Tuesday, April 3, 2018

Nation nervy over No-confidence today!

Ranil and UNP confident of defeating motion
TNA and SLMC to vote in support of PM
UNF throws support behind PM, insists they have numbers to carry the day
Nimal Siripala de Silva calls on PM to step down during Cabinet meeting
UNP insists PM will not resign, says President has pledged to be neutral
Lakshman Yapa says SLFP common consensus is to back motion
Eran bemoans economic impact, hopes for strong Govt. to emerge after vote

By Skandha Gunasekara and Charumini de Silva -Wednesday, 4 April 2018

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe will face a crucial no-confidence motion in Parliament today that could go down to the wire, with some political parties still undecided on their vote at the eleventh hour, while the United National Party (UNP) and its allies are backing their leader to the hilt and are confident they have the necessary numbers to carry the day.

The much anticipated debate on the no-confidence motion is scheduled to be held in Parliament today from 10.00 a.m. to 9.00 pm with a vote expected at the end of the debate. Members of Parliament will cast their votes by standing up and declaring their preference after the electronic system was deemed to be unreliable. Given the likelihood of a heated debate, the public viewing gallery will be closed to students.

On the political front, the United National Front (UNF) party leaders met in the Parliament complex yesterday and resolved to support the Prime Minister in defeating the no-confidence motion. This decision was taken by the UNF leaders following their meeting with the Premier earlier in the day. Overall support by the UNP was echoed by National Policies and Economic Affairs State Minister Dr. Harsha de Silva, who insisted that they had sufficient votes to defeat the no-confidence motion.

“There is no doubt that we will defeat this no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister today. We have the support of the entire 8 January 2015 Movement. All the parties that supported us then have come together with us,” Dr. de Silva said while addressing a news conference at Sirikotha.

He claimed that it was unethical for government ministers to support the no-confidence motion or urge the Premier to step down while being a part of the coalition.

“It is understood that the Opposition wants to topple the Government and come into power. But we are not ready to listen to government ministers with vested interests requesting the Prime Minister to step down. This is not just about the premiership but about the integrity of the Government,” he stressed.

Noting that they were well aware that a few UNP ministers were unhappy voting against the Prime Minister today, Dr. de Silva said the Government would leave no room for the Opposition to disrupt the political stability in the country.

“We have the numbers and we will show the numbers when voting. We have no issues relating to the numbers,” he stressed.

However, during Tuesday’s customary Cabinet meeting, Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, SLFP Deputy Leader Nimal Siripala de Silva, had called on the Prime Minister to step down from his position before the no-confidence motion was brought up in Parliament.

This was a repetition of the call by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) Parliamentary Group late on Monday for Wickremesinghe to step how. Yet UNP ministers were clear this request would not be heeded by the Prime Minister.

Although Premier Wickremesinghe did not respond to Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva’s remarks, the party leaders and ministers of the UNF disagreed with Minister De Silva’s demand and insisted that the Premier should remain in his post, Minister of Education and UNP Deputy General Secretary Akila Viraj Kariyawasam told the Daily FT.

According to Minister Kariyawasam, President Sirisena, who chaired the Cabinet meeting, had vowed to stay neutral concerning the no-confidence motion, giving this assurance when the latter had met with the UNF ministers Malik Samarawickrama, Mangala Samaraweera, Arjuna Ranatunga and Rajitha Senaratne last morning at the President’s official residence on Paget Road.

Nonetheless, uncertainty remains on how the pro-Sirisena faction of the SLFP will vote.

“There is common consensus in the party to vote in favour of the no-confidence motion,” State Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena had told Reuters.

“Clearly the SLFP is of the view that the Prime Minister should step down.”

State Minister for Finance Eran Wickramaratne said the UNP had asked for a quick vote “to end any uncertainty people will have in their minds” and hoped for a stronger Government to emerge afterwards.

Political instability is weighing on the economy, he said.

“You are not going to get 6-percent-plus kind of growth because of the political issues. We will move into 4-percent-plus in 2018,” he told Reuters.

The yields on Sri Lanka’s benchmark bonds have risen 83 basis points since early this year, and the Central Bank chief has also warned of risks to economic growth from political instability.

Asian Director at consultancy Eurasia Group, Shailesh Kumar, foresaw limited cooperation between the UNP and the SLFP after the no-confidence motion, even if the Prime Minister survived.

“This means there will be limited appetite for economic legislation and instead the two will likely indulge in populism to shore up their positions ahead of the 2020 elections,” he told Reuters.

Local political analysts were also fearful of continued political uncertainty and a deepening crisis within the Coalition Government that would further delay crucial economic, governance and reconciliation reforms the Wickremesinghe-Sirisena duo pledged when they came to power in January 2015.

Minority parties are critical in this scenario, key among them the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) which holds 16 seats in parliament, which said late on Tuesday they would support Wickremesinghe after late night talks with President Maithripala Sirisena. Given the close run in how votes may be divided, the TNA vote could prove crucial. The Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC), which met with Wickremesinghe this week, is also expected to support the Prime Minister.

PM pledges to begin party restructuring

Restructuring to begin right after no-confidence motion
Discussions with UNP parliamentary group sees progress on reform timelines
Special discussions on 7 and 8 April to map out way forward
Monitoring committee to be appointed to evaluate reform progress

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe yesterday pledged to fast-track the restructuring of the United National Party (UNP) immediately after the no-confidence motion, with crucial responsibility to be delegated to a new group.

He had made these commitments during a meeting with the UNP Parliamentary Group on Tuesday.

During the wide-ranging discussions Wickremesinghe had pledged to completely restructure the party and rejuvenate it so that it would be a strong contender in the upcoming provincial council elections and other polls, the UNP said in a statement.

Wickremesinghe had stated that he would extensively discuss recommendations in the report submitted by the party committee headed by State Minister of Defence Ruwan Wijewardene, which was appointed following the Local Government Elections and advice of other stakeholders in formulating the restructuring process. He had also said he would obtain the advice of senior party leaders before the next set of officials were appointed by the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee is expected to make the appointments on 30 April.

“As such two special rounds of discussions including the UNP Executive Committee and the Parliamentary Group have already been called for 7 and 8 April. All decisions regarding the restructuring of the party are expected to be taken during these meetings and a Monitoring Committee to assess the progress of the reforms will also be appointed,” the statement added.

The process for appointing the Monitoring Committee will be decided following discussions with the party Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer and will then be notified to the UNP Parliamentary Group, according to the statement.

Crisis in the UNP Whence it came, whither it goes?

2018-04-04

The UNP’s time of crisis has come... it must find itself bloodied and exhausted but still standing

“History never really says goodbye. History says, ‘See you later.”
~Eduardo Galeano

The UNP, not only refrained from practising nepotism, it also elected the first ever non-Govigama candidate as President
The customer is always right and branding the customer as wrong is done at great peril
The youth of the country is glued to the social media and what is emanating from that technological evolution is the gospel for them.

