Sarkozy’s hand in the French Cookie Jar?

Sarkozy and his former chief of staff, Claude Guéant, are being investigated for secretly accepting at least fifty million Euros from Khadaffi for his 2007 electoral campaign.

by Eric S. Margolis- Mar 30, 2018

( March 30, 2018, Toronto, Sri Lanka Guardian) There was something refreshing about watching former French president Nicholas Sarkozy being interrogated in a French jail. Particularly since he may soon be accused of conspiracy in the murder of my old friend, Col. Muammar Khadaffi of Libya.

Sarkozy and his former chief of staff, Claude Guéant, are being investigated for secretly accepting at least fifty million Euros from Khadaffi for his 2007 electoral campaign. Such a payment violated France’s maximum permissible limit for political donation, not to mention a ban on foreign financing of candidates and failure to report the payments. Sarko also faces investigation over secret payments from the Gulf oil states.

French political candidates often have to wade through the sewers to finance their campaigns because spending limits were set relatively low to prevent big money from buying the elections, as in the United States.

These charges against Khadaffi and Guéant have been percolating for years with only a muted response. Sarkozy also got into hot water after he was accused of bilking large sums of cash from a senile heiress to France’s L’Oréal cosmetics company.

But three years ago, a French-Lebanese businessman told the French investigative site Mediapart that he had given suitcases with 5 million Euros (US $6.2 million) to Guéant. The former chief of staff would later claim the cash was payment for a painting he had sold to the shady Lebanese. Of course it was!

In 2007, Sarkozy became president of France. At the time, he and Khadaffi appeared to be best of friends. The Libyan leader made a gala visit to Paris, pitched his Bedouin tent on the grounds of the presidential palace and received the lavish official welcome that the French do so well.

France was interested in Libya’s high quality oil and using Libya as a beachhead for expanding Paris’ former influence in North Africa. France and Libya secretly colluded to fight Islamist rebels in the region who were battling French-installed puppet rulers in West and Central Africa.

But then Sarkozy turned sharply against the Khadaffi regime and joined US and British efforts to overthrow it. This was not the first time. Former French president, François Mitterrand, ordered his intelligence chief, Count de Marenches, to destroy Khadaffi’s personal jet with an altitude-fused bomb. Marenches told me the bomb was secreted aboard the plane, then removed when relations with Tripoli improved.

British intelligence, MI6, also tried to assassinate Khadaffi by means of a car bomb in Benghazi, Libya, but failed, though many civilians were killed.

Sarkozy eventually heeded demands from Hillary Clinton, then US Secretary of State, to launch a war against ostensible ally, Khadaffi, and seize his oil riches.

Warplanes and special forces from the US, France and Britain joined in a sustained attack on Libya, which was cynically misrepresented as a humanitarian rescue mission. French aircraft strafed Khadaffi’s convoy. French special forces and Libyan mercenaries caught Khadaffi, tortured him with a knife, then shot him dead.

Khadaffi had made the fatal mistake of telling his eldest son, Saif al-Islam, and senior officials about his secret payment to Sarkozy. When word leaked out from Saif, Sarkozy quickly ordered the attack on Libya. Dead men tell no tales. French intelligence is very skilled at rubbing out foes and nuisances.

My surmise is that French justice will find some tenuous link between Sarkozy and Khadaffi’s murder, but no hard proof Sarko was directly involved. If George W. Bush and Dick Cheney could get away Scott free after killing over one million Iraqi civilians in a trumped-up war, why prosecute Sarko for this minor ‘contretemps?’

China’s global kidnapping campaign has gone on for years. It may now be reaching inside U.S. borders.

BY ZACH DORFMAN
ILLUSTRATIONS BY ANTHONY FREDA FOR FOREIGN POLICY

MARCH 29, 2018

Before he disappeared from his luxury apartment at the Four Seasons Hotel in Hong Kong on Jan. 27, 2017, Xiao Jianhua, a Chinese-Canadian billionaire, favored female bodyguards. Why, exactly, was unclear: Perhaps he simply liked being surrounded by women; perhaps he trusted them more than men.

China’s global kidnapping campaign has gone on for years. It may now be reaching inside U.S. borders..docx by Thavam on Scribd

The rise of Putin and the politics behind the poison

2018-03-30

If Britain can prove that Russia was responsible for the poisoning of former Russian spy and British double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the southern British city of Salisbury on March 4, then it has every reason to be furious. 

