Peace for the World

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

Monday, April 23, 2018

Syria: A case of using ‘false flags’ or fake news to start a war


logo
Saturday, 21 April 2018

The airstrikes carried out by the US, UK and France on alleged chemical weapons facilities in Syria on 14 April are yet another instance of how the US (and its allies) use “false flags” or “fake news” to unleash military action to serve their geo-strategic interests.

The US has been saying that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is an “animal” who kills and maims his own people using chemical weapons like nerve gas. But the real reason for hating Assad is not that he has been using nerve gas against his own people,  but that he has chosen to act independently, often joining forces with the enemies of the US in the region, including  Iran and Russia.

US-Syria relations worsened from 2003 onwards. Issues of US concern included the Syrian Government’s failure to prevent Syria from becoming a major transit point for foreign fighters entering Iraq; its refusal to deport from Syria former Saddam Hussein regime elements supporting the insurgency in Iraq; its interference in Lebanese affairs, its protection of the leadership of Palestinian rejectionist groups in Damascus; its human rights record, and its alleged pursuit of “weapons of mass destruction”.

The 2011 “Arab Spring” mass movement affected the regime in Syria too. Assad, like other rulers in the region, saw it as a Western-inspired conspiracy. As contradictions with the West sharpened, Russia under Putin, wanting to be a factor in Middle Eastern politics again, jumped into the fray and offered Assad a helping hand.

Western governments used their national media to the hilt to portray Assad as a ruthless and bloodthirsty dictator who relished watching TV images of kids being killed by poison gas.

Covering up evidence


However, for all its efforts to show that Assad is using chemical weapons, Washington has produced no evidence to show that chemical weapons have been used.

In fact, according to the Russians, the US used the April 14 air strikes to destroy evidence which might show that America’s charge about the use of chemical weapons is false. The attacks took place just before a team from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was to visitDouma, the site which was allegedly subjected to chemical attacks.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told BBC that the allegations of chemical weapons use were only “based on media reports and social media” and that the incident of chemical weapons use in Doumawas “staged”.

Robert Fisk of The Independent went to Doumawhere he was told by a local doctor that people died not because of gas but due to lack of oxygen in their bunkers. During bombings, gusts of wind threw mounds of dust into bunkers which chocked those who were taking shelter there.

“There are many people I talked to amid the ruins of the town who said they had never believed in gas stories, which were usually put about, they claimed, by the armed Islamist groups,” Fisk wrote.

Peter Ford, the former British Ambassador to Syria, told BBC Radio Scotland that “in all probability” the alleged chemical attack never happened and that the video and image evidence used as proof by the US and its allies was falsified

Past use of fake news 

Writing in Russia TodayIrish journalist Danielle Ryan says that ‘false flag’ or ‘fake news’ has been used many times before by the US to start military operations.

In October 1990, the testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, Nayirah, before the US Congress, was used to sell the first Gulf War to the American people.  An emotional Nayirah told the Congressional Human Rights Caucus that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and leaving them on the floor to die.

But what the American public did not know was that Nayirah was the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the US and she had been coached by the American PR firm Hill and Knowlton.

Operation Northwoods



Ryan recalls that in the 1960s, American military leaders devised plans to bomb US cities and blame Cuban leader Fidel Castro for them, in order to manufacture public and international support for a war against Cuba.

“The plan was codenamed Operation Northwoods. The American military suggested sinking boatloads of Cuban refugees, hijacking planes and bombing Miami. The goal was to convince Americans that Castro had unleashed a reign of terror upon them.”

“The top brass were even willing to cause US military casualties by blowing up an American boat in Guantanamo Bay and blaming Cuba. Why? Because, as they put it: casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation and help manufacture support for war,” Ryan writes.

“The plans were quashed by President Kennedy, who was assassinated one year later, leading some to speculate on a link between those events,” the writer speculates.

Gulf of Tonkin

On 2 August 1964, North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked the USS ‘Maddox’ while it was on “routine patrol” in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin. Two days later, the US Navy reported a second “unprovoked” attack on the ‘Maddox’ and the USS ‘Turner Joy’.

Ryan says that the second attack was “fake”. But it led to the unleashing of a war in Vietnam which proved to be the most disastrous in American history.

Fake Soviet aircraft 

Ryan refers to a recently declassified three-page memo written by members of the National Security Council suggesting that the US Government should acquire Soviet aircraft which would be used to stage attacks and provide the pretext for war.

Such aircraft, the memo said, “could be used in a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly installations to provide an excuse for US intervention.”

Objectives

not attained 


By all independent accounts, last Saturday’s airstrikes against Syria have failed to deliver the goods. It is not clear as to what they destroyed. Russian reports have been contradictory. One report said that chemical warfare facilities were evacuated to safer places elsewhere days ahead of the raid. But the official Russian and Syrian stand is that there were no chemical facilities in the first place.

At any rate, the attacks have made no difference to the ground situation in Syria. They have, on the other hand, provoked the allies of the US in Europe to call for a political solution eschewing war.

Europe is concerned that more than 465,000 Syrians have been killed, over a million injured, and over 12 million (half the country’s pre-war population) have been displaced because  of the eight-year war.

US policy on Syria is confused. President Donald Trump, for all his bluff and bluster, is in two minds about keeping US troops in Syria. On the one hand, Washington is fighting some of the Islamist terror groups ranged against the Syrian government headed by Assad. But on the other hand, it is also hell bent on overthrowing Assad and is using some Islamic groups for this purpose.

However, for all its efforts, the US has been unable to make a material change in the situation in Syria. Assad is well entrenched and is pushing back the Islamist rebels. And his ally, Russia, continues to have a firm footing in the country. American pressure has only been driving Syria into the arms of Russia.
No more K-Pop: South Korea switches off propaganda to North ahead of summit


THE sounds of upbeat K-Pop and news broadcasts will no longer be heard blaring across the Korean border’s de-militarised zone after South Korea halted the propaganda broadcasts on Monday in preparation for their first summit with Pyongyang in over a decade.