From the time he entered the chambers of State Council of Ceylon in 1943, J. R. Jayewardene (JR) had been branded as a Reactionary Capitalist.
He had to withstand a vituperative onslaught of political attacks from the then Left Wing political leadership that mainly consisted of Philip Gunawardena, Dr. N. M. Perera, Dr. Colvin R. de Silva and Pieter Keuneman.

JR’s political and economic viewpoint that promulgated a philosophical allegiance to the then Western-based and fundamentally anti- Marxist/Leninist political economy, made him ‘enemy of the proletariat.

JR did not vacillate. In the face of this scathing and sarcastic scorn, he confronted them with analytical and logical calmness that the present-day politicians are completely widowed from.

But what was not highlighted at the time was that while JR was a 100% product of the local education and upbringing (JR had his education up to the Ceylon University and Law College), all of his political rivals, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, Dr. N M, Dr. Colvin, Keuneman and Philip Gunawardena were educated abroad, belonging to the Oxbridge (Oxford and Cambridge) culture.
JR did not vacillate. In the face of this scathing and sarcastic scorn, he confronted them with analytical and logical calmness that the present-day politicians are completely widowed from. His brilliant wit and cutting repertoire had no match in either State Council or Parliament thereafter. Yet, his position in the political party he belonged to, the United National Party (UNP), was another matter altogether.

When the party’s founder-leader, D. S. Senanayake died in 1952, given the evident unwillingness and lack of self-confidence on the part of Dudley Senanayake, DS’s chosen successor, J. R. Jayewardene, the Minister of Finance of the first Cabinet of Independent Ceylon, albeit his young age and being a newcomer to politics in the context of experienced and well-entrenched and overseas-educated Cabinet of Ministers, was being mentioned for the UNP’s leadership.

JR, in spite of his cold and calculated approach towards politics, which is rare in an environment of emotional and subjective appeal by his rivals to the voting population in the land, was mentioned as a qualified and credentialed successor to D. S. Senanayake.

Professor K. M. de Silva’s biography of J. R. Jayewardene of Sri Lanka, Volume One, pages from 250 to 261, chronicles the intricate planning, careful execution and eventual success of the conspiratorial saga behind Dudley Senanayake’s ascension to the posts of Prime Minister and Leader of the country’s Grand Old Party (GOP), the UNP.

Thus, both the first two leaders of the UNP and the first two Prime Ministers of Ceylon were father and son. But to their eternal credit, neither of them practised nepotism, the way the Bandaranaikes and Rajapaksas of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), the ‘common man’s party of the country, indulged to an extravagant extent.

UNP, not only refrained from ... nepotism, it also elected the first ever non-Govigama candidate as President. And it was JR Jayewardene who paved the way for R. Premadasa

The UNP, not only refrained from practising nepotism, it also elected the first ever non-Govigama candidate as President in the country. And it was J. R. Jayewardene who paved the way for R. Premadasa to be the leader of his Party.

Being a man ahead of his time, JR always saw ways ahead of his peers and knew that handing the reins of the UNP to Premadasa was not only politically wise, it was also the right thing to do.

What Premadasa did with the party’s reins was another matter altogether. But the clear signal of a deviation from the traditional path that national political parties trekked alone is a daring and novel move.

A very few leaders have such vision and daring to attain the goals spelt out in the vision. It is his party that is in crisis today and it revolves around the leadership of that party.

Ironically the man in the middle is his own nephew, Ranil Wickremesinghe. Ranil’s mother was the daughter of D. R. Wijewardene, the media mogul, who was JR’s maternal uncle.

Ranil’s pedigree is quite impressive in a traditional sense. But this is 2018. Tradition is as relevant as superstitions of an era gone by.

Social media has revolutionized the mode of communication among social groups. It has taken quantum leaps in the raw alacrity in which news reaches its customers.

While some items of what is broadcast and telecast are dead wrong and completely inaccurate, social media has become the playground of those who habitually engage in conspiracy theories. Against such a fast-changing backdrop, a political leader needs to be acutely alert and extremely quick on what he can and should do.

In such an exciting scenario, today’s UNP leadership is facing a tremendous challenge. The youth of the country is glued to the social media and what is emanating from that technological evolution is the gospel for them.

Equipped with the smartphone, this generation is pursuing news and news stories with the alertness that they are usually expected to apply to their studies.

Whether the UNP leadership likes it or not, that is the harsh reality they have to face. If they are to come out as winners in this domain, no pun intended, they need to structure the party in such a way that those who make decisions are either equipped with a fair knowledge of the application and execution of the social media themselves or have the right kind of staff who could do that.

Today’s voter is much more sophisticated than the politicians credit him with. His alertness and quick response to the issues and their ultimate resolution play a decisive role in the way they eventually decide whom to vote for. At the same time, an extremely aggressive approach to the current crises with self-confidence- the way in which both Lalith Athulathmudali and Gamini Dissanayake dealt with the media personnel during their dark days in the UNP, 1991 to 1994- and a media management manned with professionals is an indispensable part of the reform that the UNP needs to undertake. In fact, the whole structure of the party needs to be staffed by full-time professionals, especially the posts of Secretary and Chairman. Ranil and his friends need not look anywhere else.

They need to look at the example set by the greatest reformer of the modern UNP, J. R. Jayewardene and the extremely aggressive and forward-looking changes that he made within the UNP.

To paraphrase George Santayana, ‘If one does not learn from history, one will be condemned to relive it’ is an understatement in the context of the crisis faced by the party stalwarts.

Ranil Wickremesinghe and his friends in the United National Party are indeed heading towards a cliff.

It is not necessarily deemed for a turn back. On the contrary, it is not only advisable but seems more indispensable to go to the cliff, look at the abyss and challenge it by crossing over to the other side. That is precisely what J. R. did after the demise of his predecessor in 1973. For that kind of an adventurous step, one needs guts and self-confidence. People look up to strong men. They know how to differentiate strong men from the weak ones.

Crises challenge the character of men and women. Those who keep their heads strong and stern will certainly triumph and those who do not will wither away like a fragile leaf under the hot sun in the summer.

A victory in a narrow sense of who prevails in the very short run is no victory. Winston Churchill did not weaken against a brutal onslaught by Hitler and his mighty military.

It is the responsibility and duty of the UNP and its leadership to tell the people in no uncertain terms that what the people rejected in the 2015 Presidential Election should not be allowed to come back. That’s a no-no.

However, the odds seem to be overwhelmingly against the UNP. Its gradual decline in its own voter-bank does not tell about a forward-looking political entity. Hence the transformation of the party is a must and any person or organization that advocates against such a transformation are in effect acting against the current and future interest of the party and its history.

