Conoco authorized to seize $636 million in Venezuela PDVSA assets

A general view shows the Isla refinery in Willemstad on the island of Curacao, April 22, 2018. REUTERS/Andres Martinez Casares

MAY 12, 2018

WILLEMSTAD Reuters - - A Curacao court has authorized ConocoPhillips (COP.N) to seize about $636 million in assets belonging to Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA due to the 2007 nationalization of the U.S. oil major’s projects in Venezuela.

The legal action was the latest in the Caribbean to enforce a $2 billion arbitration award by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) over the nationalization.

 

The court decision, first reported by Caribbean media outlet Antilliaans Dagblad on Saturday, says Curacao can attach “oil or oil products on ships and on bank deposits.”

Conoco and PDVSA [PDVSA.UL] did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

View of Isla refinery in Willemstad on the island of Curacao, April 22, 2018. REUTERS/Andres Martinez Casares

Conoco earlier this month moved to temporarily seize PDVSA’s assets on Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and St. Eustatius. That threw Venezuela’s oil export chain into a tailspin just as Venezuela’s crude production has crumbled to a more than 30-year low due to underinvestment, theft, a brain drain and mismanagement.

Reuters reported on Friday that PDVSA was preparing to shut down the 335,000 barrel-per-day Isla refinery it operates in Curacao amid threats by Conoco to seize cargoes sent to resupply the facility.

ConocoPhillips69.44

COP.NNEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE

+0.10(+0.14%)

• COP.N

PDVSA is also seeking ways to sidestep legal orders to hand over assets. The Venezuelan firm has transferred custody over the fuel produced at the Isla refinery to the Curacao government, the owner of the facility, according to two sources with knowledge of the matter.

PDVSA transferred ownership of crude to be refined at Isla to its U.S. unit, Citgo Petroleum, one of the sources said.

For the time being, PDVSA has suspended all oil storage and shipping from its Caribbean facilities and concentrated most shipping in its main crude terminal of Jose, which is suffering from a backlog.

US Senate mustn’t allow torturer to become CIA boss

 2018-05-12

In Charles Dickens’s novel “A Tale of Two Cities”, set during the French revolution of 1789, he draws the character of Madame Defarge. She along with other members of the Tricoteuse, the knitting women, perch every day next to the guillotine, knitting into hats and socks the names of those to be executed, while watching the upper aristocracy and upper bourgeoisie being dispatched to their death one by one. They were regarded as respected sisters of the revolution.  

I can’t help being reminded of her when I read the CV of the woman nominated by President Donald Trump to be the new head of the CIA, Gina Haspel, who is due to be cross examined at a Senate hearing on May 9th. She is a career officer who ran a CIA “black site” in Thailand. She implemented the torture policies of President George W. Bush. She also, according to the Economist, transmitted her boss’s orders to destroy video evidence of brutal interrogations.  

She ignored the UN Convention Against Torture which the conservative president, Ronald Reagan, had successfully fought to be ratified. James Comey, the FBI director, another Republican, who was fired by George W. Bush, wrote in his recent memoirs, “I couldn’t get away from the mental pictures of naked men chained to the ceiling in a cold, blazingly lit, cell for endless days”. 

I can’t help being reminded of her when I read the CV of the woman  nominated by President Donald Trump to be the new head of the CIA, Gina  Haspel, who is due to be cross examined at a Senate hearing on May 9th.  She is a career officer who ran a CIA “black site” in Thailand. She  implemented the torture policies of President George W. Bush. She also,  according to the Economist, transmitted her boss’s orders to destroy  video evidence of brutal interrogations

When the allies captured high-ranking members of the Nazi government and German generals they wanted all the information they could get. They got most of it but they never used torture. What Bush with the connivance of Haspel and her like did would never have been allowed, yet the stakes then were much higher.  

Immediately on attaining office President Barack Obama banned torture. In sharp contrast during his campaign Trump said he favoured bringing it back and a “hell of a lot worse than waterboarding”. Contradicting him, his Secretary of Defence, General James Mattis, says he doesn’t believe in torture. He argues that he could extract from a prisoner the information needed with two chairs, a packet of cigarettes and a couple of bottles of beer.  

The Mattis line follows the arguments of the 2014 report of the US Senate that examined, among others, the torture of the 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh. He was waterboarded -- which gives the sensation of drowning -- 183 times. The report concluded that the information extracted from him could have been learned without torture.  

Primitive man, like other animals, followed his instincts and killed his enemy as swiftly as the job could be done. Archaeologists, examining skeletons, have found no evidence of torture.  

For several hundred thousand years torture did not exist. Only in the last few thousand has it become a weapon of state.  

Rome tortured the early Christians. The Christian Church repelled by this Roman practice, for a thousand years used its great strength to abolish torture. Until the time of Pope Innocent IV in the thirteenth century it was practically unknown in the Western world.  

The Inquisition brought it back. Heretics were forced to undergo a very systematic use of torture, while a magistrate sat close by logging carefully the instruments used.  

In the 17th century. torture began to die out. In 1640 it was abolished in England by law. After the 1789 Revolution France made the use of torture a capital offence. Most German states and Russia abolished it in the nineteenth century. Moreover, the European imperial powers did much to dampen its use in the many parts of the world where they had their empires.  

During the twentieth century torture returned with a vengeance. It reached such a scale that it dwarfed even the darkest Middle Ages. It was Mussolini’s fascists that were the first government to make torture an official policy. The blackshirts invented their own particular brand of torture- pumping a prisoner full of castor oil “to purge him of the will to exist”.  

