Palestinians need less lip service, more cash, Nikki Haley tells Arab nations

UAE and Kuwait top five most generous aid donors compared with national income globally in 2017, while the United States came in at 16

Haley also called out China and Russia for talking 'a big game about the Palestinian cause' (AFP)

Tuesday 24 July 2018

US envoy to the United Nations Nikki Haley on Tuesday slammed Arab and Muslim-majority states for talking about supporting the Palestinians but not giving more money to help, calling out countries like Egypt, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

Haley listed how much those countries, along with Algeria, Tunisia, Pakistan, Oman, Iran and Turkey, had given - or not given - to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which aids Palestinian refugees. Washington, long the biggest donor, cut its aid to $60m from a promised $365m this year.

"No group of countries is more generous with their words than the Palestinians' Arab neighbours, and other OIC member states," Haley told a UN Security Council meeting on the Middle East, citing the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

"But all of the words spoken here in New York do not feed, clothe, or educate a single Palestinian child. All they do is get the international community riled up," she said.

Read more ►

'Put the refugees to bed': Why Israel wants to kill UNRWA

Palestinian UN Ambassador Riyad Mansour said Haley had insulted US allies "in an arrogant way".

Haley also called out China and Russia for talking "a big game about the Palestinian cause", but providing only $350,000 and $2m respectively to UNRWA in 2017. China's UN Ambassador Ma Zhaoxu told the council: "We have no intention of competing with any other countries."

Haley said it was time for the "regional states in particular to step up".

According to IRIN, a nonprofit that reports on humanitarian issues, the UAE and Kuwait were ranked in the top five most generous aid donors compared with national income globally in 2017, while the United States came in at 16.

READ MORE ►

UN Palestinian refugee agency struggles to fund projects after US cuts

"Sometimes the numbers and facts talk for themselves," said Kuwait's UN Ambassador Mansour al-Otaibi.

UAE UN Ambassador Lana Nusseibeh agreed with Haley that real action was needed to assist the Palestinian people.

"With our total donation of more than $125 million just last year, we believe that we are doing our part to address the immediate needs of the Palestinians," she said.

US President Donald Trump withheld UNRWA aid after questioning its value and saying the Palestinians needed to agree to renew peace talks with Israel, while the State Department said UNRWA needed to make unspecified reforms.

When the US slashed its UNRWA aid earlier this year, Haley said at the time that it was to force the Palestinians "to come back to the negotiation table" with Israel.

Jared Kushner, Trump's senior adviser, said late last month that Washington would announce its Middle East peace plan soon.

"It is now gone about a year since we discussed this here and we were informed about plans and we haven't seen it yet," Sweden's UN Ambassador Olof Skoog, president of the Security Council for July, told reporters. "I think there is a problem that there's no credible plan on the table."

White House says Trump wants to revoke security clearances for former officials critical of him over Russia

Sarah Huckabee Sanders said on July 23 that President Trump is "exploring the mechanisms to remove security clearance" for six former intelligence officials. (Reuters)


By Shane Harris, John Wagner and Felicia SonmezJuly 23 at 8:27 PM

President Trump moved to retaliate against some of his strongest critics Monday, threatening to revoke the security clearances of former top officials who have raised alarms about Russian interference in the 2016 election or questioned the president’s fitness for office.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Trump is “looking to take away” the clearances of half a dozen former senior national security and intelligence officials who served in the administrations of George W. Bush or Barack Obama. Sanders accused them of profiting off their public service and making “baseless accusations” against the president.

The move immediately prompted accusations of political retaliation by current and former officials, as well as security analysts, who said Trump would set a dangerous precedent by punishing political speech. Several of the officials he cited have written books questioning his leadership and his affection for Russian President Vladi­mir Putin.

It’s routine for the former directors of intelligence agencies and other senior officials to maintain their security clearances, so they can share their expertise with current leaders or be called in for consultations on how a prior administration handled an issue or crisis, current and former officials said. Some former officials also have jobs that require a security clearance.