However, what the leaders of the UNP are facing today is not a binary choice. There is a wide range in between what is black and white. The shades in the middle cannot be disregarded as unnecessary and redundant. Politics is essentially living in the ’shades’. Those shades shadow over a wide range of options that are not visible to the incurious mind. But the voter is alert to such shades. It is only cynical politicians who opt to ignore such intelligent voters. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that today’s voter is wrong.

In marketing terms, ‘customer is always right’ and branding the customer as wrong is done at great peril to those who solicit their vote at each election cycle.

Crises come and crises go. Yet man has learnt not only how to survive them, he has also learnt how to make a crisis a friendly challenge rather than an all-consuming personal disaster.

The UNP’s time of crisis has come. At the end of the road, it must find itself bloodied and exhausted but still standing.

The writer can be contacted at vishwamithra1984@gmail.com

JUDICATURE ACT aMENDMENTS NEED TWO THIRDS - SC

Law & Order-Disna Mudalige-Camelia Nathaniel and Amali MallawaarachchiWednesday,April 4, 2018

The Supreme Court (SC) has determined that three Sections of Judicature (Amendment) Bill are inconsistent with the Constitution and need to be passed by a two thirds majority in Parliament.

The Government presented the Bill on March 6 to set up a permanent High Court-at-Bar to expedite cases of large scale corruption and financial crimes.

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya announced to the House yesterday that the SC has determined that Sections 12 A (1), 12 A (2) and 12 A (7) are inconsistent with the Constitution.

Section 12 A (1) of the Bill deals with the setting up of the Permanent High Court-at-Bar, and the nature of cases to be taken up in it.

The SC has ruled that an amendment is required to be made to the Constitution to give effect to that Section.“This requires the bill to be passed by a two thirds majority. However, if the jurisdiction is conferred on a the High Court of Provinces under Article 154 P(3) (a) like in Act No 10 of 1996 and Act No 54 of 2006 this amending section will cease to be inconsistent” the SC ruling stated.

Section 12 A (2) states, “the Permanent High Court at Bar shall consist of three Judges sitting together, nominated by the Judicial Service Commission from among the High Court Judges of which one Judge shall be nominated by the Judicial Service Commission as the Chairman”.

The SC has ruled that the Judicial Service Commission nominating judges to the Permanent High Court-at-Bar is inconsistent with the article 154 P (2) of the Constitution.“An amendment is required to be made to the Constitution to give effect to the Section 12 A (2) of the Bill which requires a two-thirds majority. However, if 12 A (2) of the Bill is removed and Article 154 P (2) remains as it is, this inconsistency will cease,” the determination said.

Section 12 A (7) allows the Attorney General or the Director General for the Prevention of Bribery and Corruption to refer the cases to the Permanent High Court at Bar.

The SC has determined that Section 12 A (7) is inconsistent with Article 12 (1) of the Constitution.

“However, if the Chief Justice is given the power to decide whether to hold a trial at Bar or not this amending section will cease to be inconsistent,” it has ruled.

The Bill is scheduled for debate on Thursday.

Three barnacles of national economy: Case for Sri Lanka’s post-modern development

Wednesday, 4 April 2018

The prime objective of the National Economic Council established in 2017 was to mitigate national poverty while strengthening rural economy. The three-pronged economic development plan of the Council comprises infrastructure, economic development and construction projects.

Vesting crucial powers upon the Council, the Government intends to gain plethora of benefits from such economic projects. In anticipation of economic (and other) gains the country initiates projects, but there are chances of those being a burden rather than a blessing. Initiation through decline phases, the economic projects display different behaviours.

Some promising investments at origin deliver negative returns at decline, while certain projects at maturity do not retain its stability any further. Accordingly, it is wise to appreciate the imminent burdens rather than the visible promises. These economic burdens are named ‘barnacles’ as they adamantly ‘cling’ onto national economy and development.

Barnacle 1: Infrastructure – A perpetual asset?

Supported by capital budgeting and recurring costs, infrastructure projects are viewed as visible signs of development. The initial investment is high, reflects big figures and further has a significant running cost as well. Interestingly, the projects are short-life cycled and does not generate sufficient returns on investment. It creates an economic burden on the country as high maintenance costs impedes into the taxpayer’s finances when the projects mature into operational assets.

Economics that run on infrastructure includes road development projects (flyovers and highways), ports, harbours, airports, improved railways, and rural agriculture based on modern technologies. At initiation the projects seem promising, but towards stability phase only certain survive and others decline.

While perpetuity of projects are limited it begins to burden the economy with fuller force. The rising cost of living and incumbent expenses are hurdles to achieving full utilisation of projects. Could the general public afford to purchase a ticket in a full-fledged railway? This is the test of perpetuity for such assets.

Barnacle 2: Economic development – Measured by economic profits?

The primary stakeholders, the general public, are influenced by both initiation and development of economic projects. The positioning of Sri Lanka in the Human Development Index (HDI) is thus rising steadily but slowly. Later on the Human Happiness Index and Human Innovation Index among others should also show a maintained rising. The Greater Colombo Economic Development Project (established under Principal Enactment No. 4/1978) presently known as Board of Investment projects since 1992 (under Amendment Act No. 49/1992) intends to strengthen economic development. For more than two decades, such BOI investments have shaped and sharpened diverse industries – hospitality, leisure and recreation, ethical commercial businesses and private-sector education.

(The writer is an Attorney-at-Law, researcher on legal-economic aspects and university lecturer.)
Recording a positioning of 73 on HDI in 2016, Sri Lanka is showing high human development. A very high human development position is the level of self-actualisation in terms of economic gains. The multidimensional poverties of human safety (homicide rate), inequality, income (domestic food prices, domestic credit level, etc.) could be adjusted for long-term gains. After all, economic development is not driven by profits alone.

In volatile environments, the bargaining power of public for commodities need to be adjusted with changing economic situations. However, in debt-ridden times the question still triggers: Could we gain holistic returns on the economic projects and satisfy the needs of rural communities and the nation at large?

Barnacle 3: Construction – Lucrative or income regenerative assets?

The array of construction projects range from lifestyle living, commercial spaces to projects of wider national importance such as port and runaway expansions. Condominium projects benefiting individuals and businesses are a modern fashion for locals, expatriates and foreigners. This space management approach gives profits for real-estate owners and flow of income to the Government.

While a niche class benefits from this convenience living, the rights of shelter for low income earners are unaddressed. A question of affordability over accessibility, the economy is burdened and failed to quench the need of the wider society. The still remaining 80% provision for such projects could serve those hidden needs in a cost-effective manner.