The German Nazis not only developed the concentration camps for mass extermination of the Jews, gypsies and homosexuals they regularly used torture. Spain, under Franco, used torture until the 1970s. As late as 1981 Spanish police were found to have used torture against Basque nationalists.  

In the United Kingdom during the civil war in Northern Ireland torture was used in the 1960s and early 1970s mainly against the IRA. Hooding, loud, high-pitched noise, sleep and food deprivation were the main tools. It was uncovered by Irish newspapers and triggered a great row in Britain. Eventually it was banned.  

In 1972 Amnesty International launched a campaign, supported by the Scandinavian countries and Holland, to abolish torture. But it took until 1984 to win a UN legally binding treaty. Bush and Trump have ignored it. So did the British government of Tony Blair.  

With people like Gina Haspel in charge of the CIA we can assume the worst. The Senate must not confirm her in office.  

For 17 years the writer had been a foreign affairs columnist and commentator for the International Herald Tribune/New York Times. 

Trump’s Withdrawal From The Iran Nuclear Deal: Another Psychopathy Making The World Worse Off!

By Mohamed Harees –MAY 12, 2018

Lukman Harees

Donald Trump on  8th May pulled the US out of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement which worked out an international nuclear deal with Iran, along with five other world powers –Russia, Germany, UK,  France,  and China , by lifting sanctions on Iran in exchange for Tehran limiting its nuclear program. This is but another insane act of a series of Trump’s high-stakes “America First” policy, which led the US earlier to announce its withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, come close to a trade war with China and pull out of an Asian-Pacific trade deal. 

Trump’s animosity toward the JCPOA appears to reflect a narcissistic view that he can negotiate a better deal, as well as a desire to undo the chief foreign policy achievement of his predecessor. For although Trump has been criticized for lacking even a shred of cohesion in his decision making,  there has been however one unifying theme over his first 15 months in office: torching the legacy of Barack Obama. But as analysts point out, the chances for such a renegotiation are slim given the Trump administration’s apparent aversion to direct talks with Iran and reluctance to provide new incentives for deeper Iranian concessions.

No doubt, such short sighted policy strokes raise the risk of conflict in the Middle East, upsetting European allies and casting uncertainty over global oil supplies. Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, warned: “By withdrawing from the JCPOA, Trump hastens the possibility of three disparate but similarly cataclysmic events: an Iranian war, an Iranian bomb, or the implosion of the Iranian regime.” “Iran looms large over major US national security concerns including Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, cyber, energy security, terrorism, & obviously nuclear proliferation. The opportunities for direct conflict are numerous.” Former US president Barack Obama, whose administration negotiated the Iran deal, also warned Trump’s decision could have dire implications. “Without the JCPOA, the United States could eventually be left with a losing choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East.”

As Donald Trump announces his decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in US urged him in a memo not to base his decision on fabricated evidence. It said, ‘The evidence presented by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on April 30 alleging a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program shows blatant signs of fabrication. That evidence is linked to documents presented by the Bush Administration more a decade earlier as proof of a covert Iran nuclear weapons program. Those documents were clearly fabricated as well. We sent President Bush a similar warning about bogus intelligence — much of it fabricated by Israel —six weeks before the U.S./UK attack on Iraq, but Bush paid us no heed. This time, we hope you will take note before things spin even further out of control in the Middle East. In short, Israel’s “new” damaging documents on Iran were fabricated by the Israelis themselves. Two former Directors-General of the IAEA, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, have publicly expressed suspicion that the documents were fabricated. And forensic examination of the documents yielded multiple signs that they are fraudulent. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden noted, “Iran is further away from a weapon with this deal than they would be without it,” in part because of the intrusive verification measures in the JCPOA’.

The other signatories to the deal however remained fully committed while UN and EU called on the international community to preserve the Iran nuclear deal. The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged the remaining parties of the deal to abide by their commitments. As EU diplomat, Federica Mogherini, says, ” As we have always said, the nuclear deal is not a bilateral agreement and it is not in the hands of any single country to terminate it unilaterally…The EU will remain committed to the continued full and effective implementation of the nuclear deal.We fully trust the work, competence and autonomy of the International Atomic Energy Agency that has published 10 reports certifying that Iran has fully complied with its commitments. The lifting of nuclear-related sanctions is an essential part of the agreement. The EU has repeatedly stressed that the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions has a positive impact not only on trade and economic relations with Iran, but also mainly, [it has] crucial benefits for the Iranian people’.  

What are the implications of this Trump psychopathy on both the US and the world? Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), says ‘Trump’s “reckless decision” puts the US on path to war with Iran. “Donald Trump has committed what will go down as one of the greatest acts of self-sabotage in America’s modern history. He has put the United States on a path towards war with Iran and may trigger a wider regional war and nuclear arms race’’. Further, as Financial Times’ chief political commentator Philip Stephens explains; ‘Some diplomats describe it as the biggest rupture in Trans-Atlantic relations since the end of the Cold War . The whole of Europe seems united on Trump’s decision. On the one side, you have the US with the support of Israel and Saudi Arabia(and perhaps Emiratis). On the other side, you have the rest of the world. That is not a good position for US to be in . That is not a good position either for the Western liberal democracies’. Thus, Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal – a move driven largely by domestic politics – will further isolate the US from its European allies and set in motion ripple effects that could lead to wider proliferation of nuclear weapons and regional tensions in the Middle East. As Aaron David Miller, a Middle East analyst at the Wilson Center, a think-tank in Washington, told Al Jazeera, ‘The reality is that for reasons that have nothing to do with foreign policy, the president just took a highly flawed, but still functional accord, and scrapped it without an alternative’