That Britain has so far failed to show the evidence that Russia has demanded does not mean Russia had no role in the attack. However, the angry rhetoric and tough diplomatic measures against Russia – the mass expulsion of Russian diplomats from the United States and Europe -- have provided the US and Britain a justification to reinforce Nato’s presence close to Russia.

Standing by Britain, the United States on Monday ordered the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats. The move was somewhat unexpected because it came only days after President Donald Trump spoke to Russia’s president Vladimir Putin to congratulate him on his “historic” election victory at the March 18 presidential election. Perhaps, by penalising Russia, Trump seeks to send a message to US voters that he is not under obligation to Russia, in view of allegations that Russian helped Trump win the 2016 presidential election -- a matter now under investigation by a Special Counsel.

Perhaps, the US expulsion of Russian diplomats reflects the thinking of the new Trump team. Given the fact that the Trump administration is now guided by hawks such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Advisor and Iraq war architect John Bolton, and Nick Haley, Trump’s hit woman at the United Nations, there is little surprise in the harsh measure against Russia. 

Wednesday’s media briefing at the US State Department said it all. 

“Russia has long arms, lots of tentacles. It is a beast from the deep sea,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said, adding that Russia remains interested in meddling in other countries’ affairs.  Perhaps, the spokeswoman knows nothing about US interference in other countries. In the current context, it is worth recalling the US-backed Ukrainian coup, which exacerbated the tension between Russia and the West, and the infamous “f*** the EU” words uttered by a frustrated Victoria Nuland, the then Assistant Secretary of State for Eurasian Affairs, when the EU nations were reluctant to be on board. 

The new US stance contradicts what Trump had been advocating since his election to office in November 2016.

In a number of statements, Trump had called for stronger US relations with Russia. He had described the sanctions the US Congress had imposed on Russia over the annexation of Crimea in 2014 as “very, very heavy” and suggested that they should be lifted. Trump had said “having Russia in a friendly posture as opposed to always fighting them is an asset.” 

The axis’ strategy appears to be that with the increase in the cold war type tensions, Russia would increase its military budget and this may sooner or later lead to an economic crisis which in turn would lead to the overthrow of the Putin government by a popular uprising

The Trump policy on Russia has now taken a 180-degree turn.  Well unpredictability is a key feature of the Trump administration. With Trump in the White House together with hawks, none can rule out a war on Iran or even a nuclear strike against any country.  

When asked whether the US had proof to penalise Russia, the State Department spokeswoman could only say that the US believed what the British Government had said. 

Britain’s Theresa May Government has also produced no proof to back up its accusation against Russia though it claims it has shared “unprecedented intelligence with allies”. Joining Britain in solidarity were several European nations. They expelled a few Russian diplomats from their capitals. Britain, on March 14, expelled 23 Russian diplomats – a move that prompted Russia to retaliate by expelling 23 British diplomats. 
Whether Russia did or did not poison the double agent and his daughter, assassinations and false flags are part of big power politics. Did not Joseph Stalin kill Leon Trotsky? Did not the US-backed Bolivian Army kill Che Guevera? How many times, did the CIA try to kill Fidel Castro, sometimes by poisoning? How many false flag operations -- such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident -- has the US staged to justify wars? How many lies – such as Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – have the US and Britain fabricated to start wars of aggression? 

The US and Britain feel that there is an urgent need to contain Russia, which is becoming stronger by the day. The US and Britain are furious that Russia with its intervention in the Syrian conflict has bailed out the Bashar al-Assad regime and dashed the geopolitical hopes of the West and their ally Saudi Arabia, another key player in the anti-Russia axis.  

The axis’ strategy appears to be that with the increase in the cold war type tensions, Russia would increase its military budget and this may sooner or later lead to an economic crisis which in turn would lead to the overthrow of the Putin government by a popular uprising. A similar strategy led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Russia is not unaware of the undercurrents of the diplomatic drama. Putin being a veteran in the spy business could smell an oncoming missile even before it is fired.  

He was not so naïve as not to know that the West made use of an incident similar to the Skripal saga to bolster Nato manoeuvres near Russia in 2007.

This was after the death of FSB (Russia’s spy agency) defector Alexander Litvinenko. He was poisoned by a Russian agent in a London cafe in November 2007.  Later he died in a London hospital. The incident triggered a tit-for-tat expulsion of diplomats by Moscow, London and Washington. The following year, the West wooed Georgia to sign a defence pact with Nato. Obviously, this made Russia livid.  The same year, Russia sent troops into the then Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in support of the anti-government rebels. 