Preparations for the historic summit are in the final stages as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-In are expected to meet at the border truce village of Panmunjom on Friday.
Ahead of the summit, North Korea announced it would halt nuclear and missile tests and said it was scrapping its nuclear test site to instead pursue economic growth and peace.


“North Korea‘s decision to freeze its nuclear programme is a significant decision for the complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula,” South Korean President Moon Jae-in said in a regular meeting at the Blue House on Monday.

“It is a green light that raises the chances of positive outcomes at the North’s summits with South Korea and the United States. If North Korea goes the path of complete denuclearisation starting from this, then a bright future for North Korea can be guaranteed.”

2018-04-21T102606Z_1633855139_RC151F3CE8C0_RTRMADP_3_NORTHKOREA-MISSILES
Children play on a unification flag decorated with messages wishing for a successful inter-Korean summit during a rally in central Seoul, South Korea, April 21, 2018. Source: Reuters/Kim Hong-Ji

The speakers blaring messages to the North Korean people can be heard for miles on the North’s side, and have been playing on a regular basis since January 2016, when they were turned back on as a response to North Korea’s fourth nuclear test. They broadcast Korean pop music, news and weather forecasts; snippets of everyday life in the South that are strictly off limits for North Koreans.

The broadcasts were stopped at midnight, the defence ministry said, without specifying whether they would resume after the Kim-Moon summit.


“We hope this decision will lead both Koreas to stop mutual criticism and propaganda against each other and also contribute in creating peace and a new beginning,” the South Korean defence ministry said about the decision to halt the broadcasts.

Though North Korea also engages in propaganda broadcasts of its own, it has long objected to the South’s use of speakers, and has at times responded to them with artillery fire. A South Korean defence ministry official said he could not verify whether the North had stopped its broadcasts.

Additional reporting by Reuters. 

Trump lied to me about his wealth to get onto the Forbes 400. Here are the tapes.

Jonathan Greenberg is an investigative journalist, author and new-media innovator.

(Doug Chayka/For The Washington Post)


 
In May 1984, an official from the Trump Organization called to tell me how rich Donald J. Trump was. I was reporting for the Forbes 400, the magazine’s annual ranking of America’s richest people, for the third year. In the previous edition, we’d valued Trump’s holdings at $200 million, only one-fifth of what he claimed to own in our interviews. This time, his aide urged me on the phone, I needed to understand just how loaded Trump really was.

The official was John Barron — a name we now know as an alter ego of Trump himself. When I recently rediscovered and listened, for first time since that year, to the tapes I made of this and other phone calls, I was amazed that I didn’t see through the ruse: Although Trump altered some cadences and affected a slightly stronger New York accent, it was clearly him. “Barron” told me that Trump had taken possession of the business he ran with his father, Fred. “Most of the assets have been consolidated to Mr. Trump,” he said. “You have down Fred Trump [as half owner] . . . but I think you can really use Donald Trump now.” Trump, through this sockpuppet, was telling me he owned “in excess of 90 percent” of his family’s business. With all the home runs Trump was hitting in real estate, Barron told me, he should be called a billionaire.

At the time, I suspected that some of this was untrue. I ran Trump’s assertions to the ground, and for many years I was proud of the fact that Forbes had called him on his distortions and based his net worth on what I thought was solid research.
But it took decades to unwind the elaborate farce Trump had enacted to project an image as one of the richest people in America. Nearly every assertion supporting that claim was untrue. Trump wasn’t just poorer than he said he was. Over time, I have learned that he should not have been on the first three Forbes 400 lists at all. In our first-ever list, in 1982, we included him at $100 million, but Trump was actually worth roughly $5 million — a paltry sum by the standards of his super-monied peers — as a spate of government reports and books showed only much later.


Phone conversation between Jonathan Greenberg and John Barron (Donald Trump) on May 17, 1984.
The White House declined to comment for this story. The Trump Organization did not respond to a request for comment.

I was a determined 25-year-old reporter, and I thought that, by reeling Trump back from some of his more outrageous claims, I’d done a public service and exposed the truth. But his confident deceptions were so big that they had an unexpected effect: Instead of believing that they were outright fabrications, my Forbes colleagues and I saw them simply as vain embellishments on the truth. We were so wrong.
This was a model Trump would use for the rest of his career, telling a lie so cosmic that people believed that some kernel of it had to be real. The tactic landed him a place he hadn’t earned on the Forbes list — and led to future accolades, press coverage and deals. It eventually paved a path toward the presidency.
*** *** *** ***
Malcolm Forbes came up with the idea of the Forbes 400 in 1981 and assigned me to spend a year traveling around the country and interviewing wealthy people and those who worked with them about one another. The most challenging sector was private real estate wealth. My grandfather had been an accountant to a number of major New York developers, so I had the advantage of knowing many of the players there. But the reporting was opaque, because so few of the relevant financial documents were public; we relied disproportionately on what people told us. As the project progressed, other experienced reporters and editors joined what would become the most successful annual special issue in Forbes history.

From the beginning, Trump was obsessed. The project could offer a clear, supposedly authoritative declaration of his status as a player, and while many of the super-rich wanted to keep their names off the ranking, Trump was desperate to scale it.
When I first contacted him for the inaugural issue, Trump pulled out all the stops to convince me that he was the wealthiest real estate developer in New York. At an afternoon-long meeting in his cavernous Fifth Avenue office, he argued that his family was worth more than $900 million and deserved to be higher on our list than any of the far more accomplished developers (with names like Rose and Rudin) who had spent generations building top-tier housing in the golden borough of Manhattan. His father, Fred Trump, was well known for building nearly all the apartments that the Trump Organization owned before Donald even joined the company, so it amazed me when Donald claimed that he, and not his father, possessed 80 percent of the 23,000 apartments he said they had in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. He added that these were almost debt free and worth $40,000 each.