In Asian nations there is a rising supply of condominiums, unmet by consumer demands as affordability inhibits purchasing powers (Forbes, 2017).The value-for-living concept rests on increased square feet and reasonable cost per square foot in a living unit. The inclusion of 15% VAT since March 2018 doubts the resale of assets at higher prices. Attractive projects may not have regenerative power on long-run.

Sri Lanka is an old-new country, small in geographic reach, but with an active regime of heterogeneous expansion projects. Thousands of years of heritage, over many decades of modern statehood have contributed to a project culture which has already created an identity of its own, while preserving the unique needs of different communities.

A socialist economy, Sri Lanka’s construction projects have absorbed many different social influences, as it blends expansion needs with optimising benefits, and strive to steer a course between Sri Lanka particularism and universalism. The constant search for sustainable projects is expressed through optimisation in a broad range of forms, to be appreciated and enjoyed by great many people as part of daily life. The interests of developing projects further do not generate profits, despite expansion at maturity phase. Widely known as “white elephants”, the country may have used economic feasibilities and environment impact assessment tools but, at much a surface level.
Barnacles of national economy: Is it an economic miracle?

Infrastructure, economic development and construction projects the three dimensions of national economy depict societal and economic costs at different phases from origin through maturity to decline of projects.

After having enjoyed for many years one of the progressing GDP growth rates among regional economies, Sri Lanka is continuing the economic recovery it began in early 2010, after a thirty-year distinct slowdown in almost all economic activities. This trend continued in 2017, according to all economic parameters.

In the years 2011-2017 Sri Lanka’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) continued its slow but steady growth. In spite of the civil war, that caused temporary loss of the adjusted net savings, the GDP reached 11,048 per capita (PPP) in 2011. The speedy recovery and continuation of the rapid growth were again led by the business, financial and State sector projects, which expanded to 66.9% of GDP, resulting in domestic credit provided by financial sector (% of GDP) and gross national income per capita (2011 PPP$). Society is yet to decide – Is the national economy a casualty of the three-fold projects under the aegis of the Economic Council?

(The writer is an Attorney-at-Law, researcher on legal-economic aspects and university lecturer.)

Post-war Sri Lanka to Finish the Job Before 2025.

Today is the International Mine Action Day

By Vidya Abhayagunawardena-April 3, 2018, 8:42 pm

The 2018 International Mine Action Day is a special day for Sri Lanka, which acceded to the Mine Ban Treaty (MBT) known as the Ottawa Treaty on 13th December 2017. This will be the first International Mine Action Day that Sri Lanka celebrates as a State Party to the MBT. Sri Lanka may be the first country to accede to the MBT and Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) on 1st March 2018 and ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) on 8th February 2016, in a row in three consecutive years not only in the South Asian region but also in the Asian region and perhaps in the world. Last year the MBT celebrated its 20th Anniversary and this year the CCM celebrates its 10th anniversary. Sri Lanka gave fitting birthday gifts with accession to both the Conventions on their 20th and 10th anniversaries.

Five Pillars of Sri Lanka’s National Mine Action Programme

Sri Lanka now as a State Party to the MBT will have several obligations to meet timelines under the Treaty implementation in the country. The National Mine Action Center which comes under the Ministry of Prison Reforms, Rehabilitation, Resettlement and Hindu Religious Affairs coordinates mine-action in Sri Lanka. Mine-action has five pillars which are universal to any mine-action programme in the world. They are; 1) Demining; 2) Mine Risk Education; 3) Victim Assistance; 4) Stockpile Destruction and 5) Advocacy.

1. Demining

With regard to Demining, Sri Lanka has yet to demine around 23sqkm in the north and east regions and this includes the Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa and Ampara districts. The National Mine Action Center has mentioned that Sri Lanka will be able to achieve mine threat-free status before 2020. We see this as a daunting task in terms of resource availability, political will and other factors. The international mine action community’s global agenda is set for a mine-free world by 2025. If Sri Lanka is able to achieve mine threat-free status before 2020 it will be a remarkable achievement and an example to the mine-action programmes of other mine affected countries. Currently Sri Lanka’s demining work is carried out by the Army Humanitarian Demining Unit, HALO Trust, MAG, DASH and SHARP with the support of the Government and the international donor community.

2. Mine Risk Education (MRE)

There is no doubt that Sri Lanka is at the top of the list in the world with regard to the least number of landmine victims reported in recent years. In 2017, there were only two mine-related incidents reported in Sri Lanka which compared to other mine-affected countries with hundreds of casualties reported every month. This is mainly due to the fact that better integrated Mine-Risk Education has been carried out by the local NGOs supported by the Unicef and the Humanitarian Demining Unit of the Sri Lanka Army. They conducted various mine-risk education activities for people living near mine-affected land areas. Further, the Ministry of Education has incorporated Mine-Risk Education into the school curriculum in schools in the North and East.

3. Victim Assistance (VA)

Victim Assistance is not satisfactory in Sri Lanka. Not only the mine-victims but also the entire disabled communities in Sri Lanka are facing severe difficulties with regard to their socioeconomic and political rights. Even though Sri Lanka ratified the UNCRPD more than two years ago, it is still struggling to have the UNCRPD principles incorporated into local legislations to implement accepted Convention norms and provisions to promote and protect disability rights. This we can further elaborate as justice delayed is justice denied.

4. Stockpile Destruction

Sri Lanka’s accession to the MBT showed its commitment towards the Treaty’s obligations and its implementation. Now Sri Lanka as a State Party needs to destroy all stockpiles of landmines in their stocks within four years. Sri Lanka should be able to achieve this target well before the set target of a four-year time period.

5. Advocacy

After several years’ relentless campaigning, the Sri Lanka Campaign to Ban Landmines (SLCBL) achieved and successfully completed the first phase of its mission. Sri Lanka ratified the UN CRPD in 2016, acceded to the MBT in 2017 and CCM in 2018. The second phase of SLCBL will be closely monitored and supportive of the implementation of the MBT, CCM and UN CRPD in Sri Lanka. The SLCBL vision will be a mine-free, peaceful and prosperous Sri Lanka, which fulfills all requirements of the disabled community.

HRH Prince Mired visit to Sri Lanka

The MBT Special Envoy His Royal Highness Prince Mired of Jordan visited Sri Lanka from 5th to 7th March this year. His visit was historical not only for Sri Lanka but also for the South Asian region as it was the Special Envoy to the MBT’s first visit to the region. He mentioned in his speech in Colombo that Sri Lanka now stands strongly in the region and should become the universalization ambassador for the Treaty in the region. Prince Mired’s visit to Sri Lanka gave a huge boost to Sri Lanka’s National Mine-Action Programme. He encouraged international donors to support the ongoing mine-action programme in Sri Lanka and he emphasized that Sri Lanka should have a comprehensive victim assistance programme.