In 2014, the US engineered a coup in Ukraine, replacing a pro-Russian president with a pro-West president. In response, an angry Russia annexed Crimea and provided military assistance to separatist rebels in the eastern regions of Ukraine. 

In November, 2016 while world attention was on the US presidential election, Nato sent reinforcements – four battle groups -- to Russia’s borders. Britain sent tanks, drones and 800 troops to Estonia as part of this Nato build-up.  In anticipation of this buildup, Russia had deployed its nuclear-weapons capable Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad near the Polish border and fortified its defences in the Black Sea region. There is not much love lost between London and Moscow. Putin sees Britain as a hostile nation, because London provides shelter to several high-profile Russian dissidents, who, Putin believes, are plotting to destabilise Russia with help from the West. 

In a striking parallel, weeks before the current dispute between Britain and Russia blew up, Putin, in an apparent warning to the West, unveiled Russia’s latest armoury, displaying hypersonic fighter jets and smart missiles that can dodge any anti-missile system and hit a target anywhere in the world. 

Putin has now been reelected to power and he knows how to stay on in power for years or decades to come, notwithstanding the constitutional restrictions on the presidential term. This has sent jitters across western capitals. They know Putin’s ambition of making Russia a superpower again will be a threat to the West’s global agenda. The cold war will intensify while world peace will become elusive. 

Why Robert Mueller could be considering bribery charges

President Trump speaks at the White House on March 23. (Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)

By Randall D. Eliason March 29 at 7:21 PM

President Trump speaks at the White House on March 23. (Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)

By Randall D. Eliason March 29 at 7:21 PM

Randall D. Eliason teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School. He blogs at Sidebarsblog.com. Follow @rdeliason.

President Trump’s now-former attorney John Dowd allegedly told lawyers representing Paul J. Manafort and Michael Flynn last year that the president would consider pardoning the two men if they got into legal trouble. (Dowd has denied the reports.) Much of the news coverage has focused on whether offering pardons to induce a witness not to cooperate in the special counsel’s investigation could constitute obstruction of justice. But there is another potential charge that could apply more directly and that prosecutors might have reason to favor: conspiracy to commit bribery.

Federal bribery requires that a public official agree to receive and accept something of value in exchange for being influenced in the performance of an official act. In this scenario, the official act would be granting a pardon. While the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in the case of former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell dramatically narrowed the definition of “official act,” there’s no question that a president granting a pardon would be an exercise of government power under the McDonnell v. United States standard.

“Thing of value” is also fairly easily met: It would be the agreement not to cooperate against the president. The thing of value in bribery law is not limited to envelopes stuffed with cash. It can include anything of subjective value to the public official, whether tangible or intangible. Such intangibles as offers of future employment and personal companionship have been found to be things of value for purposes of bribery. A promise not to cooperate in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe could readily serve as the quid in this quid pro quo.

Post Opinions writers and editors Molly Roberts, James Downie, Karen Attiah and Stephen Stromberg discuss developments in the Russia investigation. (The Washington Post)

The public official, of course, is the president. Dowd is not a public official and cannot be bribed himself, but he could conspire with a public official to arrange bribes on the official’s behalf. The theory would be that Dowd and the president engaged in a conspiracy to accept bribes by agreeing that Dowd would make the offer. This, of course, would require proof that Dowd was acting with the president’s approval and not merely freelancing.

Neither bribery nor conspiracy requires that the underlying scheme be successful. The crime is the agreement itself, coupled with at least some steps to carry it out. If Dowd and the president agreed Dowd would offer an exchange of pardons for silence and he did so, that is a conspiracy to commit bribery. Whether the offer was accepted would not matter.

Thanks to the unusual circumstances in this case, bribery has a significant legal advantage over obstruction of justice. There has been considerable academic debate regarding whether a president can be charged with obstruction for a constitutionally authorized act, such as firing the FBI director or granting a pardon. Some argue that such an act, standing alone, can never be charged as obstruction regardless of the president’s intent because that would unconstitutionally impinge on the president’s executive authority. (I disagree with this view.)

But even those who make that argument agree that if the president engaged in independently criminal conduct, such as accepting a bribe or instructing witnesses to lie, he would not be shielded from criminal prosecution — even if those actions were related to a constitutionally authorized act such as granting a pardon.