I questioned his valuation. Trump shrugged and said, “Okay, then $20,000 each.” That would mean his family was worth some $500 million, still atop our list for New York real estate tycoons.
But that figure seemed high. I estimated the apartments to be worth about $9,000 each: They could not easily be converted to lucrative co-ops, and Trump had falsely described the location of the Queens buildings. He’d claimed they were in Forest Hills when, in fact, they were in the far less valuable Jamaica Estates neighborhood a few miles away. Since Donald’s new projects were still in development or unproven, the outer-borough apartments formed the basis of a Trump family net worth estimate of $200 million.

Six weeks after my initial interview, I received a call at my desk from Trump’s secretary and gatekeeper, Norma Foerderer . She said she wanted my work address so Trump could send me an invitation to a company party. Then she abruptly added: “Oh, Donald was just passing by! He said that he wanted to have a few words with you.”

Phone conversation between Jonathan Greenberg and Donald Trump on July 15, 1982. 
I switched on my audio recorder — my normal practice — as Trump expressed his concern for what he called “your little article.” He invited me for a follow-up interview with him because, he said, he was richer than the rest. “I don’t think that you have your facts 100 percent correct” about his standing vis-a-vis other New York developers. I was contemplating a too-low appraisal of his net worth, he said: “You had us down in a certain category, and then you mentioned other names, and there’s no contest, you know. I mean, there’s no contest. So I just wanted to mention that.”

Trump knew I had doubts about his assertions, so he had his lawyer, Roy Cohn, call me. Cohn spent most of his time threatening lawsuits, schmoozing with mobster clients and badgering reporters with off-the-record utterances that made his clients look good and their enemies look bad. Cohn surprised me at my Forbes desk that summer: “Jon Greenberg,” a scrappy voice bellowed, before I could connect my tape recorder. I took notes by hand. “This is Roy. Roy Cohn! You can’t quote me! But Donny tells me you’re putting together this list of rich people. He says you’ve got him down for just $200 million! That’s way too low, way too low! Listen, I’m Donny’s personal lawyer, but he said I could talk to you about this. I am sitting here looking at his current bank statement. It shows he’s got more than $500 million in liquid assets, just cash. That’s just Donald, nothing to do with Fred, and it’s just cash.” He concluded: “He’s worth more than any of those other guys in this town!”

I offered to have a messenger pick up the bank statement at his office. Cohn protested that the document was confidential. “Just trust me,” he said. I told him I wouldn’t take his word without seeing the paperwork. “It’s confidential!” Cohn yelled.

My Forbes editors and I spent many hours deliberating about where to place Trump. Based on what little we knew — his claims; a 1976 New York Times profile that said the Trump Organization owned 22,000 apartments; and Fred’s reputation for housing a generation of working-class New Yorkers in Brooklyn and Queens — we ranked Donald and Fred in the bottom tier among major real-estate developers, each with half of a $200 million apartment empire.

Even though I learned later that this was far more money than Donald possessed, it did not satisfy him for the following year’s edition. During his 1983 interview, Trump claimed that there were actually 25,000 apartments and that his net worth had ballooned because of the success of his new projects, Trump Tower and the Grand Hyatt Hotel on East 42nd Street, as well as a pending casino deal in Atlantic City.

Then Cohn called again, this time to say Trump was worth more than $700 million. I recorded our chat. He opened with an outrageous claim that Trump had personally received $250 million from the recent sale of a 50 percent interest in his new project to build a Harrah’s casino in Atlantic City. “A certain amount was cleared, say, around a hundred million,” Cohn said. “. . . But the balance was used by him to liquidate certain other things, which made his overall position very impregnable. Trump Tower has been going like a house afire, and the profits on that are much higher than had been anticipated, and the same is true with Grand Hyatt. On top of which he’s been in a series of private transactions, and he files with banks for between $700 to $750 million, as well as with Equitable” — Equitable Life Assurance, the company that financed Trump Tower — “which backs him in all of his deals.”


Phone conversation between Jonathan Greenberg and Donald Trump's lawyer, Roy Cohn on June 21, 1983.
Again, Cohn refused to show me a statement, but armed with misinformation about Trump’s casino payout and claims about cash flow at other properties, I inflated his (and his father’s) net worth to $200 million each. In retrospect, Fred Trump was probably worth half that amount, and Donald, once again, should not have been on the list at all.

The next year I received two calls from “John Barron,” the fictitious Trump executive who told me that Donald had taken “in excess of 90 percent” ownership from Fred. He also suggested that Trump was on track to earn a $50 million profit every year from his first Atlantic City casino. And so, in 1984, we increased Donald’s net worth estimate to $400 million and left Fred in, for his last year on the Forbes 400, at $200 million. (Barron also bad-mouthed the competition, saying that developer George Klein had struck a “bad deal” to redevelop Times Square — a bid Trump had lost — and was “going to go down the tubes.”)

Although Trump, posing as Barron, asked Forbes to conduct the conversation off the record, I am publishing it here. I believe an intent to deceive — both with the made-up persona and the content of the call — released me from my good-faith pledge. In a 1990 court case, Trump testified that he had used false names in phone calls to reporters. In 2016, when The Washington Post published a similar recording, Trump denied it was him.

Fred Trump turned down my attempts to interview him for the Forbes 400. He allowed Donald to say whatever he wanted about the family’s business. In the only major interview he gave after Donald seized the limelight, Fred told the New York Times in 1983 that “Donald has a competitive spirit and I don’t want to compete with him. . . . He amazes me. He’s gone way beyond me, absolutely.”
*** *** *** ***
Eventually, nearly every one of Trump’s pronouncements about his wealth unraveled.
The number of apartments was the first problem. The commonly cited figure — that his family owned 25,000 units — began with the mention of 22,000 apartments in that fawning 1976 New York Times profile. In 1988, after I left Forbes, I counted the units and found fewer than 8,000. (I was working briefly on a documentary about Trump that was never completed.) Another Forbes reporter that year, John Anderson, found the same thing. He called the Trump residential management organization, he told me then, and asked an executive named Harry Green how many apartments the company owned. “About 10,000,” Green told him, meaning that our 1982 family valuation of $200 million should have been just $90 million (below the cutoff at that time for inclusion on the list). A few minutes later, Green called Anderson back and corrected himself: Now there were 25,000 again.