According to nuclear non-proliferation experts , two possible scenarios developing from here. One is that Europe, China and Russia work with Iran to try to preserve the agreement by sustaining economic relations in the face of US sanctions pressure. The alternative, weapons control experts fear, is that Iran’s leadership is not able to remain in the deal and begins to renew its nuclear programme. According to Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a non-partisan group in Washington that advocates for nuclear weapons reductions, “Trump believes the fantasy that has been told to him by his National Security Adviser John Bolton and new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that by trying to re-impose sanctions, we can force the Europeans to work with us to renegotiate a completely new agreement with the Iranians that’s better for us and worse for the Iranians. That’s just fantastical thinking.”

Read More

RIP the Trans-Atlantic Alliance, 1945-2018

   

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron gesture on the balcony of the town hall of Aachen after Macron recieved the International Charlemagne Prize at a ceremony on May 10, 2018 in Aachen, Germany. (Lukas Schulze/Getty Images,) 

BY JAMES TRAUB-MAY 11, 2018, 4:31 PM

The Atlantic alliance, built to contain the Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II, began to die when the Cold War ended. What kept it alive over the last three decades has been less strategic necessity than a convergence of values — the values of the liberal postwar order. Now, the senior partner of the alliance, the United States, has lost interest in those values. The alliance was already a corpse, but Donald Trump drove the last nail into its coffin when he decided this week to withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran.

What now? The United States will lurch from crisis to crisis, but Europe faces more existential questions: It has been expelled from the garden — albeit a very thorny one — maintained by U.S. military and diplomatic power and now must build a new home of its own. The European diplomats, ex-diplomats, and scholars I have spent the last few days talking to agree on that much. They’re less sure whether Europe is up to the task.

Am I — and my interlocutors — inflating a very bad moment into a mortal one? Perhaps that would be true if the problem were only Trump. In fact, Europe ceased to be the world’s geostrategic center when the Soviet menace disappeared. The humanitarian crises of the next decade reinforced the shared values of Western nations, but 9/11 abruptly diverted the United States to an obsessive focus on the Middle East. Though Barack Obama restored the shared faith in multilateralism and institutions that George W. Bush had breached, his own interests lay more in the Pacific. He yearned to pivot away from the yawning pit of the Arab world to Asia. Obama wanted the United States to face toward the future, not the past.

The American people, meanwhile, preferred to face home. They wanted a pivot to America, and they voted for the candidate who promised to deliver it. It has thus fallen to Trump to deliver the coup de grâce to the alliance that has defined the postwar world. The Iran decision followed his decision to impose tariffs on European aluminum and steel, which followed his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accords. Trump is no more contemptuous toward European allies than Asian or Latin ones; the only opinion to which he defers is that of his base.

François Delattre, France’s ambassador to the United Nations, says he regards the Iran decision as “the best illustration of the Jacksonian moment the United States is going through — the uni-isolationist moment.” A new president, he concedes, might restore multilateralism. But, Delattre adds, “I am personally afraid the withdrawal is durable. The disengagement started before President Trump, and I am afraid it will last after him.”

About the Author

James Traub is a contributing editor at Foreign Policy, a fellow at the Center on International Cooperation, and author of the book "John Quincy Adams: Militant Spirit."

The Iran decision has resonated among European leaders as none of Trump’s previous follies has. First, Europeans regard the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the pact is called, as the foremost proof of their capacity to act coherently and effectively. The Iran diplomacy came hard on the heels of the debacle over the Iraq War, when a divided Europe watched a U.S. president stumble into disaster. “Iran was the opposite of that,” says Mark Leonard, the director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. “Instead of standing blinded in the headlights of American policy, Europe figured out what its own interests were.” European diplomats negotiated with the Iranians when the Bush administration refused to do so, designing a package of sanctions and incentives ultimately adopted and pushed through the U.N. Security Council by Obama.

Europe hoped to reduce tensions in the Middle East by drawing Iran out of its revolutionary shell. And it succeeded. The deal, Leonard says, was a “massive source of pride.”

As a simple matter of geographical proximity, Europe is threatened by conflict in the Middle East as the United States is not. The tidal wave of asylum-seekers from Syria in 2015 upended European politics and exposed a popular vein of xenophobia and illiberalism that has thrown a terrible scare into European elites. Europe simply cannot afford to follow the American lead if the United States is prepared to sow further chaos in the region.

Of course, Europe’s old reputation for deference and submission to the United States was reinforced by the spectacle of French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel visiting the White House in the hope of propitiating the First Bully and then being dismissed with scarcely a “by your leave” — and oh, by the way, we’re still coming after your steel industry. But perhaps Europe’s leaders needed the shock. Hours after Trump’s announcement, Macron, Merkel, and British Prime Minister Theresa May issued a joint statement reminding the world that the deal had been “unanimously endorsed by the U.N. Security Council” and thus remained “the binding international legal framework” on Iran’s nuclear program. European Council President Donald Tusk announced that Trump’s Iran and trade policies “will meet a united European approach.”

The fur will fly if the United States goes ahead with secondary sanctions targeting European companies that continue to do business with Iran. Given the current bellicose mood in Washington, there is good reason to think that it will do so. Hours after assuming his post as U.S. ambassador in Berlin, Richard Grenell tweeted, “German companies doing business in Iran should wind down operations immediately.” That would be Europe’s put-up-or-shut-up moment. “We’re going to have to treat the U.S. as a hostile power,” Leonard says. “We might have to introduce countermeasures against U.S. companies.” The mind reels. No, the heart breaks.