The way forward

With the National Mine-Action Strategy (2016-2020) Mid-Term Strategy (will be discussed and finalized soon) Sri Lanka should be able to achieve its set targets well before its deadlines. It is of paramount importance that all the relevant stakeholders (relevant Government institutes, NGOs, INGOs, Donor community and International organizations) need to be consulted before it is finalized. The Corporate sector can be consulted as a new donor for the mine-action programme. The National Mine-Action Programme should become a matter of high priority in the Government’s development agenda. The National Mine Action Strategy should be available in local languages of Sinhala and Tamil due to various good reasons.

Under the new Mid-term Mine Action Strategy the SLCBL encourages the GoSL to ratify Protocol (V) of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) on Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) without delay. This will complement the last year’s accession to the MBT by Sri Lanka. The CCW Protocol (V) is the first multilateral agreement to deal with the range of unexploded and abandoned ordnance (UXO) that regularly threatens civilians, peacekeepers and humanitarian workers after the end of an armed conflict. Sri Lanka has already ratified its Protocols I to IV in 2004.

Sri Lanka should be able to host the next available Meeting of the State Parties (MSP) of either MBT or CCM. Sri Lanka’s mine-action achievements should be shared with other mine-affected nations without delay. Hosting a MSP is one way to invite the international mine- action community to Sri Lanka and share with them its success story.

The SLCBL would like to encourage Sri Lanka to bring back the past glory of being a champion of disarmament and at the same time to become a regional hub for disarmament discussions in South Asia. Sri Lanka is yet to accede to the CCW Protocol (V), Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and Nuclear Ban Treaty (NBT). Sri Lanka should be the leader of the disarmament in the region and is the only country that has the necessary background to be the leader. This will bring many opportunities for Sri Lanka in terms of political, socioeconomic, environmental and other factors.

(The writer is the Coordinator for Sri Lanka Campaign to Ban Landmines and Country Researcher Sri Lanka for Landmine and Cluster Munitions Monitor.)

US Blocks UN Investigation into Israeli Military Killings in Gaza (pt. 1/2)

Reacting to Trump administration blocking of a UN investigation into Israeli military's killings of Palestinians, Col. Larry Wilkerson says the United States is "in the back pocket of Israel like we have never been associated with any other country in the world."

SHARMINI PERIES-Published on Apr 2, 2018

Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy Lawrence Wilkerson's last positions in government were as Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief of Staff (2002-05), Associate Director of the State Department's Policy Planning staff under the directorship of Ambassador Richard N. Haass, and member of that staff responsible for East Asia and the Pacific, political-military and legislative affairs (2001-02). Before serving at the State Department, Wilkerson served 31 years in the U.S. Army. During that time, he was a member of the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College (1987 to 1989), Special Assistant to General Powell when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-93), and Director and Deputy Director of the U.S. Marine Corps War College at Quantico, Virginia (1993-97). Wilkerson retired from active service in 1997 as a colonel, and began work as an advisor to General Powell. He has also taught national security affairs in the Honors Program at the George Washington University. He is currently working on a book about the first George W. Bush administration.

transcript

SHARMINI PERIES: It's the Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore.

At an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Friday the Trump administration blocked a vote calling for an international investigation into Israeli defense forces killing 17 and wounding 1500 Palestinians last Friday. The government of Kuwait had proposed the resolution. The killings took place in the context of a massive peaceful march of Palestinians near the Gaza Strip's eastern border. They called for a return of expropriated land and commemorated the killing of six Palestinians at a demonstration in 1976. Here's what Taye-Brook Zerihoun of the United Nations, the Assistant to the Secretary General for Political Affairs, had to say.

TAYE-BROOK ZERIHOUN: There is fear that the situation might deteriorate in the coming days. We will continue to underline that it is imperative that civilians, in particular children, not be targeted, and that all actors refrain from putting children at risk at any time. Israel must uphold its responsibilities under international human rights and humanitarian law. Lethal force should only be used as a last resort, with any resulting fatalities properly investigated by the authorities.
SHARMINI PERIES: The Pope at his Easter service on Sunday in Rome had this to say about the violence.

POPE FRANCIS: We beseech fruits of reconciliation for the Holy Land, also experiencing in these days the wounds of ongoing conflict that do not spare the defenceless. For Yemen, and the entire Middle East, so that dialogue and mutual respect may prevail over division and violence.

SHARMINI PERIES: After taking life of so many Palestinians, Israeli military tweeted: "We know where every bullet landed," implying that the killings were intentional and targeted. The tweet had been deleted shortly after it appeared. Joining me now to discuss all of this is Larry Wilkerson. Larry is former chief of staff to the Secretary of State Colin Powell, now a distinguished professor at the College of William and Mary. Thank you so much for joining us today, Larry.

LARRY WILKERSON: Thanks for having me back, Sharmini.

SHARMINI PERIES: Larry, Walter Miller, the U.S. representative to the U.N., speaking at the Security Council on Friday claimed that bad actors were using the protests as a cover to incite more violence and to endanger innocent lives. There's no evidence, though, if you look at the footage, and we saw a weekend of full of protest footage that people have posted on social media. We have no indication that anyone incited any violence. Why is the Trump administration so determined to defend Israel and its military on this matter?

LARRY WILKERSON: Sharmini, you might as well ask, why has every American administration in the last 20-plus years been so willing to do the same? Particularly when increasing majorities, if not an overwhelming majority of the international community, sees fit to at least call for investigations if not for condemnation. And yet the United States, perhaps joined by the prestigious country of the Pacific, or maybe some other island municipality or country, votes to condemn or to veto, not to condemn but to veto to keep it from happening is an international action.

The answer to that question, I think, is equally increasingly simple and easy, and that is that, as Gideon Levy said recently, of Haaretz, the policy of the United States is made in Tel Aviv, and the policy of Tel Aviv dominates the policy of Washington, even to the point where he said the only place Trump is unanimously acclaimed is Tel Aviv, and the only place where Bibi Netanyahu is unanimously acclaimed is Washington. We are in the back pocket of Israel like we have never been associated with any other country in the world. It is astounding how much we are so. And Donald Trump has just brought that to you apogee, if you will, where anything Bibi wants, Bibi gets.

And let me just comment on Israeli tactics. These have been increasingly the same, too. Israel confronts a protest. And Israel says, as it did so dramatically, for example, in Operation Cast Lead, anyone who dares mount a protest, anyone who dares seem as if they might be seeking instability, we will kill you and kill you and kill you and kill you until you understand that anyone who raises a little finger against the state of Israel is apt to die. That's basically Israeli strategy.