In other words, even scholars who think that merely granting a pardon could never amount to obstruction agree that a president who took a bribe in exchange for granting a pardon could be charged with bribery. Of course no pardons have actually been granted — at least not yet. But regardless, the bribery theory avoids all of the legal uncertainty swirling around obstruction-of-justice charges and pardons. Nobody argues that bribery is constitutionally authorized.

I’m certainly not saying that we know any of this happened. Nor am I discounting the evidentiary hurdles prosecutors would face in proving a conspiracy and that a corrupt deal was offered; bribery is notoriously difficult to prove. But as a legal theory, I think it’s sound. If Mueller is examining these alleged events, I’d be surprised if a possible conspiracy to commit bribery were not in the mix.

Cambridge Analytica: The Mexico allegations

Guillermo Galdos-Latin America Correspondent-29 Mar 2018

Last week, this programme exposed how Cambridge Analytica claimed to have intervened – often secretly – in elections around the world. Now the secrets are unspooling. An undercover reporter for Channel 4 News posed as a fixer for a wealthy client hoping to get candidates elected in Sri Lanka. Last week, that country’s Prime Minister admitted meeting the firm — though said he had declined to use them.

A row continues in India, where the governing BJP and the Congress Party both accuse the other of hiring Cambridge Analytica associate SCL India. In Kenya, opposition leader Raila Odinga is considering legal action against Cambridge Analytica and Facebook following his electoral defeat last year. The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago has opened an investigation into SCL, Cambridge Analytica and other linked firms.

Now from Mexico, our Latin America Correspondent Guillermo Galdos reports on the demise of deal to harvest data from a million citizens – cancelled after Channel 4 News began investigating.

Op-ed: Re-drawing boundaries won’t impair voting freedom in Malaysia’s election

Supporters of pro-democracy group Bersih protest against a controversial proposal to redraw electoral boundaries outside near the Parliament House in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia March 28, 2018. Source: Reuters/Stringer

By Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof | 30th March 2018

THE re-delineation of electoral boundaries is a fundamental process in any democratic nation.

In fact, in Malaysia, the Electoral Commission (EC) has a constitutional duty every eight years, minimum, under Sections 116 and 117 of the Federal Constitution, to review the division of the Federation and the States into constituencies and recommend changes they may think necessary to ensure a balance in voter populations between all constituencies in the country.

Considering that the last re-delineation exercise was carried out in 2003, the time was ripe in 2016 for the EC to embark on another exercise, particularly in view of the changes in geography and topography, level of development, demography, basic amenities and communications infrastructure over the years due to a growing population.

SEE ALSO: Malaysia: Mahathir joins protest against electoral map changes before election

Chairman of the Election Commission of Malaysia Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof (left). Source: Facebook – Henry Ling

It also could be due to the fact that the population has reduced due to migration or natural attrition.

The density of the population is the biggest factor – in major cities, the population is usually very dense and high, in semi-urban, less so, while in rural areas, the density is really low.

We actually planned to do it in 2013, but we had to prepare for GE13 (General Election 13) and had to postpone the exercise.

In practice, the notion of one man, one vote, lone value is not reasonable at all.

In towns, people live in apartments, flats and terrace houses – the density is high. While in the semi-urban or rural areas, the distance between houses are quite a distance.

A district like Kapit in Sarawak is roughly the size of the state of Pahang, but the population is low and is fully forested.

We cannot use an apple-to-apple comparison. Each vote is secret, and the votes are given freely. A re-delineation does not make someone change his preference – it is a personal decision. If the people don’t like you, they won’t vote for you. It’s as simple as that.

Allegations that the EC was not transparent and the re-delineation proposal was not presented to the people is simply not true.

In Malaysia, the process of re-delineation is bound by the rules of law and remain true to the Constitution.

Once the Election Commission of Malaysia informs the prime minister and the Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat (lower house of Parliament) of its intention to delineate electoral boundaries, the EC will need to publish the notice in major newspapers, have it gazetted and displayed in all affected constituencies so that the public could view and give feedback.

There will then be an inquiry to give the public the opportunity to be heard.

SEE ALSO: Ahead of polls, Malaysia’s ‘fake news’ Bill proposes up to 10 years’ jail

If any changes are made, the EC would need to re-gazette the amended notice, and display it for another month for further public scrutiny and feedback.

The EC is duty bound to hold only two public hearings for scrutiny or feedback. If this limit was not put in place, there could be no end to this process.