Neither side has an incentive to widen the breach. Some major European firms may withdraw from the Iranian market, even as European bankers potentially devise an end run around the U.S. financial system that will blunt the effect of secondary sanctions. Still, a combination of U.S. tariffs and sanctions may provoke the European Union to erect barriers against American products and services in Europe, leading to a trade war between the erstwhile partners.

Even if cooler heads prevail, Europe may begin laying the foundations for a more independent military and diplomatic strategy. All talk of a unified European army has long vanished, but Macron has invited the defense ministers of 10 European nations to Paris next month to discuss his plan to create a battle-ready force of up to 100,000 troops. Everyone I have spoken to has felt that the split with Trump has given a serious boost to the plan. Both the British and Germans have overcome initial reluctance and agreed to consider joining.

France is the capital of More Europe: Last September, Macron delivered a major speech at the Sorbonne in Paris calling for more European integration on the military, as well as the economic front. This week, Macron used the occasion of the Charlemagne Prize, which he received for his efforts to promote European unity, to call for a European diplomatic riposte to Trump’s unilateralism. “Europe has to take its fate into its own hands,” he said. “Because one country breaks its promise doesn’t mean we have to change our course.”

Every leader in Western Europe understands both that the continent must improve its capacity to act collectively and that all the political passions rest on the other side — with the nationalists. Few are prepared to take the political risks that Macron has. Merkel largely shares Macron’s view but, now that she teeters atop a brittle coalition, not his freedom of action. I ask Josef Janning, an analyst of German policy with the European Council on Foreign Relations, if he thought that Iran would force Merkel to overcome her habitual caution. “One wish it would,” he says, sighing. “I’m not sure it’s enough.” Macron has grown so frustrated with Merkel that after she presented him with the Charlemagne Prize, he criticized her reluctance to join his call for reform of the eurozone.

Janning assumes that Germany will take a back seat in Macron’s battle group initiative and continue to focus on a more modest and technocratic EU policy called Permanent Structured Cooperation. He is hoping Merkel will agree to use the EU program to push for an enhanced European drone capacity (for surveillance rather than offensive action) and for coordinated intelligence and data collection. That would constitute at least symbolic progress. Germany remains a laggard on defense spending, devoting only 1.2 percent of GDP to the military. The Germans like it that way; even an increase of 20 percent would encounter immense public resistance. Merkel, Janning says, “will think endlessly before she makes such a decision.”

New military capacity has the advantage of not requiring a psychological break with Washington and with the history of deference; the United States has long pressed Europe to step up defense spending. An independent foreign policy, however, is another matter. Europe is now going its own way on climate change and Iran; trade may come next. Since the Trump administration has no interest in serving as an interlocutor between Israelis and Palestinians, a new outbreak of violence could thrust Europe into that traditional American role as well. The United States has stopped bothering with human rights; Europe still does.

A truly European diplomacy will depend, above all, on a collective recognition that European interests, and European values, will only periodically converge with those of the United States and at other times will require working with China, the Persian Gulf countries, or other actors. It may also require new mechanisms, whether formal or informal. Michel Duclos, a retired French diplomat who now serves as special advisor to the Institut Montaigne, suggests that the “EU3” — France, Germany, and the U.K., which worked together on Iran — could serve as the nucleus of collective diplomacy, so long as the three could find a way of working with the other members of the EU.

For older Europeans, including ones who have spent much of their lives regarding the United States as a barely civilized menace, the prospect of facing crises with no one at their back will be strange and unsettling. The mental transition will take far longer than the political one. But Trump is sure to hasten the process. “I’m not sure the U.S. gives a damn about the West,” one senior European diplomat says. “When you speak to the U.S. about the Euro-American relationship, you look like the most ridiculous guy on Earth. Nobody in the administration cares about that.”

‘Dark forces’ of intolerance spreading in Indonesia, say parliamentarians

Supporters of an Indonesian hardline Muslim group gather to protest in Banda Aceh on April 19, 2018, against a new regulation that will see criminals flogged only behind prison walls. Indonesia's Aceh province will stop whipping criminals in public after a wave of international condemnation of the practice, local officials said recently. Source: Chairdeer Mahyuddin/ AFP

By Max Walden | 11th May 2018

PARLIAMENTARIANS from across Southeast Asia have warned of “dark forces” of intolerance in Indonesia, calling upon the government to act to counter rights abuses against minorities and restrictions on freedom of religion.

Asean Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) members from Thailand, Burma (Myanmar) and Indonesia concluded a four-day fact finding mission in Yogyakarta earlier this week, a city long reputed for being a tolerant melting pot of religions and cultures.

In recent years, however, incidents involving attacks against religious minorities, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community and other minority groups have risen significantly.

SEE ALSO: UN rights chief bemoans ‘extremist’ anti-LGBT views in Indonesia

In January, hardline Muslim groups harassed cafes and bars in a popular tourist street of Yogyakarta over the service of alcohol, later demanding that the city government shut down the cafes. The following month, a man wielding a sword attacked a church in Yogyakarta, injuring four people and slashing at the statue of Jesus.