Another brazen claim was that Trump, not his father, owned the company’s outer-borough apartments, which his father built beginning in the 1930s. Based on what Trump said during our 1982 and 1983 interviews, I’d assumed that Donald and Fred each owned half, resisting the son’s insistence that he had purchased 80 percent of the units or consolidated the holdings himself. Still, this comment went into the Forbes 400 records, and in 1985, after I left the project, Trump was estimated to be worth $600 million, and his father was off the list.

It would be decades before I learned that Forbes had been conned: In the early 1980s, Trump had zero equity in his father’s company. According to Fred’s will (portions of which appeared in a lawsuit), the father retained legal ownership of his residential empire until his death in 1999, at which point he left it to be divided between his four surviving children and some of his grandchildren. That explains why, after Trump’s companies went bankrupt in the early 1990s, he borrowed $30 million from his siblings, secured by an estimated $35 million share of his future inheritance, according to three sources in Tim O’Brien’s 2005 biography, “TrumpNation.” He could have used his own assets as collateral if he’d had any worth that amount, but he didn’t.

The most revelatory document describing Trump’s true net worth in the early ’80s was a 1981 report from the New Jersey Casino Control Commission. O’Brien obtained a copy for his book. Trump had applied for an Atlantic City casino license, and regulators were able to review his tax returns and personal and corporate debt, giving them the most accurate picture of his finances. They found that he had an income of about $100,000 a year, while his 1979 tax returns showed a $3.4 million taxable loss. Trump’s personal assets consisted of a $1 million trust fund that Fred Trump provided to each of his children and grandchildren, a few checking accounts with about $400,000 in them and a 1977 Mercedes 450SL. Nowhere did the report list an ownership stake in the Trump Organization’s residential apartments. Trump also possessed a few parcels of valuable but highly leveraged real estate, financed with $22.5 million in debt, all of it secured by his father’s assets. He did not own a safe deposit box or stocks in publicly traded companies. In sum, Trump was worth less than $5 million, not the $100 million that I reported in the first Forbes 400.

During our first interview in 1982, Trump informed me that he had bought the Barbizon Plaza Hotel and the adjoining 110 Central Park West for just $13 million, a steal. While I was in Trump’s office, a broker supposedly called to offer him $100 million for the property. Trump refused the offer while looking me in the eye; he pointed out that his net worth should include an equity boost of $87 million profit. I believed then that he used a staffer to stage the call, and I resisted the fictitious valuation. But the $13 million price tag for a valuable parcel was recorded in Forbes 400 files, and it soon showed up in other publications, such as New York magazine . It remains on Wikipedia today. Yet tucked away on Page 63 of the Casino Commission report was a section describing Trump’s purchase of the property for $65 million, facilitated by a $50 million loan to Trump by Chase Manhattan Bank. As with many of his buildings, Trump’s debt was far higher, and his true equity far lower, than he claimed.

Roy Cohn had told me that Trump received $250 million from Holiday Inn for its half-interest in the Atlantic City casino. But according to O’Brien, Trump’s actual income from the deal was a construction and management fee (not profit) of about $24 million, while Holiday Inn financed the construction of the $220 million casino.

Later attempts by Trump to paint himself as fantastically wealthy were also duplicitous. In 1989, Trump sent Forbes journalist Harry Seneker a statement of his $3.7 billion net worth. I have obtained the letter. It indicated $900 million in liquid assets. “I am more liquid than any major developer in the United States,” Trump wrote, inducing the magazine to increase Trump’s listing from $1 billion in 1988 to $1.7 billion in 1989.

But according to the New Jersey Casino Commission, which issued another report in 1991, by the end of 1990, Trump’s entire cash position — in both his business and personal accounts — was just $19 million. The amount was insufficient to pay the debt on his over-leveraged casino and real estate holdings while still covering his personal expenses of $1 million per month. His net worth, the commission estimated, was $205 million — less than 6 percent of what he’d told Forbes. In 1990, the magazine dropped Trump from the list and kept him off it for five years.

Forbes declined to comment for this article, but its top editor, Randall Lane, interviewed then-candidate Trump for the Forbes 400 in 2015 and wrote about the magazine’s long struggle to accurately assess his net worth in an article titled “Inside The Epic Fantasy That’s Driven Donald Trump For 33 Years .” Of the 1,538 tycoons who had been on the “Rich List” through the years, Lane wrote, “not one has been more fixated with his or her net worth estimate on a year-in, year-out basis than Donald J. Trump.”
*** *** *** ***
I was a leading New York real estate reporter through the 1980s. I left the Forbes staff in 1983 but continued to freelance for the magazine while writing major investigative features as a contributing editor for the new Manhattan, Inc. magazine, as well as New York, Avenue and New York City Business. I knew all the key players. I thought I had a handle on this material.

But Trump was so competent in conning me that, until 35 years later, I did not know I’d been conned. Instead, I have gone through my career in national media with a misinformed sense of satisfaction that, as a perceptive young journalist, I called Trump on his lies and gave Forbes readers who used the Rich List as a barometer of private wealth a more accurate picture of his finances than the one he was selling.

The joke was on me — and everyone else. Trump’s fabrications provided the basis for a vastly inflated wealth assessment for the Forbes 400 that would give him cachet for decades as a triumphant businessman.