Once completed, the report will be submitted to the House of Representatives, and finally to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (monarch and head of state) for his royal assent.

The EC will utilise the permanent boundaries such as rivers, hills and mountains as markers as far as possible.

Malaysia’s opposition coalition prime ministerial candidate Mahathir Mohamad speaks against a controversial proposal to redraw electoral boundaries outside near the Parliament House in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia March 28, 2018. The sign (front R) reads: “Go out and vote, defeat the thief”. Source: Reuters

The entire process is made to be as transparent as possible.

The EC is an independent body and all members of the commission – from chairman and deputy chairman to its five members – are appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong following a consultation with the Conference of Rulers.

If we were to compare this with Singapore, the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee of the Elections Department of Singapore is appointed directly by the prime minister and chaired by the Secretary to the PM.

SEE ALSO: Malaysia: Airline denies accusation of ‘regime change’ in upcoming election

Additionally, the entire electoral system in Singapore with its Group Representation Constituencies (GRC) is designed to create a barrier for smaller opposition parties to participate in elections.

In Malaysia, any single person is free to stand for election, even as an independent candidate.

(File) Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak casting his ballot during the last general election in 2013. Malaysia is expected to go to polls again for its 14th federal contest by August 2018. Source: AP

Meanwhile in the Philippines, the Congress wields the power to redistrict provinces or cities piecemeal without a public referendum. This has enabled local dynasties to influence the district-making process by carving new districts/provinces from the old ones in their bid to retain power.

Consider this – if the re-delineation is perceived to give a negative impact to the opposition, how did they win to form several state governments in 2008 and 2013?

The EC does not make a final decision on the re-delineation – it just proposes to Parliament based on the parameters laid down under the Federal Constitution.

Nonetheless, whatever the best way forward may be, all stakeholders should work together towards enhancing dialogue between the public and their representatives on their expectations and needs, in bringing Malaysia’s standing in electoral integrity to the next level.

Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof is the Immediate Past Chairman of the Election Commission of Malaysia. His seven-year tenure ran from December 2008 to January 2016.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not reflect the views of Asian Correspondent

Guidelines for investigating conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence against men and boys

Journalists for Justice / 31 March 2016

Following significant input by IICI into the development of the International Protocol on the Documentation and Investigation of Sexual Violence IN Conflict (IP), the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office commissioned IICI to assist with its implementation. IICI developed public training materials based on the International Protocol and organised four SGBV-investigation training courses. (see our Specialist Courses map).

Following on from the development of the International Protocol described above, IICI recognised that the existing SGBV landscape was very much focussed on women and girls and that less emphasis and research had been done in relation to conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence against men and boys. In 2016, IICI developed specialist guidelines for investigation in this area.
The guidelines have been developed for a range of professionals, from international criminal investigators and prosecutors to national police officers, UN human rights officers and local human rights reporters. The guidelines are designed to complement existing relevant investigation frameworks and practices, including those that currently focus on conflict-related SGBV against women and girls or children. The guidelines have been developed with financial support from the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative of the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The guidelines
***

IRAQ-BURMA/MYANMAR-SRI LANKA

Guidelines for investigating conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence against men and boys.docx by Thavam on Scribd

China's Tiangong-1 space station will crash to Earth this weekend

The Tiangong-1 space station has been hopelessly adrift since the Chinese space agency lost control of the prototype lab in 2016. Photograph: Courtesy of CMSE

Ian Sample@iansampleFri 30 Mar 2018 

It will all be over in a flash. At some point this weekend, a dazzling fireball will tear across the sky as China’s out-of-control space station tumbles back to Earth at 16,500mph and burns up in the atmosphere.

The Tiangong-1, or “Heavenly Palace”, has been hopelessly adrift since the Chinese space agency lost control of the prototype space lab in 2016, five years after it launched as a bold symbol of the nation’s ambitions in orbit.

From the moment it was lost, scientists around the world began plugging information on the stricken craft into computer models to predict how its final act would play out. On Friday, the European Space Agency said that the unoccupied wreckage would crash back to Earth between Saturday night and Sunday eveningUK time.

“If you’re in the right place at the right time, and the sky is clear, it will be quite spectacular,” said Holger Krag, head of ESA’s space debris office in Darmstadt. “It will be visible to the naked eye, even in daylight, and look like a slow-moving shooting star that splits into a few more shooting stars. You might even see a smoke trail.”