[Trump repudiates U.S. intelligence community by according equal weight to Putin]

The officials who Sanders said might have their clearances revoked are former CIA director John O. Brennan, former FBI director James B. Comey, former CIA director Michael V. Hayden, former national security adviser Susan E. Rice, former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. and former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. (Comey and McCabe no longer have security clearances, according to their representatives, and it wasn’t clear why the White House put them on the list.)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) speaks during a television interview last week as he defends President Trump and his Helsinki news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

The ex-officials are among Trump’s most frequent targets in his speeches and angry tweets. He has variously accused them — without evidence — of leaking classified information to journalists, concocting facts to undermine the legitimacy of his election, and of profiting off their prior access to him by writing memoirs, a practice Trump is known to resent.

“The president is exploring the mechanisms to remove security clearance because they politicize and in some cases monetize their public service and security clearances,” Sanders told reporters at a regular news briefing. “Making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia or being influenced by Russia against the president is extremely inappropriate, and the fact that people with security clearances are making these baseless charges provides inappropriate legitimacy to accusations with zero evidence.”

Security-clearance experts said while Trump probably does have the authority to unilaterally suspend or terminate a security clearance, no president has ever done so. Words and actions protected by the First Amendment aren’t grounds to take a clearance away, they said.

“It is completely inappropriate to revoke or withdraw someone’s security clearance based on political differences,” said Mark Zaid, an attorney who represents government employees in security-clearance disputes.

Trump’s decision could end up jeopardizing national security interests, said Evan Lesser, the president of ClearanceJobs, which helps the government find employees.

Washington Post national security reporter Shane Harris explains what you need to know about security clearances. (Shane Harris, Patrick Martin/The Washington Post)

“When you have someone with their knowledge and experience,” he said of the former officials, “regardless of whether you agree with them or not, you typically want them to have access in the event that they need to be called back for something critical.”

Former intelligence officials said Trump’s move looked like an intimidation tactic designed to silence others from speaking out against him.

“This is the equivalent of Richard Nixon sending the IRS after people,” said a former senior intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he still has a security clearance required for his work. “If I were to speak out at this point, I would lose a substantial portion of my income.”

Not all the officials in Trump’s crosshairs now have jobs that require a security clearance.

Clapper, who said he doesn’t do any work that requires a clearance, said Trump’s action was directed solely at “people who have criticized the president.”

Clapper, a career intelligence officer who last served as the director of national intelligence in the Obama administration, described the move by the White House as “unprecedented” and “petty.”

Hayden, who was also director of the National Security Agency under Bush, had no comment on Sanders’s statement. But he objected to any White House suggestion that he had done anything that would be grounds for revoking his clearance. Hayden said he requires a clearance for one proxy board position to protect sensitive U.S. information when dealing with a foreign parent company.

Brennan and Rice didn’t respond to the White House announcement.

Nick Shapiro, a former top aide to Brennan, said the former CIA director hadn’t done any work since leaving government that required a clearance. “This is a political attack on career national security officials who have honorably served their country for decades under both Republicans and Democrats in an effort to distract from [special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s] investigation.”

Comey’s lawyer, David N. Kelley, said the ex-FBI director “was read out of his security clearance not long after he left the FBI” in mid-2017, after Trump fired him.

In fact, Kelley said, Comey was offered a limited security clearance last month to review the classified findings of the Justice Department’s inspector general’s investigation into his actions at the FBI, and declined in part because he didn’t want to have access to classified information and then have the president or someone else accuse him of leaking.

[Branding Putin: How the Kremlin turned the Russian president into a global icon]

McCabe’s clearance was deactivated when he was fired from the FBI, said Melissa Schwartz, a spokeswoman for McCabe. She said McCabe’s lawyers were told that was according to FBI policy.

“You would think the White House would check with the FBI before trying to throw shiny objects to the press corps,” she wrote on Twitter.

Sanders made the announcement shortly after Trump met with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who said earlier Monday that he planned to ask the president to revoke Brennan’s clearance. The former CIA director under Obama last week described Trump’s performance at his summit with Putin in Helsinki as “treasonous” and said Trump showed he was “wholly in the pocket of Putin.”

[Trump ‘treason’ in Helsinki. It doesn’t hold up.]