In truth, almost nobody had a clear picture of Trump’s books. In 1990, Trump brought in Steve Bollenbach as a new chief financial officer to respond to lender concerns about his crippling debt. “When Bollenbach began delving into the organization’s finances, he got a surprise,” The Washington Post’s Michael Kranish and Marc Fisher write in “Trump Revealed,” their comprehensive 2016 biography. “The small staff on the twenty-sixth floor of Trump Tower included three accountants. Each knew about pieces of the fraying empire — the casinos, for instance, or the condos. But no one knew the overall picture; there were no consolidated financial reports.”

In the absence of a functioning balance sheet, the list didn’t just make Trump feel like a winner, according to O’Brien; it may have provided some of the documentation he needed to borrow reckless sums of money — vast loans that he used, for years, to actually make him a winner. “The more often Forbes mentioned him, the more credible Donald’s claim to vast wealth became,” O’Brien said, arguing that Trump and the list were “mutually reinforcing”: “The more credible his claim to vast wealth became, the easier it was for him to get on the Forbes 400 — which became the standard that other media, and apparently some of the country’s biggest banks, used when judging Donald’s riches.”

Trump returned to the Rich List in 1996 with a reported net worth of $450 million and an editor’s note that he claimed to be worth $2 billion. He never fell off it again. In his book, O’Brien criticized Forbes for rewarding Trump’s fabrications, citing interviews with “three people with direct knowledge of Donald’s finances” who estimated his true net worth after debts to be “somewhere between $150 million and $250 million.” Trump, who had told O’Brien he was worth $6 billion, sued for libel — and lost. When he lost his appeal in 2011, a New Jersey appellate judge wrote, “The largest portion of Mr. Trump’s fortune, according to three people who had had direct knowledge of his holdings, apparently comes from his lucrative inheritance. These people estimated that Mr. Trump’s wealth, presuming that it is not encumbered by heavy debt, may amount to about $200 million to $300 million. That is an enviably large sum of money by most people’s standards but far short of the billionaires club.”

The opacity persists. In 2016, Trump’s presidential campaign put out a statement saying the candidate had a net worth “in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS.” But he has never released his tax returns, and he has said that the core Trump Organization asset is the ownership of his brand — an ineffable marketing claim that is impossible to substantiate or refute.

Twitter: @JournalistJG

Read more from Outlook and follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter.

China’s $6 Billion Propaganda Blitz Is a Snooze

Beijing’s propaganda works at home, but it can't compete globally.

A man walks past a roadside poster of Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, on Oct. 24, 2017. (Greg Baker/AFP/Getty Images)
A man walks past a roadside poster of Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, on Oct. 24, 2017. (Greg Baker/AFP/Getty Images)

No automatic alt text available.BY  

In a world on the brink of chaos, China has decided that what people everywhere need is more good news — as long as it’s about China. China is creating a giant media outlet called Voice of China, combining the three state television and radio broadcasters aimed at overseas audiences: China Global Television Network, China Radio International, and China National Radio. The hope is that by combining resources and output, China will have a broader platform to spread its message overseas.

But will Voice of China succeed in boosting China’s international image, especially given the dubious performance of previous global state media pushes?

Chinese President Xi Jinping has made no secret that he has very high hopes for China as a new superpower on the world stage, having broken away from his predecessors’ low-key approach. Like Xi’s “Chinese Dream,” “Voice of China” is a calque, directly copied from a U.S. model — in this case, “Voice of America.” But despite the country’s economic, industrial, and technological might, China has a serious problem with its international image. The Chinese Dream doesn’t sell abroad, at least in the developed world — and the censorship and restraints that have always held back Chinese media abroad have been redoubled in the age of Xi.

That’s why the Chinese leadership has put significant effort into improving China’s soft power globally, with state media playing a key part.

Voice of China is the latest move in a global $6.6 billion media expansion campaign involving TV, radio, and newspapers that started in 2009 during the presidency of Hu Jintao, Xi’s predecessor
The merger of the three state media broadcasters was also part of a significant government overhaul in March to streamline departments and centralize control, re-emphasizing the Chinese Communist Party’s ultimate authority. Voice of China will also be directly overseen by the State Council and managed by the Communist Party’s Central Publicity Department. It’s a long-running idea; there are reports in Chinese media from 2001 about a proposed merger of these three organizations, though nothing apparently came of it until now.

Besides the groups set to merge as Voice of China, the country’s giant state media machine includes newspapers such as the English-language China Daily, the party’s flagship newspaper the People’s Daily, and the Global Times, owned by the People’s Daily, which is a nationalist tabloid with both English and Chinese-language editions. (I was an editor for the Global Times in Beijing between 2013 and 2015.) All these outlets have expanded significantly since the global media campaign launched in 2009. Large numbers of foreign professionals, such as myself, were hired at media outlets in Beijing, while China Central Television (CCTV) launched bureaus in Kenya and the United States. The English-language edition of the Global Times was launched in 2009.

In theory, the global push has been successful. CCTV is broadcast in 140 countries in multiple languages, while China Radio International broadcasts in 65 languages. CCTV even rebranded its foreign-language news channels as China Global Television Network (CGTN) at the end of 2016. The rebranding also included the launch of a CGTN app and increased social media presence on platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, all banned in China. China Daily puts out international editions in Hong Kong, the United States, and Europe.

In contrast to the staid People’s Daily and China Daily, the Global Times’ English edition has attracted lots of attention — but not necessarily for the right reasons. Its aggressive editorials pull no punches excoriating any country or foreign politician whom China has an issue with, such as calling U.S. President Donald Trump “as ignorant as a child” or branding the United Kingdom as fit only for travel and education. In March, one feisty editorial urged China to prepare for a “direct military clash” in the Taiwan Strait.

However, despite almost a decade of overseas expansion, China state media are still widely — and largely correctly — seen as being editorially biased and full of propaganda, and they still struggle to attract large audiences.

That’s not going to change. In fact, it looks likely to get worse.

Voice of China was formed with the goal of “propagating the party’s theories, directions, principles and policies” as well as “telling good China stories,” according to a Chinese Communist Party document released by Xinhua, the nation’s official news agency, on March 21.