Compared with the International Space Station (ISS), Tiangong-1 is a minnow. The 400-tonne ISS would barely fit inside a football field, while the 8.5 tonne Chinese station is no bigger than a bus. Visitors to Tiangong-1, including China’s first two female taikonauts, Liu Yang and Wang Yaping, had two sleeping berths at their disposal, but the toilet and cooking facilities were on the Shenzhou module that ferried them to the orbiting outpost.

Though Tiangong-1 will be the largest lump of space junk to fall back to Earth so far this year, it is nowhere near a record-breaker. In 2001, the Russian space agency steered their 120 tonne Mir space station safely into the Pacific Ocean. The far less controlled re-entry of Nasa’s 74 tonne Skylab in 1979 scattered pieces of space hardware over hundreds of miles of Western Australia. The re-entry of Tiangong-1 will be uncontrolled too.

About 100 tonnes of spent rocket stages, defunct satellites, and other space debris come down each year. Most of the material burns up in the atmosphere as aerodynamic friction turns terrific speed into ferocious heat. As a rule of thumb, only about 20 to 40% of a spacecraft survives the inferno of re-entry. The components that hit the ground tend to be heat-resistant fuel tanks, thrusters and other parts, such as metal docking rings, which can be the size of a rear tractor wheel.

On Friday, the Chinese space station was still hurtling around the planet more than 180km above the surface. The atmosphere is tenuous at that altitude, but thick enough to drag on the solar panels and body of Tiangong-1. Gradually this slows the spacecraft down until gravity can pull it from orbit. When the spaceship falls below 100km, it will begin its re-entry in earnest.

“Within minutes it will be fully decelerated and the energy it carries will be translated into heat and aerodynamic forces that rip it apart,” said Krag. Between 1.5 to 3.5 tonnes of the spaceship may survive the ordeal and reach the Earth’s surface in dozens of pieces cast over hundreds of miles. The most dangerous could be fuel tanks that typically hold toxic hydrazine propellant.

Space agencies around the world have sophisticated computer models to predict where and when space debris may land, but even the best cannot give anything close to a precise answer. The speed at which spacecraft travel, and the unpredictability of their breakup high in the sky, means the calculation is beyond the means of modern science.

“We will never be able to say upfront where debris will fall because these objects are moving so fast,” said Krag. “Even if you can narrow the re-entry window to two hours, that still means you have tens of thousands of kilometres where debris may come down.” The situation would not be much better if the exact point of re-entry, 100km above the Earth, could be calculated, either. “From that altitude, you still have a fallout zone of 1,000km which might stretch over several countries,” Krag said.

The Chinese space station flies over land and sea from 43 degrees north and 43 degrees south, which rules out re-entry over the UK and much of Europe. But more than five billion people do live beneath its flightpath, in vast stretches of North and South America, China, the Middle East, Africa, and Australia.

With most of the Earth covered in water, and huge areas home to few if any people, the chances of being struck by space debris are remote. To date, the only person thought to have won this unenviable lottery is Lottie Williams from Tulsa, Oklahoma, who had a lump of Delta II rocket strike her shoulder in 1997 while on a stroll through a local park. “The risk is not zero, but history tells us that the risk is not that high,” Krag said. “Inside the zone, the risk of being hit is about the same as being hit by lightning twice in the same year.”

Implementing UN resolution--Progress slow: UK

 

2018-03-28

Though Sri Lanka has achieved ‘some small recent’ progress in terms of implementing UN resolutions, British Minister for Asia and Pacific Mark Field said the progress had been slower than they would have anticipated or liked.

The Minister expressed these views during a debate held in British Parliament on March 20 over the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Sri Lanka.

Responding to other members’ queries during the debate, Minister Field said Sri Lanka’s co-sponsorship of UN Human Rights Council resolution in 2015 was a truly historic moment.

“It was, at least verbally, a strong commitment to addressing the legacy of its long-running and devastating civil war, a commitment subsequently extended by two years last year in resolution 34/1. Sri Lanka pledged to establish a commission for truth, justice, reconciliation and non-recurrence, to sit alongside other mechanisms as part of a comprehensive truth and justice process.

“We remain absolutely committed to the full implementation of those resolutions as the single best way to secure the lasting reconciliation and peaceful future that are in the interests of all Sri Lankans, and which they so richly deserve,” he said.

He said an Office on Missing persons is close to being operational and the Sri Lankan Government have passed a law to prevent and criminalise enforced disappearances.