“The authorities must ensure that all faith communities are afforded equal protection and the freedom to worship and practice their religions,” said Eva Kusuma Sundari, a member of the 

An Indonesian policeman stands guard outside the Oikume Church after a man allegedly threw Molotov cocktails towards it in Samarinda, East Kalimantan, on November 13, 2016. Several children were injured after a man allegedly threw Molotov cocktails at a church during a Sunday service in November 2016. Source: AFP

“This includes ensuring accountability for vigilante attacks and instituting preventive measures to protect vulnerable communities from attacks before they happen,” she said.

While Muslim-majority Indonesia’s constitution protects pluralism and freedom of religion, rights groups have long criticised so-called “religious harmony” laws introduced under former president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, which in practice has made it more difficult to establish minority houses of worship.

“We heard stories of how difficult it is for religious minorities to obtain necessary approval for their houses of worship,” said Rachada Dhnadirek, an APHR member and former MP from Thailand. “The burdensome process and unclear requirements create unnecessary barriers to religious practice for too many, and it is clear that this decree should be amended.”

SEE ALSO: Religious freedom another casualty of Southeast Asia’s regressive turn

Intolerance and violence against the LGBT community has also grown in Yogyakarta, as elsewhere in Indonesia. In 2015, a demonstration by the LGBT community in Yogyakarta to mark the Transgender Day of Remembrance was targeted by radical groups who violently attacked the protesters.

A local Islamic boarding school for transgender people founded in 2008 has in recent years been targeted by the vigilante groups such as the Front Jihad Islam (FJI), which has attempted to shutter the school.

“All sectors of society must work together to push back against the rising tide of intolerance in Yogyakarta and across all of Indonesia,” added Sundari. “We need to put human rights at the centre of efforts to address religious hatred and vigilantism.”

In this photo taken on February 23, 2016 shows a pro-LGBT protester crashing to the floor during a clash with police in Yogyakarta, in Java island. The small gay community in conservative, Muslim-majority Indonesia is facing a backlash, with ministers and religious leaders denouncing homosexuality, LGBT websites blocked and emboldened hardliners launching anti-gay raids. Source: AFP / Suryo Wibowo

Intensified crackdowns against homosexuals and transgender Indonesians have accompanied rising Islamic conservatism, including bans on LGBT-friendly phone apps and raids against so-called “gay parties” by police and hardline religious vigilantes.

“As parliamentarians, we have a role to play not only to ensure that strong laws are in place, but also to provide proper oversight of the implementation of those laws,” Sundari said.

Indonesia’s parliament is currently considering revisions to the national criminal code which would make sexual relations defined as zina – the Islamic concept of adultery – jailable offences. This would criminalise pre-marital sex and homosexuality, putting millions of people at risk of prosecution.

SEE ALSO: Indonesia: Aceh to move public caning indoors

Back in February, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein expressed concern over the spread of “extremist” views in Indonesia, leading to discrimination and violence against minority groups.

“If Muslim societies expect others to fight against Islamophobia, we should be prepared to end discrimination at home too,” said Zeid. “Islamophobia is wrong. Discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs and colour is wrong. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or any other status is wrong.”

“The spectre of growing intolerance and vigilantism threatens Indonesia’s democratic success,” Sundari added. “We cannot allow the spirit of democracy, human rights, and Pancasila to be undermined by these dark forces.”

Top bunk for $30 a day: Life inside one of Airbnb’s modern boardinghouses

Sireenat Tengamnuay and her twin sister, Sireenuch, stand in their hostel-style property which rents on Airbnb in the District. They renovated an old house that can now accommodate 35 guests. Most beds rent for $30 a night. (T.J. Kirkpatrick/For The Washington Post)

by Ellen McCarthy May 8

Divisions exist in every social ecosystem. And on a recent Friday night inside the cement walls of a District rowhouse turned church turned hostel, two major camps emerged. There were the young French speakers who headed to their rooms toting backpacks only to emerge an hour later in jackets and heels en route to a wedding celebration. And there were the gentlemen on the slipcovered couches of the basement common area — eating noodles, watching wrestling, settling in.

Top bunk for $30 a day Life inside one of Airbnb’s modern boardinghouses.docx by Thavam on Scribd

Third teenage girl is raped and burned alive in India in one week

Girl, 16, died after assault in Madhya Pradesh state, leading to two arrests



Agence France-Press in New Delhi-Fri 11 May 2018

Schoolgirls hold a silent protest rally against the recent rape cases of two teenage girls in the Chatra and Pakur districts of Jharkhand. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

A third teenage girl has been raped and burned alive in a week in India, the latest brutal sexual assault to shock the country.

The 16-year-old died from the burns after being set alight by a 26-year-old man who acted after the girl said she would tell her family about the rape.

Two other teenagers were victims of similar attacks a week ago in Jharkhand state. One died and one is in hospital.

The latest teenager was alone at her home in Sagar district of Madhya Pradesh state when she was raped, police said on Friday.

“We have arrested the two accused,” said Sagar district police superintendent Satyendra Kumar Shukla. “One of them is the cousin of the girl who informed the main suspect that she was alone in the house. The main accused is married with a child.”

Indian authorities have faced renewed pressure to act on sexual assaults, notably after brutal gang rape and killing of an eight-year-old Muslim girl in Jammu and Kashmir state sparked demonstrations.

The cases are the most high-profile since the 2012 rape and murder of a student on a New Delhi bus that triggered mass protests.

Potential new cure found for baldness

By Ian WestbrookHealth reporter, BBC News-9 May 2018

A potential new cure for baldness has been discovered using a drug originally intended to treat osteoporosis.

Researchers found the drug had a dramatic effect on hair follicles in the lab, stimulating them to grow.