Herein lies the problem. The redoubling of efforts to push the party’s theories and principles abroad is at odds with boosting China’s overseas image. In this age of widespread internet use and the popularity of social media and nontraditional forms of media, people have become more averse to clumsy state-run propaganda than ever.

“The creation of Voice of China is about centralizing control and consolidating resources, [in the belief] that this will allow China to project its voice more effectively. But the challenge for China’s leadership will be how to project voices that somehow resonate with people around the world while maintaining a unity of voice,” says David Bandurski, co-director of the Hong Kong-based China Media Project and a fellow of the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin. “This is an internal contradiction China has struggled with for years in its external propaganda. And it’s possible that this consolidation could only worsen the problem.”

It’s also basically impossible to use media to promote China overseas while domestic journalism languishes. Not only is media in all forms heavily censored in China, but journalists also have been the target of a crackdown in recent years. As a result, there is growing disillusionment in the profession as journalists are allowed to do little more than parrot the official line.

A reporter’s eye roll on live TV during the National People’s Congress in March was a perfect example. By rolling her eyes at another reporter asking a long-winded question during a press conference, a Chinese journalist seemed to speak for many in the country who are tired of the charade that local media has become. The reality in China is that any journalist who dares ask a government official critical questions would almost definitely face serious punishment. The eye roll media storm was followed by censorship, a predictable response from the authorities, and then an official ban on video parodies.

Investigative journalism has been severely curtailed, while reporting has become increasingly censored. Beijing’s expulsion of at least tens of thousands of migrant workers last November and December, for instance, saw limited and heavily restricted domestic news coverage.

State media outlets, even the firebrand Global Times, are the ones most subject to these restrictions. At times, Global Times journalists were once able to put out relatively daring pieces on issues like local corruption, rural poverty, and gay and lesbian discrimination. But these are increasingly rare — and are drowned out by bombastic nationalistic editorials and news stories on problems in foreign countries or toned-down domestic news reports. Sensitive topics like Taiwan, Tibet, or Xinjiang are delicately reported on, and the official party line is adhered to. From personal experience, even innocuous quotes such as those from a foreign executive about pollution in Beijing are removed completely.

Voice of China might take its name from Voice of America, but the two will likely be worlds apart. A quick look at Voice of America’s website shows stories covering news such as the gun reform rally on March 24 in which tens of thousands of Americans marched on their capital. That story would be impossible to run in China. For instance, the CGTN website features news sections such as “China Cares,” “China Breakthroughs” and “Tradition of China.”

CGTN pales even when compared to Russian state media, themselves no slouches in the propaganda game. Despite the strong anti-Western sentiment of RT’s reporting and programs, they at least feature some newsworthy content. This is something CGTN can hardly do, with stodgy news reporting and bland programs dominating its lineup. Russian state English-language TV network RT, formerly Russia Today, has gained attention for its strident anti-West reporting and interviews. It often features controversial figures such as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Nigel Farage, a former leader of the British far-right UK Independence Party, and Edward Snowden, whereas even informed viewers struggle to recognize CGTN’s guests.

RT doesn’t mind whether it goes to the far-left or the far-right. But Chinese state media, reporting, and punditry can only act from a very narrow, officially approved scope, and the risk of the political extremes is too much. Instead of fascists and radicals, then, Chinese media is left with elderly politicians and business executives. Producers and reporters can be punished or fired for reporting on topics or expressing views that go beyond the official stance. Even in the relatively liberal era of the 2000s, it was common for reporters to be fined significant sums of money or even lose their jobs for making “political errors.” So while CGTN’s studios might seem slick and their overseas bureaus as numerous as those of their Western counterparts, the actual content is a mix of brutally tedious propaganda and bland documentaries. The audience is always the bosses in Beijing, not the average viewer overseas.

Yet there is one area of international media where China might actually dominate — overseas Chinese-language media. But rather than using state media to make inroads, China has simply bought up existing media outlets or obtained the loyalties of their owners. Around the world, from Australia to Hong Kong to Europe, many Chinese-language media outlets are owned by individuals or companies with strong links to the Chinese Communist Party. Overseas Chinese communities are increasingly exposed to media coverage that is heavily pro-China and toes the party line in refraining from reporting on sensitive news events in China.

Among Chinese communities with little exposure to wider media, the CCP’s efforts might be paying off. But when it comes to reaching a global audience, no amount of repackaging and rebranding can succeed if the product itself is unchanged. As long as China’s leadership cannot differentiate between propaganda and journalism, the Voice of China will stay unheard.

Would Labour’s War Powers Act work?

“We clearly need a War Powers Act in this country to transform a now-broken convention into a legal obligation”

By Georgina Lee-18 Apr 2018

That’s what Jeremy Corbyn told the Commons on Monday after Britain, France and the United States launched air strikes aimed at targets in Syria over the weekend.

The strikes came after a chemical attack on the city of Douma in the southwest of Syria on 7 April, which Mr Corbyn condemned in his statement.

But he also criticised Theresa May for engaging in the strikes without consulting Parliament. Labour are now calling for legislation that would force the government to get MPs’ approval before military action.

But would Labour’s proposed War Powers Act actually work?
FactCheck takes a look.

What is the current legal position?

“The power to commit troops in armed conflict is one of the remaining Royal Prerogatives – that is powers that are derived from the Crown rather than conferred on them by Parliament”, writes Dr Catherine Haddon, senior fellow and resident historian at the Institute for Government.

This means that “there is no codified parliamentary procedure that formally requires the Government to seek approval before taking military action.” In other words, in legal terms, it’s up to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to make the call.

Of course, governments are still political animals, and since 2003, it’s been an unwritten rule of foreign policy that MPs have a say on any significant military interventions. But even if a vote is held, the government is under no legal obligation to abide by the result.

But after the strikes over the weekend – on which Parliament was not consulted beforehand – Labour says it’s now time to turn that convention into a properly codified War Powers Act. The proposed Act would “enshrine in law that the government must seek parliamentary approval before committing to planned military action.”