“I understand that a draft law to establish an office of reparations has been approved by the Sri Lankan cabinet. I also understand that draft legislation for a truth-seeking commission—an important part of this whole process—has been prepared, drawing upon the work of a country-wide consultation taskforce,” he said. 

PRESIDENT’S REPRESENTATIVE TO HRC 37 CALLS FOR GOVT. BOYCOTT OF UNHRC SESSION

Image: Sri Lanka delegation at the 37 session of the UNHRC. Minister Amunugana at the left.

29/03/2018


Minister Sarath Amunugama, who was a member  of the Sri Lanka Government delegation to 37th session of the UNHRC has called for a boycott of UNHRC session in the future.Special Assignments Minister Dr. Sarath Amunugama will accompanied the delegation to the UNHRC as the President’s Representative.

According to  newsradio.lk Minister Amunugama has said that as next year marks a decade since the end of the conflict adding it is unnecessary to attend the session annually and submit reports as respondents.

The Minister noted 10 years have passed and measures have been taken to overhaul the judicial system, reports newsradio.lk.

Minister  Amunugama  has said that the government must boycott the next year’s regular session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Genève.

Speaking at a media briefing held in Colombo today, Minister Amunugama has said the government has ensured an independent judicial system in the country and therefore called for an end to international pressure on Sri Lanka to address allegations of human rights violations during the conflict with the LTTE

Political observers in Colombo of the opinion that Minister Amunugama would not have made such a statement without president Sirisena’a consent.  On several occasions Sirisena has disassociated himself form the resolutions cosponsored by his government at the 30th and 34th sessions of the UNHRC.

Tamil politics –Need for a new focus

By Dr. Nirmala Chandrahasan-March 29, 2018, 10:18 pm 

The outcome of the local government elections this year has made one fact evident. Whatever may be the reasons attributed it clearly shows the Peoples’ disappointment with the performance of the present government and the parties in power both in the North and in the South. In the North the TNA lost ground because it was perceived by the voters as not having achieved more in solving the problems of the Tamil people. I would submit that these problems have less to do with the delays in Constitution making or non implementation of the transitional justice mechanisms, but are more related to the existential needs of the people. This is particularly evident in the districts of Mannar, Killinochchi and Mullaitivu where there was a marked decrease in the TNA’s vote. These are districts in which the people are primarily engaged in agriculture and fishing and where livelihood opportunities and possession of land to cultivate are more important considerations than academic controversies and nationalist theories.

The decrease in the votes in the above mentioned districts also indicates that the voters are not satisfied with the performance of the TNA administered Provincial Council. While admittedly the Provincial Councils are ham strung by Central interference, lack of coordination between Central agencies and provincial agencies, the Governor’s powers over finance etc, all matters which could be remedied by Constitutional adjustments, nevertheless the Provincial Council could have done more to promote the concerns of the people, as in promoting Agriculture and Fisheries, increasing employment opportunities, building up the Cooperative sector which in earlier times had been an effective institution, and focusing on primary education in the province through provision of adequate teachers in Science and mathematics, as well as providing travelling facilities by opening up of additional bus routes for children to easily access the schools, these being some of the concerns of the people. These are all matters which come within the purview of the Provincial Administration, under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

Presently the Tamil political parties primarily the TNA and the Tamil Congress are focusing on the Human Rights Council’s Geneva resolution No.31 of 2015, and the issue of Accountability for war crimes. However equally important is the question of military occupation of lands in the northern Province which are owned by the farmers, or fisherfolk of the area. Even if they cannot always prove their title to the lands in question, they are people who have been living and working on these lands for generations. Hence it is only just that Arable land be returned to the former owners, and the Army camps moved to Government land. Members of Tamil political parties and members of the Tamil diaspora organizations are reportedly travelling to Geneva for the Human Rights Council sessions to present petitions and documents to the Council and other UN Institutions. This puts me in mind of the Jewish diaspora who rather than petitioning the international community gave their material resources to develop the land in Palestine, as well as their people young and old to settle and work on the Kibbutz farms in Palestine, thereby holding the land for the future state of Israel. The leaders of the Tamil political parties and the Diaspora organizations could in a similar but less exacting way at least participate and give their backing to the farmers and fisherfolk who are peacefully agitating for the return of their lands occupied by the armed forces as in Keppapilavu for over one year, and in many other places in the northern province. The Government argument that lands are being returned does not hold water as only small pieces of land are being returned and that too not in a condition in which they can be used for cultivation, with the original houses and other structures demolished and wells destroyed or blocked. No doubt sweating it out in the scorching sun of the Vanni is no substitute for the scenic beauty and salubrious climate of Geneva and Switzerland, but this to my mind is where the real action lies and this is where Tamil politicians and diaspora representatives could prove their real commitment to the cause, by making representations to the Government regarding return of the lands as well as materially and or physically helping those owners to whom the land has been returned with the task of settling up their farms and fisherfolk with their fishing tackle and boats to resume fishing operations .

