment of the country.

By a news report ‘Lanka e news will automatically appear’ it was pointed out most of the Lanka e news viewers via VPN are from the areas where the conflicts raged , citing Google trend data in support. When we made inquiries from Google Co. it came to light that was an absolute lie , and on that day it is Sabaragamuwa residents who had read Lanka e news most. There were no racial conflicts in Sabaragamuwa province.

The owner of the misleading  website , a  most noted  media coolie wheeler dealer tried to portray that  Lanka e news website is one  that contributes to racism , whereas  , it is a well  and widely known unassailable fact , that we never foment racial  hatred or religious animosities. Besides we are totally opposed to that . We have  always crusaded against racism and religious extremism , and will carry out that crusade  in the future too.   In addition Lanka e  news was the first to fearlessly hurl the first stone at  a traitor of a president who is now clinging precariously to a 4 % popularity.

Barbaric brute vis a vis the  UNP on the decline due to him. 

Even when the UNP of the consensual government expressed its resentment against the continued  ban on social media after the communal tension had ebbed  , the president due to his stone age qualities and backboneless nature ,in order to achieve his own dastardly objectives  rejected the UNP request ,  thereby incurring the wrath and displeasure of the nation. 

It is worthy of note , the UNP took measures to provide computer tabs and internet facilities to all GCE A/L students because  it did not fear the youths accessing the internet  to gather information. Yet  when the stone age boorish president stood in the way of this , the UNP kept its mouth shut. Even when UNP was trying to appoint a minister of law  and order of its choice , Sirisena objected . Shockingly , the UNP accepted the rejection and remained silent.  Currently when the frog in the well president from Polonnaruwa backwaters based on his stone age concepts  is continuing to ban  the social media, the UNP  which is against it is yet  remaining silent.(the UNP does not subscribe to the view expressed by Daya Gamage– that is his foolish story that there is vilification via social media )

While the precariously perched 4 %  Sillysena who knows well  he has no future is on the road to perdition   while indulging in  all the anti national destructive and barbaric activities in his desperation , it is a pity the UNP with a 30 % base is still trailing behind that mentally deranged Sillysena by saying ‘ to save the consensual government’
A comment made by an individual is  worthy of mention at this juncture when faceless Sillysena is banning the facebook accounts to cover his own incompetence and egregious  blunders  .The individual had commented on the face book ‘the government which won via the face book is also going to lose through the facebook.’

---------------------------
by     (2018-03-14 19:51:50)