Would a War Powers Act work?

Let’s start by looking at what Labour say they want to achieve.

In a statement, the party said: “In the most serious matters of peace and security, the Prime Minister of Britain should be accountable to Parliament, not to the whims of any other governments.”

It’s not the first time a major political party has proposed such a policy.

The former foreign secretary, William Hague, now Lord Hague, told Parliament in 2011 “[the Coalition government] will also enshrine in law for the future the necessity of consulting Parliament on military action.”

But that legislation never materialised. Why?

Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme on Tuesday, Lord Hague said that he had “reluctantly” changed his mind after discussions with the Attorney General and the Defence Secretary. He concluded it would be “very, very difficult” to pass such a law “in a way that was compatible with the safety of our armed forces and the maximum security of the country.”

He said: “it is quite difficult to explain [the details of a mission] to Parliament without, of course, revealing all of that information to people who you might not want to know that and people who you might want to keep guessing about how extensive that action will be.”

This issue remains a serious practical concern for Labour’s proposed War Powers Act.

Imagine the government is putting the case for a planned military intervention to Parliament. They could release sensitive information that may convince Parliament of the case for action – but in so doing, they might endanger the very operation they wish to carry out.

Alternatively, they might hold back the most sensitive details for security’s sake – even if they were the most compelling – but risk losing the vote in the process.

This could leave the government of the day in a potentially paralysing dilemma: they can’t act without parliamentary approval, but they can’t put the vote to Parliament without damaging to their own mission.

One way round this is to provide exemptions for different types of military action – for example, interventions that require the element of surprise or that need to be conducted very quickly.
But in practice, this risks rendering the law pointless. The United States took this approach with its own War Powers Act in 1973, which has since been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties. Indeed, President Trump’s recent strikes on Syria were not ratified by Congress in advance.
Dr Haddon sheds some light: “the key point is that War Powers Acts would cover certain kinds of military action, but not all.

“There would still have to be some caveats for urgent or necessarily secret action. The US [War Powers] Act has all these problems and they usually mean Congress does not have an effective vote in most circumstances.” Nevertheless, the US War Powers Act gives Congress members and campaigners something to point to when presidents chose to take unilateral action.

So Labour has two options: a War Powers Act that requires all types of military intervention be put to a parliamentary vote with no exceptions; or a War Powers Act that allows for exceptions in certain circumstances.

In order to decide, they must must weigh up three factors: security, timeliness and accountability.
Option 1: A War Powers Act with no exemptions

If the War Powers Act requires that all types of military intervention must be put to Parliament with no exceptions, it could force the government to reveal information that undermines national security.
It would also limit the government’s ability to respond to a very urgent threat (for example, shooting down a missile).

However, it would be an effective way of ensuring that Parliament can hold the government and the Prime Minister to account on military matters.

Option 2: A War Powers Act with some exemptions

It would be theoretically possible to draw up a list of criteria in a War Powers Act that, if met, would allow the government to take military action without a parliamentary vote.

That would help allay fears over revealing information with national security implications. It would also allow the government to respond to very time-sensitive situations.

However, as we’ve seen in the US, this would limit the ability of Parliament to hold the government to account over military matters. Or at the very least, it could leave us in exactly the same position as we are currently in.

Do you actually need legislation to give Parliament these powers?

And it’s not clear that a War Powers Act would always be necessary, if the point of the exercise is to increase Parliament’s ability to block military action that it disagrees with.

We spoke to Vernon Bogdanor, Professor of Government at King’s College London.

He pointed out we should “distinguish between an intervention – as with Iraq, Libya, or the proposed Cameron intervention in Syria in 2013 – for which it may be reasonable to ask Parliament’s approval; and a kind of police action such as occurred last week [in Syria] – a limited attack or retaliation which may need the element of surprise, and which does not involve intervention or the use of ground troops.”

Professor Bogdanor pointed out that “although going to war is a prerogative act [i.e. within the existing powers of the government], Parliament can always stop something which is more than a police action by withholding supply [of money].”

He uses the example of the First World War: “If, for example, Parliament had been opposed to war in 1914, it could simply have denied money for the armed forces.”

Professor Bogdanor adds: “But, if you look at our 20th and 21st century interventions, all of them, I believe, were supported by the Opposition as well as the government – except for Suez – one reason perhaps why it failed. The Opposition harried the government in the Commons day after day, and made life extremely difficult.”

In other words, Parliament already has the practical means to stop a large-scale military intervention: it can turn off the money tap.

What it is less equipped to prevent is the kind of time-limited, one-off “police action” (to use Professor Bogdanor’s term) that the UK conducted in Syria over the weekend. Clearly, this is the kind of intervention that Labour have in mind in proposing the War Powers Act.

FactCheck verdict

Labour are proposing a War Powers Act to require the government to “seek parliamentary approval before committing to planned military action.” They say this will help make sure that the Prime Minister is “accountable to Parliament.”

But Labour are faced with a dilemma. Do they insist that the law covers all military interventions, or do they allow exemptions?

If they chose the first option, the government would almost certainly become more accountable to Parliament on military matters. But, by that same token, the government could be forced to reveal information that could threaten national security. They’d also be unable to act even in the face of a very urgent threat (for example, shooting down a missile).

However, if Labour go for option two and allow exemptions to the War Powers Act, they face undermining their whole project to improve accountability. In practice, as we’ve seen in the United States where the War Powers Act is regularly ignored by presidents, exemptions would do very little to improve parliamentary scrutiny of the government.

It’s also not clear that a War Powers Act would even be necessary to help Parliament have a say over significant military interventions. Parliament already has the ability to block major military action (on the scale of a full-blown war) by withholding funding for the armed forces. That said, it is less well-equipped to block the short-term actions that we saw over the weekend in Syria.

Reporter Suri Crowe Told the Truth About Climate Change — so Right-Wing Sinclair Broadcasting Showed Her the Door

Climate change wasn’t the only reporting done by Crowe were she ruffled the feathers at Sinclair.