SHARMINI PERIES: Now, Larry, you stated something very important, that in the past although U.S.'s administrations have supported Israel unconditionally Trump has taken this to a new level. And it doesn't matter what the international community says or what the United Nations might or might not consider. It is amputated every time this discussion even arrives in a place like the Security Council. Now can you, just from your experience of having dealt with these situations in the past, tell us what might work? What other ways in which you can actually draw the United States and Israel to the table and have a serious, meaningful discussion about the ways in which it is handling basic peaceful protests?

LARRY WILKERSON: Sharmini, let me start by saying I want to just amend your remarks a bit and say that since 1948, when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended overwhelmingly to President Harry Truman that he not take on the burden of 400 million or so Arabs opposed vehemently to the United States by recognizing the state of Israel, and Truman did it anyway, presidents have tried to maintain a balance. And I would say that they have succeeded, more or less, in maintaining that balance all the way up through Ronald Reagan, who you may recall tried to sell and did ultimately sell F15s and AWACS to Saudi Arabia. H.W. Bush, his vice president, later president on his own right, H.W. Bush took the Israelis after the first Gulf War, when he gained some leverage from that war, to Oslo. Essentially he was the one who set the ground for Madrid and then for Oslo later.

It's only with the entry onto the scene of President Clinton who for the first time, '95 as I recall, goes to AIPAC, for the very first time an American president at AIPAC, it's only with the advent of Bill Clinton and then the presidents after him, culminating in George W. Bush, who again, took a man who the Arab world thought was a bloody minded killer, Arik Sharon, into the Oval Office and called him a man of peace. And now we have Donald Trump. So with Bush, with Clinton to a certain extent, with Obama to a certain extent, with Bush certainly, and now with Trump we have become Israel's lawyer, we become their horse-holder, we become the party they turn to to fight their wars if they need be, vis-a-vis Iran, for example.

We can do no wrong and they can do no wrong in one another's eyes. That's what we have now. We have an extremely unbalanced policy, and it's my expectation, full expectation, we're going to pay for it dearly.

SHARMINI PERIES: Larry, is there a way to bring all sides to the table and have a meaningful discussion about resolving the conflict at a higher level?

LARRY WILKERSON: I think there is, Sharmini, picking up on your other question's main points. And there is, but it isn't going to happen with the likes of John Bolton. I see John Bolton, for example, and I assume Trump picked him at least in part for this reason, as just as duplicitous as was Douglas Feith in the George Bush administration. In other words, he's a card-carrying member of the Likud Party. John Bolton has dual loyalties. John Bolton was sneaking off to Israel in 2003 and '04 to talk to people like the Mujahedin-e Khalq, the MEK, in Israel. Hosted by Israel. Hosted by Mossad, to talk about such things as Iranian nuclear weapons efforts, which of course later were completely discounted. But to build a portfolio of intelligence not unlike that portfolio that suggested Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

So this is John Bolton. I don't know how much power Trump's going to give him. I hope none at all. But if he does give him power then it's going to be very difficult to do what I'm now going to suggest. There are basically three or four fundamental components to what a balanced U.S. policy would be, and in my mind a sound and sane U.S. policy. And you'll see immediately when I articulate these components why I say John Bolton won't be a part of this.

First and foremost is to more or less compel Israel to change its strategy and its tactics by telling them that 3.64 billion dollars we give them annually is not going to come any more. Not unless they're responsive to U.S. desires, and this includes all the original parameters of our Middle East policy. The 1967 borders, the right to return, a two-state solution in general, Jerusalem as the capital of both Palestine and Israel, and so on. The second thing you've got to do is be willing to hammer Israel where Israel needs hammering in conjunction with that threat to cut off funding. And that's in every manner of the U.S. relationship with Israel, from intelligence sharing on the one hand, to the kinds of things that we're doing with our private citizens and so forth on the other hand. And by that I mean, of course, the rapture-loving Mike Pence-like zealous Christians who aren't Christians, who constantly talk about the rapture want Armageddon to come, the antichrist to be identified, and everything to end so that they can go to heaven. I have no problem with them going to heaven. I just don't want to go with them and. I suggest to you that about 95 percent of some 7 billion people on the face of the earth don't go with them either.

The third component of it would be to bring all the other powers in the region into concert. And this includes that kingdom over there run by that runaway errant heir apparent Mohammed bin Salman, now finishing his much-funded trip to the United States. Getting them to come along with this policy. Saudi Arabia used to be on this more or less, two-state solution, peace agreement and so forth policy. No longer, because they see Israel as a pawn in their game to defeat Iran and make sure they are the hegemon of the Gulf, and not Iran. So you've got to bring them along. You've got to also reach out to other countries that can help you with their good offices, One of which is Moscow, which is why I despair with the way we're treating Moscow in the press, in the Congress, in the White House and so forth. You've got to bring Ankara along. You've got to have some partners in bringing this pressure to bear on Israel.

And then lastly, you've got a couple yourself, literally couple yourself, to the now almost 65-70 percent of American Jews who increasingly find Netanyahu a despicable individual, who increasingly find Israel's policies as articulated by Netanyahu as destructive, as even calling into question how long Israel's going to be around. And if it is going to be around, is it going to be an apartheid state, because it's certainly not going to be a democracy, not the way it's headed right now. And who are very anxious for this prospect or these prospects, and are on our side. You know, when I say our side I mean this side of justice, the side of peace, the side of equanimity, the side of balance, the side of doing something in this situation that looks productive rather than destructive. You've got to have all those components.

And so now you know, Sharmini, there is no way in the world Donald Trump and John Bolton are going to put together a policy that remotely resembles what I just said. They're going to march us off the cliff. That's what they're going to do.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right. Let's break this into another segment, and please do join us for our continuing discussion with Larry Wilkerson about the developments in Palestine between Gaza and the Israeli border.

Israelis kill Palestinian man in Gaza buffer zone

Ahmed Arafa, 25, shot in the chest near east of Bureij, taking toll to 18 since mass protests began on Friday

Relative mourns as she looks at the body of a Palestinian, who was killed along Israel border with Gaza, 3 April (Reuters)

Tuesday 3 April 2018

A Palestinian man was shot dead by Israeli troops on the Gaza border on Tuesday, the health ministry in the strip said.

The ministry said 25-year-old Ahmed Arafa was shot in the chest in the buffer zone area east of Bureij in central Gaza.

The Israeli army said it was looking into the incident and could not immediately comment.

Arafa's death is the 18th since a mass demonstration known as the "Great March Return" began on Friday.

Protests have continued since, with thousands expected to take to the streets again this Friday, to demand their right of return to their villages and towns in what is now Israel.

Protests are expected to continue until 15 May, which marks the 70th anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba (Catastrophe), in which more than 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly displaced by Israeli forces in 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

Israel's use of live fire last week has been criticised by rights groups, while the EU and the UN chief, Antonio Guterres, have called for an independent investigation.