It contains a compound which targets a protein that acts as a brake on hair growth and plays a role in baldness.

Project leader Dr Nathan Hawkshaw told the BBC a clinical trial would be needed to see if the treatment was effective and safe in people.

Only two drugs are currently available to treat balding (androgenetic alopecia):

• minoxidil, for men and women
• finasteride, for men only

Neither is available on the NHS and both have side-effects and are not always very effective, so patients often resort to hair transplantation surgery instead.

• I had a transplant after hairstyle made me go bald
• Too young to go bald
• Behind the scenes of a hair transplant
• Early baldness higher heart disease risk factor than obesity, says study
• Baldness research 'creates a new hair follicle'

The research, published in PLOS Biology, was done in a lab, with samples containing scalp hair follicles from more than 40 male hair-transplant patients.

The researchers, from the University of Manchester, first latched onto an old immunosuppressive drug, cyclosporine A, used since the 1980s to prevent transplant organ rejection and reduce symptoms of autoimmune disease.

The scientists found that the drug reduced the activity of a protein called SFRP1, a key growth regulator that affects many tissues including hair follicles.

But because of its side effects, CsA was unsuitable as a baldness treatment.

The team went on to look for another agent that targeted SFRP1 and found that WAY-316606 was even better at suppressing the protein.

Dr Hawkshaw said the treatment could "make a real difference to people who suffer from hair loss".

What causes hair loss?

Hair loss is a daily occurrence and generally nothing to worry about. Some types are temporary and some are permanent.

You should see a doctor because of:

• sudden hair loss
• developing bald patches
• losing hair in clumps
• head itching and burning
• worry about hair loss

Source: NHS Choices

CORRUPTION MUST BE ERADICATED AT THE LEVEL OF THE EXECUTIVE- R. SAMPANTHAN

Rajavarothiam Sampanthan.-11/05/2018

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are debating the Policy Statement made by His Excellency President Maithripala Sirisena in Parliament on the 08^th of this month. This Adjournment Motion has been requested by the Leader of the Joint Opposition, the Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena and has been seconded also by an Hon. Member of the Joint Opposition.

One could see, Sir, that the main theme of their speeches was that this Government should cease to govern, which should also mean that they must be returned to governance or they must be enabled to govern the country. They have governed this country for a long time. They governed this country for ten years before the present Government came into power. When they gave up their Government, they were neck-deep in debt.

One of the biggest issues identified by the President as confronting the country is the foreign debt and the domestic debt. I will, in the course of my speech, Sir, address issues that need to be addressed to take the country forward, to take the country on a different path, to define for the country a different future. It would be my submission that merely changing Governments is not going to resolve problems. On the contrary, we must all come together and think in terms of what needs to be done for the country to move forward, for the country to prosper, for the country to be redeemed from its present position. Therefore, Sir, my speech will be on an entirely different basis.

The President in the course of his address identified three main issues. One was, the economy; the second was, the issue of the North and the East, popularly referred to as the “national question” and the third was, the issue of corruption and fraud. All these three issues are fundamental issues which have a great impact on the future of this country. But, Sir, I will in the course of my address primarily deal with issue number two. That is the national question, the issue pertaining to the North and the East and the people who live in that part of the country. It has afflicted the country from the time the country attained Independence, 70 years ago. The non-resolution of the issues in the North-East has been the primary cause for all other problems and various difficulties the country has faced. It is also my contention, Sir, that the country is in its current parlous state and corruption and fraud have aggravated to its present height primarily on account of the non-resolution of the issue in the North-East.

North-East issue

This country will never be able to redeem itself unless the North-East issue is resolved. I also consider it my duty, Sir, as the Leader of the Opposition, to pay the maximum possible attention to this issue. I do so in the interest of the country, not in the interest of one Government or the other and my appeal is to all Members of Parliament, to all persons in Government, to all persons in Opposition to come together to resolve this issue. I do so in the interest of the country as a whole. Very much unlike some who want the North-East issue to continue for their political survival and for the advancement of their political fortunes, I want the North-East issue resolved within an undivided, indivisible and one Sri Lanka on the basis of fairness, justice and equality, wherein all Sri Lankans are equal citizens of this country, Sri Lanka, subject only to the country’s Constitution and laws. That is why, Sir, we are currently engaged in the framing of a new Constitution and it is in this background that I will examine some aspects of His Excellency the President’s Policy Statement and other relevant material to put the whole issue in its proper perspective.

Before I do that, you will permit me, Sir, to refer to the Election Manifesto of the Federal Party in 1970. This is what the Federal Party said in its Election Manifesto in 1970. The whole country should know this. I quote:

“It is our firm conviction that division of the country in any form would be beneficial neither to the country nor to the Tamil-speaking people. Hence we appeal to the Tamil-speaking people not to lend their support to any political movement that advocates the bifurcation of our country.”

This was the position taken by the Federal Party in 1970 in its Election Manifesto, that they were opposed to the bifurcation of the country and wanted the Tamil people to vote against any political movement that advocated bifurcation of the country. I say this because many people seem to think that we have demanded separation and that we are responsible for the state in which the country is.

It was after this election in 1970 and the enactment of the 1972 Constitution that there was a demand for a separate State. But, ever since the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord in 1987 and certain Constitutional changes that came about with that Accord, all Tamil political parties in this country have been prepared to find an acceptable, reasonable solution within the framework of a united, undivided, indivisible Sri Lanka. That has been our position. That had been the position in all elections in the past. For almost three decades, ever since 1988, that has been our position at Local Government Elections, at Provincial Council Election and Parliamentary Elections.