HomeBy Mark Sumner / Daily Kos-April 23, 2018, 6:07 AM GMT

But Crowe didn’t appreciate the level to which, in Trumplandia, there are no non-political reports. Even reports about the flu are political. Crowe’s real problem was that she wasn’t a beginner. While new reporters rolled over to SInclair’s demands and apparently didn’t know that management handing down edicts on how stories to be reported was unusual, Crowe had worked in multiple markets for several years and had the strange idea that her job was to report the truth.
Crowe, for her part, battled with her bosses over political and nonpolitical issues. Younger reporters counted Lynchburg as a “starter” market, but Crowe’s colleagues said she was an outspoken, experienced journalist who wanted to do nationally minded stories. She clashed with management, former employees said, particularly over what exactly constitutes balanced coverage.
Management came down on Crowe for correctly reporting polls showing that most people in Virginia favored more restrictions on gun sales. But had no objections to a story reporting on new pro-gun legislation. All of the “balance” Crowe was asked to do, involved moving stories to the right.
Because that is what Sinclair, and Fox, and Trump mean by balanced. It’s what used to be known as “skewed.”

Clouds over hospital chain Fortis keep suitors from making higher bids

FILE PHOTO: A Fortis hospital building is pictured in New Delhi, March 28, 2018. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi/File Photo

APRIL 23, 2018 

MUMBAI/BENGALURU (Reuters) - Fortis Healthcare Ltd has received as many as five offers for control of its private hospital business, but suitors have so far held back from making bold bids for the group as it faces rising debt and a regulatory probe.

Fortis, one of the country’s largest hospital chain operators, is evaluating offers from domestic and international firms including Malaysia’s IHH Healthcare BHD, which runs hospitals in India, Turkey, Malaysia and Singapore, and China’s Fosun International Ltd.

Analysts, bankers and consultancy firms say Fortis, with around 30 hospitals, mostly in large cities in a country that lacks good public healthcare facilities, an established brand and good roster of doctors, is a rare and attractive asset in a market that is growing strongly.

But it has lately struggled with insufficient cash and growing debt, while regulators investigate allegations that its founders took funds without board approval. The founders, who have since left the company, deny wrongdoing.

“All interested bidders are aware that Fortis is in dire need of funds and that there could be contingent liabilities in the books of the company,” said Shriram Subramaniam, founder of proxy advisory firm InGovern.

“That is the reason they may be unwilling to increase their bids without proper due diligence which the company seems to be reluctant to allow.”

All five bids on the table value Fortis within a tight, relatively modest range of $1.2-$1.4 billion.

In the past five years, Fortis recorded lower revenue growth compared with its peers, according to Thomson Reuters data. While the healthcare services sector clocked a median revenue growth of 16.6 percent, Fortis grew at 13.6 percent.

Fortis’ stock, which has barely moved since news broke in late March that it was close to a deal with rival hospital operator Manipal Healthcare Enterprises Pvt Ltd and Manipal’s backer TPG Capital, has lost more than a third of its value since peaking in May last year.
 
Fortis’ shares closed at 149.65 rupees ($2.26) on Friday, only slightly below the offers that value the company between 150 and 165 rupees per share.

The stock trades at 36.6 times forward 12-month earnings, a discount to its own five-year average of 63.3 and the peer average of 41.6.

FORTISSUES

The company’s debt is piling up even as cash reserves dwindle. Debt stood at 13.39 billion rupees ($202.3 million) at Dec. 31.

It had 632 million rupees in cash at the end of September last year, according to the last available Thomson Reuters data. The company has not provided an updated cash figure since.

Fortis in February became the target of a Serious Fraud Investigation Office probe looking into allegations that its founders and main shareholders, Malvinder Mohan Singh and Shivinder Mohan Singh, used company funds without authorisation. The Singh brothers, who deny wrongdoing, had resigned from the company’s board days before due to legal troubles unrelated to Fortis.

Last month, Fortis said it was looking into allegations that founders Malvinder Singh and Shivinder Singh took funds from the company. Fortis said it expected the SFIO probe to end in a span of less than 9-12 months.

FOHE.NS

A source at a large Indian mutual fund told Reuters it sold off Fortis as soon as these complications began.

Still, the lack of a main shareholder - unusual in an India company - makes it easier for a bidder to take control of Fortis, analysts say, and its hospitals are performing better than its rivals on some key metrics.

For example, average occupancy at Fortis stood at 75 percent for the year ended March 31, 2017, much higher than the 64 percent at Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd, Fortis’ larger rival, according to the companies’ filings. Average revenue per occupied bed was 26 percent higher at Fortis.

Another reason for the interest in Fortis is Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s plan to incentivize private hospitals as he seeks to bring affordable healthcare to half the country’s 1.3 billion population.

“At a high level, this entire excitement into the hospital care segment is largely after the government’s plan ... corporate hospitals are likely to expand into rural areas,” said Deven Choksey, founder, KR Choksey Investment Managers.

Manipal sweetened its bid to buy Fortis after its initial offer met with shareholder disapproval. IHH Healthcare bettered Manipal’s bid by 3 percent.

Meanwhile, China’s Fosun, a consortium of two Indian business families - Hero Enterprise Investment and the Burman Family Office - and KKR-backed Radiant Life Care Private Ltd have also made offers to invest in Fortis.

Fortis said on Thursday it would set up an advisory committee to evaluate binding offers and give the board its recommendation by April 26. Only the offers from Manipal-TPG and Hero-Burman are binding.

On Monday, Fortis said the Hero-Burman consortium had extended the validity period on its offer to May 4.

Reporting by Abhirup Roy in Mumbai and Tanvi Mehta, Nivedita Bhattacharjee and Gaurav Dogra in Bengaluru; Writing by Sayantani Ghosh; Editing by Alex Richardson

($1 = 66.2000 Indian rupees)