Israel defended its soldiers' actions on Friday, saying they opened fire only when "necessary" against those "throwing stones and firebombs or rolling tyres at soldiers".

It claimed there were attempts to damage the fence and "infiltrate" Israel.

Human Rights Watch on Tuesday said Friday's killings were unlawful and "calculated," also saying the border protests posed no immediate threat to Israeli soldiers.

The Friday, 30 March, coincided with what Palestinians call "Land Day" commemorating the day Israeli forces killed six Palestinians during protests against land confiscation in 1976.

Palestinians say protesters were fired on while posing no threat to soldiers.

13-year-old “leaves hell” of Israeli detention

Abdel Raouf al-Balawi, 13, said that being released from Israeli prison “felt like I was leaving hell and being welcomed into paradise.”

Jaclynn Ashly

Jaclynn Ashly-2 April 2018

Abdel Raouf al-Balawi’s mother drapes a checkered scarf – or kuffiyeh – around her son’s small, slumped-over shoulders, while the 13-year-old anxiously recounts his experiences in Israeli detention.

Posters displaying the faces of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces are lined up, one after the other, across the white walls of the family’s home in Bethlehem’s Dheisheh refugee camp.

“The food was horrible in prison,” Abdel Raouf said, looking up briefly, before averting his eyes back to the floor. “Everything the Israelis gave us was months expired.”

On Tuesday, 27 March, Abdel Raouf was released from Ofer detention center, an Israeli military facility located near Ramallah in the occupied West Bank, and was greeted by hundreds of cheering residents in his home camp celebrating his release.

Abdel Raouf was one of the youngest Palestinians imprisoned by Israel.

“I felt so much pain”

He was detained during a 10 December protest in Bethlehem against US President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

According to Abdel Raouf, at least 10 soldiers rushed the crowd of protesters and grabbed him.

“One of the soldiers threw me to the ground, and another began beating me on my legs,” he told The Electronic Intifada. “I couldn’t walk for a month because I felt so much pain in my leg from the beating.”

Following his detention, the minor was brought to an interrogation facility in Israel’s Gush Etzion settlement bloc. Like all Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Gush Etzion is illegal under international law.

Hours of interrogations with Israeli authorities followed, Abdel Raouf told The Electronic Intifada, as Israeli officials accused Abdel Raouf of throwing stones at Israeli forces during the protest.

It was five hours before his father was called and told his whereabouts. Palestinian parents are frequently denied the right to accompany their children during interrogations conducted by the Israeli authorities in the West Bank.

During the interrogations, soldiers placed Abdel Raouf in a room decorated with flags and posters of Hamas. “I think it was the soldiers’ attempts to intimidate me psychologically,” the boy said.

The al-Balawi family is affiliated with the rival Fatah party.

“They showed me a video of the protest and told me that I appeared in it. I kept telling them I was innocent,” he explained.

One of the Israeli officials threw a pen in the boy’s face and then pushed him off his chair, Abdel Raouf said.

And when his father arrived, the interrogators refocused their frustrations on him.

“They were screaming at my father, and my father was screaming back at them,” Abdel Raouf said. “One of the soldiers pointed his gun at my father and told him: ‘Get outside or I will shoot you.’”

After his father was forced to leave the interrogation room, Abdel Raouf was left alone for another two hours with the Israeli officials. “They just kept taking my fingerprints and telling me that I am Hamas and I want to kill them,” he told The Electronic Intifada.

Abdel Raouf soon confessed to throwing stones at Israeli forces. “I was scared that they would hurt my father, so I confessed,” he said.

Such treatment is routine for Palestinians, according to Dawoud Yusef from Addameer, a group campaigning on behalf of prisoners.

Palestinian minors are often forced to sign confessions written in Hebrew, a language most Palestinians in the West Bank do not understand, according to Yusef. Israeli interrogation and detention practices used on Palestinian minors, he added, clearly violate international law.

“Constantly worrying”

Abdel Raouf was sentenced to four months in prison on 22 January for throwing stones at Israeli soldiers – the most common charge leveled against Palestinian minors. A $1000 fine was also imposed on him.

“I felt so worried and sad when my son was in prison,” Abdel Raouf’s mother, Shahrazad, told The Electronic Intifada. “I was a mess for months. Every time I fell asleep, I dreamed of him. I was constantly worrying about him.”

It was not the first time Shahrazad had to deal with having one of her children imprisoned by Israel. Her other son, she said, 23-year-old Alaa has been imprisoned for almost a year under administrative detention – the widespread Israeli practice in occupied territory of imprisonment without charge or trial.

Even at the young age of 13, Abdel Raouf is no stranger to Israeli prison and violence. He easily reels off the names of friends and relatives who have been imprisoned or injured by Israel, counting them one by one on his fingers.

According to Addameer, there were 330 Palestinian minors imprisoned by Israel as of February.

Still, he said he was hugely relieved to be out of detention. “It felt like I was leaving hell and being welcomed into paradise when they released me,” he said.

However, Yusef told The Electronic Intifada that the experience of prison on Palestinian minors can affect them long after being released.

Prison can “radically change the personality of a child,” Yusef said, adding that Palestinian children often experience sleep issues, anxiety and difficulty concentrating following their release.

They also face serious problems readjusting to school. As a result, Palestinian children who have spent time in Israeli prison experience high dropout rates, Yusef said.

Despite the difficulties he may face in the future owing to his experience, Abdel Raouf is eager to return to his old life.

“I missed all my friends so much,” he said. “And I am very excited to be able to return to school.”

Jaclynn Ashly is a freelance journalist based in Bethlehem.

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this article misstated the amount of the Israeli fine imposed on Abdel Raouf al-Balawi.

Lawyer Alex van der Zwaan jailed for 30 days in Mueller's first conviction

Dutch attorney, 33, is first to be formally sentenced for lying to FBI
Trump says ‘nobody’s been tougher to Russia than Donald Trump’

Attorney Alex van der Zwaan, left, who formerly worked for the Skadden Arps law firm, arrives at a US district courthouse in Washington DC for his sentencing on Tuesday. Photograph: Alex Wong/Getty Images

Ben Jacobs in Washington and agencies@Bencjacobs-Tue 3 Apr 2018 17.17 BST

A Dutch attorney was sentenced on Tuesday to 30 days in prison for lying to federal agents, in the first formal conviction obtained by Robert Mueller in his investigation of Russian election interference and alleged collusion between aides to Donald Trump and Moscow.

A federal judge in Washington sentenced Alex van der Zwaan, a 33-year-old lawyer who previously worked with Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager. He was also ordered to pay a $20,000 fine.

Van der Zwaan had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with another former Trump adviser, Rick Gates, and a person the FBI has assessed as being tied to Russian military intelligence.

Although the Dutchman was the fourth person to plead guilty in the Mueller probe, he was first to be formally sentenced. Gates, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos have entered plea deals.