1972 constitution

As I said before, Sir, it was the non-resolution of the North-East issue and the enactment of the 1972 Constitution unilaterally by the party in power at that time without any consensus with anybody else that resulted in all that happened since 1970 and the country being brought to its present state. The whole question, Sir, is, “Do you want the country to continue in the same trend and get even worse in the future or, do you want to give the country a new direction and a new future?”

It is in this context, Sir, that I shall be quoting from the Statement made by His Excellency the President in Parliament on the 08th of this month and some other Statements made by the President earlier, the Resolution adopted by this Parliament converting this Parliament into a Constitutional Assembly and also the Statements made by former President Hon. Mahinda Rajapaksa in the course of his election campaign. In the course of the Statement His Excellency the President made in Parliament on the 08th of this month, he said, “I wish to make this Statement as an extension of the Statement presented by me at the commencement of the First Session of the Eighth Parliament.” – that was on the 1^st of September 2015. Before I read that Statement, Sir, let me state what His Excellency the President said in the course of his speech on the 08^th of May. He said, I quote,

“The foundation of a stable country is national reconciliation. It is important to introduce a structure for taking political decisions based on equality for achieving meaningful reconciliation. I believe, it is the dire need of the day to strengthen the existing provincial council system in order to achieve these objectives. Whatever the opposition, it is essential to enter into a political programme with the consensus and agreement of the people to find a permanent solution to the issue of unrest of the people in the North and the East.”

His Excellency, in the course of his Statement in Parliament on the 08^th of this month, made reference to the North-East issue because he identified the North-East issue as one of the most serious problems afflicting this country. Thereafter, Sir, I quote from the Statement made by His Excellency the President on the 1^st of September, 2015, when he addressed the First Session of this Parliament.

Srisena at 2015

He said, Sir, I quote:

“Hon. Speaker, the identity of a nation or a country is based on its Constitution. That is why a Constitution is considered supreme. During the 60 years after Independence, we have adopted three Constitutions. Yet, it is unfortunate that we have not been able to adopt a Constitution which enables all of us to agree as a single nation.”

This is what His Excellency said on the 1^st of September, 2015 when he addressed Parliament and then when he addressed the Parliament on the 08^th of this month, he said, “What I now make is a continuation of the Statement I have made when I addressed Parliament at its First Session on the 1^st of September, 2015.”

You would permit me, Mr. Speaker, to quote from the Resolution of Parliament on the 9^th of March, 2016 in regard to the framing of a new Constitution which His Excellency referred to in the course of his first Policy Statement on the 1st of September, 2015. The Resolution states, I quote:

“AND WHEREAS it has become necessary to enact a new Constitution that, inter alia, abolishes the Executive Presidency, ensures a fair and representative Electoral System which eliminates preferential voting, strengthens the democratic rights of all citizens, provides a Constitutional Resolution of the national issue, promotes national reconciliation, establishes a political culture that respects the rule of law, guarantees to the peoples fundamental rights and freedom that assure human dignity and promotes responsible and accountable government.”

It goes on to state, I quote:

“There shall be a Committee of Parliament hereinafter referred to as the ‘Constitutional Assembly’ which shall consist of all Members of Parliament, for the purpose of deliberating, and seeking the views and advice of the People, on a new Constitution for Sri Lanka, and preparing a draft of a Constitution Bill for the consideration of Parliament in the exercise of its powers under Article 75 of the Constitution.”

That is the Resolution, Sir, adopted by this Parliament converting itself into a Constitutional Assembly in March, 2016. What has happened thereafter? The Constitutional Assembly has functioned; a Steering Committee has been appointed; Subcommittees have been appointed; Subcommittees have come up with their Reports; the Steering Committee has come up with an Interim Report to the Constitutional Assembly and debates have taken place in Parliament. The enactment of a new Constitution has been seriously considered and much work has been done on that. Experts have been appointed; their views have been obtained; there have been consultations with the people; there have been consultations with civil society and a lot of work has been done. Unfortunately, in the past couple of months, that work has not continued on account of other developments in the country: Local Authorities Elections and certain differences in Government. Sixteen Ministers of the Government have crossed over and joined the Opposition.

On account of these disturbances, that process has not continued. But that must continue; that process must recommence and that must reach its logical end. It was a unanimous Resolution adopted by this Parliament converting Parliament into a Committee of the whole designated as the Constitutional Assembly for the purpose of drafting a new Constitution for this country. The Steering Committee appointed by the Constitutional Assembly has continuously met; everybody has participated. The Resolution was adopted unanimously. Therefore, that is the will of this House; that is the will of the Members of Parliament and it must continue.

What we want

It will be relevant for me to examine, Sir, in this context, what President Mahinda Rajapaksa had to say in regard to a new Constitution.

Particularly, Sir, when he contested the Elections in 2015, he wanted a new Constitution. I quote from his Manifesto. He said: “A Wide Political Reform – A New Political Culture

We have been battered for 36 years by the 1978 Constitution which was thrust upon our people and country, without an appropriate debate or discussion. We must also collectively acknowledge that our Constitution is now further distorted due to the various amendments over the years, some of which are not consistent with others. Therefore, instead of amending the Constitution further with piece-meal changes, I will take action to formulate a new Constitution that reflects the peoples’ ideas, aspirations and wishes within a period of one year.”

That is what he said: he wanted a new Constitution. When he went before the people on the 08^th of January, 2015, he told the people this country needs a new Constitution.