Taking the case of war crimes and missing persons and the setting up of accountability mechanisms, to the international press and bringing it up at the Human Rights Council sessions at Geneva will admittedly have some impact and is also a path which can be usefully pursued. But it has to be kept in mind that internationalizing an issue is not always followed by any positive action on the part of the international players. Looking at the current international situation it becomes clear that States act according to their own interests. The war crimes and humanitarian disaster in the ongoing wars in the Yemen and in Syria and the plight of the Rhohingya refugees fleeing from Burma (now Myanmar), subjected to ethnic cleansing and human rights violations which include deprivation of citizenship, are cases in point. In the above instances and there are others too, we are still to see any effective U.N action being taken. This does not mean that the question of accountability for war crimes can be shelved . But i would submit that the Tamil political parties and Diaspora organizations, could in addition to approaching the international community also initiate a parallel campaign carried on within the country in the Sinhala and Tamil print and electronic media, to show that Accountability as a general principle especially as applied to those in positions of Governmental authority is a part of democracy and in the interests of all the communities living in the country. To allow impunity for criminal acts is dangerous in the long run. It can be shown that acts prohibited under the laws of war such as orders to kill civilians, or combatants who surrender, or to commit rape , once carried out in the theatre of the war, can breed the culture of brutality which will continue after the war and in other parts of the country, as seen in the Rathupaswela shootings of civilians agitating for clean water and the Prison massacre at the Welikade jail. Similarly it can lead to the violence visited on certain targeted communities as seen in the recent anti Muslim riots, and would in the course of time be used to put down even peaceful strikes or agitation by workers and students for their rights. Hence impunity where certain people are exempted from criminal prosecutions can have dangerous consequences for ordinary people whether they be Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims or Burghers. This is the lesson that must be brought home to the country at large.

Criminal acts against all citizens by those in Authority whosoever they may be, have to be punished. It will have to be made evident that condemning war crimes and impunity for such crimes, is not just a means of punishing Sinhalese soldiers, for winning the war as is commonly believed, but is a matter of principle. It has to be made clear that it is not the soldiers, who only carry out the orders, but those persons in Authority who give illegal orders who are Accountable. Persons so accused must be willing to face a fair trial where they can explain their case or show exculpating factors. But the need for accountability mechanisms and criminal prosecutions is part of a democratic polity and also necessary in order to maintain the moral fibre of the nation. The HRC Resolution co-sponsored by Sri Lanka, should not be the only reason for taking action although it is important in the international context, and Sri Lanka should also be seen to be implementing its international obligations.

On the question of Constitutional changes and sharing of powers in the State it must be once again pointed out that this will have a greater chance of being achieved by reaching out to the Sinhalese speaking public and showing them that devolution of powers or even federalism is not the first steps to separation. Here again a media campaign in the national languages and in the media channels is required to dispel the wrong messages that have been given to the Sinhalese people through false propaganda. Such a campaign could be funded by the Diaspora so as to train translators and provide the reading material on these subjects in the national languages, as well as employing persons who will have to go among the people taking this message. The Government of the day should have, but did not take this necessary step before initiating Constitutional reforms, as for example was done during the Presidency of Ms. Kumaratunga who started the Nelum Mal campaign to educate the people on these issues and which campaign showed tangible results. It will also be in the interests of the Tamil parties to work towards a consensus both among themselves and with the Sinhalese parties. All the Sinhalese parties should be approached and taken on board and not just a few political parties who appear to be congenial. The support of President Rajapaksa for example should also be sought, for a satisfactory resolution of the national question. His support would be useful in the context that President Rajapaksa has earned the gratitude of the Sinhalese people for having brought the war to a finish and established peace in the country. Now it is for him to earn the gratitude of the Tamil speaking people (Tamils and Muslims) by giving his support for a political solution in which the Tamil speaking people can share in the dividends of the peace through a constitutional process of genuine power sharing.