A former lawyer at the prominent firm Skadden Arps, Van der Zwaan worked on a 2012 report commissioned by Manafort to defend former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych from international criticism.

Van der Zwaan’s sentence could be a guide for what other defendants charged with lying in Mueller’s investigation receive when their cases are resolved, if they have co-operated.

Manafort has pleaded not guilty to financial charges and denied any wrongdoing related to Russian election interference.

A memo by deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein revealed in a court filing on Monday confirmed that Mueller was explicitly authorized to investigate allegations that Manafort colluded with the Russian government.

Trump has denied any collusion and repeatedly called the Mueller investigation and congressional investigations a “witch hunt”. At the White House on Tuesday the president told reporters “probably nobody’s been tougher to Russia than Donald Trump”.

He added: “If we got along with Russia, that would be a good thing not a bad thing. And just about everybody agrees with that, except very stupid people.”

Van der Zwaan had faced up to six months in prison, under federal sentencing guidelines. His attorneys pushed for him to pay a fine and leave the country. US district judge Amy Berman Jackson cited the need to deter others from lying in an investigation of international importance and said incarceration was necessary.

The criminal case against Van der Zwaan is not directly related to Russian election interference. But it has revealed new details about the case against Manafort and previously undisclosed connections between senior Trump aides, including Gates, and Russia.

Prosecutors did not take a position on whether Van der Zwaan should be locked up but they stressed that he had lied “repeatedly” to investigators.

Van der Zwaan’s attorneys argued that he had suffered enough because of his “terrible decision” to lie. The attorneys also pushed for Van der Zwaan to be allowed to return to London, where he lives with his wife, who is pregnant with their first child.

Trump says he’ll send military to guard U.S.-Mexico border, threatens foreign aid to Honduras

President Trump has told them they're not welcome, but a caravan of Central American migrants is still headed toward the U.S. border in search of a better life. Melissa Macaya, Rusvel Rasgado/The Washington Post)

By Seung Min Kim April 3 at 2:27 PM

President Trump on Tuesday signaled plans to escalate a crackdown on illegal immigration, announcing that the U.S. military will be sent to guard the U.S.-Mexico border and threatening foreign aid to Honduras.

For the third straight day, Trump seized on coverage of a “caravan” of 1,000 migrants, primarily from Honduras, to call for tougher immigration policies and warn of what he called “weak” border security.

But the prospect sending military personnel to the southern border, as well as cutting off foreign aid, added a new dimension to Trump’s immigration strategy that so far had centered on threats to walk away from the North American Free Trade Agreement and pressuring Congress to send him funding for a border wall.

“We are going to be guarding our border with our military. That's a big step,” Trump said Tuesday during a meeting with the leaders of three Baltic nations. “We cannot have people flowing into our country illegally, disappearing, and by the way, never showing up for court.”

Later at a news conference with these leaders, Trump said he would soon meet with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to discuss having the U.S. military deployed to the border with Mexico.

The Washington Post’s David Nakamura analyzes President Trump’s claims about “caravans” of immigrants heading toward the United States from Central America. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

“I think it is something we have to do,” Trump said.

[The caravan of migrants that’s alarmed President Trump has now stalled]

Deploying troops to the border is not unprecedented. The Obama administration sent 1,200 National Guard troops to the southern border in 2010 to assist Border Patrol and immigration officials amid rising concerns about drug trafficking.

In 2014, then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he would dispatch as many as 1,000 National Guard troops to the southern border as the country faced an influx of migrant children and families from Central America. Perry is now Trump’s energy secretary.

Trump floated the threat about foreign aid to Honduras in a tweet early Tuesday morning as he continued to complain about the “caravan” moving through Mexico.

“The caravan doesn't irritate me, the caravan makes me very sad that this could happen to the United States,” Trump told reporters during his meeting with the Baltic leaders.

The “caravan” — an annual event that is meant to draw attention to the refugee crisis in Central America — has spurred new calls from Trump for an immigration crackdown, particularly funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall that has eluded him. Conservative media outlets have has focused on the caravan in recent days.

“The big Caravan of People from Honduras, now coming across Mexico and heading to our “Weak Laws” Border, had better be stopped before it gets there,” Trump tweeted shortly before 7 a.m. Tuesday. “Cash cow NAFTA is in play, as is foreign aid to Honduras and the countries that allow this to happen. Congress MUST ACT NOW!”

The Mexican government took steps late Monday to break up the caravan, registering the migrants and saying that some would be asked to leave the country while others would receive humanitarian assistance. Mexico’s Interior Ministry said Monday that “under no circumstances does the government of Mexico promote irregular migration.”

[That caravan of migrants Trump was tweeting about? Mexico stopped it.]

Honduras received about $127.5 million in aid from the United States in fiscal 2016, according to data from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Congress is in a two-week recess.
He referred to the caravan in tweets Monday night, accusing Democrats of allowing “open borders, drugs and crime” while deriding U.S. immigration laws as an “Obama joke.”

“Honduras, Mexico and many other countries that the U.S. is very generous to, sends many of their people to our country through our WEAK IMMIGRATION POLICIES. Caravans are heading here. Must pass tough laws and build the WALL. Democrats allow open borders, drugs and crime!”

Meanwhile, White House officials are preparing new proposals that they say would close “loopholes” in U.S. immigration laws. Separately, the Department of Homeland Security is pushing for the end of the “catch and release” practice, which allows undocumented immigrants who have been apprehended to be released while they await their hearings.

Trump’s new immigration threats were made in tweets early Tuesday that included another defense of Sinclair Broadcasting Group, the largest network of local television stations in the country. Sinclair has recently faced a backlash after its news anchors were ordered to read a uniform script decrying “biased and false news” and criticizing other journalists for using their platforms to “push their own personal bias.”

“The Fake News Networks, those that knowingly have a sick and biased AGENDA, are worried about the competition and quality of Sinclair Broadcast,” Trump tweeted. “The ‘Fakers’ at CNN, NBC, ABC & CBS have done so much dishonest reporting that they should only be allowed to get awards for fiction!”

Trump leveled another attack at CNN in a separate tweet that misspelled the name of the cable network’s head, Jeff Zucker, and charged that its journalists had to abide by an anti-Trump test.
CNN immediately pushed back: “Once again, false. The personal political beliefs of CNN's employees are of no interest to us. Their pursuit of the truth is our only concern. Also, Jeff's last name is spelled Z-U-C-K-E-R. Those are the facts. #FactsFirst.”

And in his fourth tweet of the morning, the president touted his ratings in recent polling from Rasmussen Reports, whose figures tend to favor Republicans, and noted that his numbers were “higher than ‘Cheatin’ Obama at the same time in his Administration.”