Sir, he further said, I quote:

“I will first submit the Draft Constitution which will consist of the proposals of these groups, for the Parliament’s approval in accordance with the Constitution. Thereafter, I will present the Draft Constitution to a referendum seeking the approval of the people.”

That is what we want. It is our contention that the Constitution must be approved by Parliament by a two-thirds majority and after the Constitution is approved by Parliament by a two-thirds majority, it must be submitted to the people of this country and it must obtain the approval of the people of this country at a Referendum. That is our position. We do not want a Constitution enacted behind the backs of the people.

That was President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s position. That is, Sir, why the Opposition was not able to oppose the Resolution tabled in Parliament. That is why the Opposition was compelled to cooperate with the activities of the Steering Committee and in fact, even today, it is continuing to cooperate with the Steering Committee. So, Sir, what this country needs is to frame a new Constitution in such a way as to resolve that issue, a conflict, that has plagued this country from the time of Independence, from 1947-1948. That is what the country needs. Nobody wants to trick anybody, Sir; nobody can trick anybody. The Constitution must be approved by a two-thirds majority in Parliament and the people at a referendum.

Srisena and Rajapaksa

Moreover, Sir, ever since 1987-1988, the Constitution-making process had been a continuing process. Under President Premadasa’s time, there was the Mangala Moonesinghe Select Committee which came up with proposals for a new Constitution in regard to power sharing and various other matters. During President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s time, there were various proposals that she made in 1995, in 1997 and in August, 2000, she brought to Parliament a Constitution Bill. The matter was widely discussed and that Bill was approved by the Cabinet. Both President Mahinda Rajapaksa, the former President and President Maithripala Sirisena, the present President who were the Members of President Chandrika Bandaranaike’s Cabinet approved those proposals in Cabinet. They accepted those proposals at Cabinet. Therefore, Sir, thereafter, when President Mahinda Rajapaksa became President, he appointed the All Party Representative Committee called the “APRC”. He appointed Prof. Tissa Vitharana, Member of Parliament as the Chairman of that Committee. Then, he appointed the Multi-Ethnic Experts Committee who came up with their reports. Prof. Tissa Vitharana Committee has submitted its report to Mahinda Rajapaksa and the report is now available.

Tamil rights cannot be buried

Therefore, Sir, from 1987-1988, for the last 30 years, the Constitution process has been taking place. It had been a continuous process. All of which, Sir, provide substantial material for the framing of a new Constitution. Sir, nobody can think that the North-East conflict that the rights – the political rights, the social rights, the economic and cultural rights – of the Tamil people in this country can be buried. They have lived in this country for as long as anyone else. They have historically inhabited a certain part of this country and the Tamil-speaking people are a majority in that part of the country which they have historically inhabited even today. We want a united country; we want an undivided country; we want an indivisible country but, we want to live as equal citizens. We must be assured of our dignity and self-respect. We must be assured justice within an undivided country. That is what we are asking for. I do not think, Sir, that can be denied to us. I think the time has come for everyone to realize that this is an obligation that they – not merely the Tamil people, all the Tamil-speaking people in this country are entitled to.

If this country is to prosper, if the country is to achieve its full potential, if the country is to grow economically and succeed as a country as other countries have done in this region and in the world, then I think Sir, a new Constitution needs to be framed and this matter needs to be resolved.

I would like to say a few words on the economy Sir, before I conclude my speech and also on the question of corruption and fraud.

Nothing is happening, why?

I think, Sir, any government must have the courage to take decisions that are challenging. We have heard of a Free Trade Agreement with Singapore, we have heard of an Economic and Technology Co-operation Agreement with India and we have heard of an Agreement with China. Our leaders have been visiting various countries in the world over having discussions but nothing is happening. We are expecting foreign investment. We are hoping to fashion an export-oriented economy. We say that we occupy a very strategic position in the Indian Ocean Region. Why are not all these things being exploited? This Government has been in power in the past three and a half years. The former Government that the Hon. Dinesh Gunawardena talked about was in power for 10 years. All that they did was to enact the Eighteenth Amendment taking away the independence of the judiciary, taking away independent commissions and enabling the President to run for presidency any number of times. What else did you do? This country got neck-deep in debt during your period. You cannot deny that. Therefore, Sir, I think there is an obligation on the part of the Government to act expeditiously, to act swiftly. We do not want the interests of our country to be sacrificed in any way. We do not want the interests of the people of this country to be sacrificed in any way. We will join all other people in opposing any such move. But, at the same time, if you want to redeem yourself, if you want to come out of difficulties that are very deep, out of which you were unable to come out for a long period of time, you must make bold decisions. You must make expeditious decisions and it must be implemented.

Clean up the top

On the question of bribery and corruption, Sir, I do not want to say very much. We must start here. Corruption must be eradicated in this Parliament. I am not talking about the officials of Parliament. I am talking about myself and my Colleagues. Corruption must be eradicated at the level of the Executive. Unless we start cleaning up at the very top, we can never clean the bottom, we can never clean the middle. We need to commence cleaning up at the very top. Corruption must be eliminated at the level of political parties. Political parties must realize that they have a duty by this country to ensure that the persons whom they bring into politics are persons of stature, persons of character, persons who will not sell their country. I think Sir, if corruption is to be eradicated in this country, we have got to first start cleaning up at the top. Without cleaning up at the top, it will be futile to think of cleaning up in the middle or at the bottom.

I thank you, Sir.

(Full transcript of the speech made by Hon Sampanthan in Parliament on 10th of May 2018.)