In a tweet shortly after Sanders’s announcement, Paul appeared to take credit for the president’s decision.

“I restated to [Trump] what I have said in public: John Brennan and others partisans should have their security clearances revoked.”

He added: “Public officials should not use their security clearances to leverage speaking fees or network talking head fees.”

In a tweet earlier Monday, Paul had questioned whether Brennan was trying to profit off his security clearance by “divulging secrets to the mainstream media” that undermine Trump.

Democrats immediately criticized the White House announcement.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said punishing Trump’s critics “would set a terrible new precedent. An enemies list is ugly, undemocratic and un-American. Is there no length Trump will not go to stifle opposition? Wake up GOP.”

A member of the Senate Republican leadership voiced skepticism of the White House’s actions as well.

“I don’t know whether they’ve been abusing their security clearance at all,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (Tex.), the No. 2 Republican in the chamber. “That’s a very serious allegation. I want to see what the results are.”

Matt Zapotosky, Devlin Barrett and Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.

Democrats Will Regret Becoming the Anti-Russia Party

Riling up the public against Moscow is good for Democrats in the short term—and bad for America.

Buttons of possible 2020 presidential contenders, including U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), New York State Gov. Chris Cuomo and former Vice President Joseph Biden, are seen during CPAC 2018 February 22, 2018 in National Harbor, Maryland. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

BY MICAH ZENKO-

JULY 24, 2018, 7:00 AM

Perceptions of foreign threats are socially constructed. Within American domestic politics, that means threats are largely constructed by the two major political parties. At any given time, one party holds the executive branch’s vast national security powers and drives conversations around how foreign threats are framed. Meanwhile, the other party is incentivized to contest how the ruling administration depicts—and responds to—foreign threats, thus raising questions about the executive branch’s overall judgment and competency in keeping the United States safe.

These traditional roles have been heightened because of U.S. President Donald Trump’s posture toward Russia. His policies are inexplicable when compared to recent American history, his own government’s explicit strategy, or any objective assessment of current U.S.-Russian relations. Trump downplays allegations of Russian-sponsored interference in the 2016 election cycle, dismisses the U.S. intelligence community’s consensus judgment that Russia was involved, remains uninterested in Russia’s multiyear indiscriminate bombing in Syria and intervention in Ukraine, and seems unwilling to critique President Vladimir Putin—a great power competitor according to most other U.S. government employees.

This unusual behavior has created an opening for the Democratic Party to raise Americans’ threat perceptions of Russia. It’s an opening that many Democratic officeholders have been happy to take. The impulse is understandable given that recent polling shows that 47 percent of Democrats and Democrat-leaning Americans believe Russia poses the “greatest immediate threat” to the United States, versus just 10 percent of Republicans and those who lean Republican. Democrats may come to regret, however, their increasingly vehement focus on Russia.

When a political party increases its animus toward a foreign country—believing that this will enhance its own popularity—it introduces second-order effects that can manifest themselves years later. It creates a voting bloc of Americans who become socialized to hate a foreign government and, by extension, its citizens. It reduces the motivations and complexities of that government to a simplified caricature of anti-Americanism or just plain evil. More broadly, it engenders hostility between the United States and foreign countries, which makes cooperation over shared problems more difficult and rapprochement unimaginable.

Moreover, political parties attempting to out-tough each other has enabled some abysmal recent foreign-policy outcomes. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which declared it “the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq,” was passed overwhelmingly in the House, passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, and signed by President Bill Clinton in just 32 days. That legislation was preceded, and followed, by both parties wildly exaggerating the threat that Saddam posed to the United States and its regional interests. Likewise, Trump’s confounding withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal—which Iran was adhering to—was politically cost-free to the president because Democrats and Republicans had demonized Iran to the point of simplistic malevolence for decades.

The singular foreign-policy focus on Russia also comes with opportunity costs, most notably with regards to China. On my own back-of-the-envelope state competitor scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most potentially threatening and consequential, Russia is a 3, China a 9. In conversations I’ve had with foreign government officials and diplomats since Trump won the election, the most commonly expressed concern has been about the lack of coordinated or sustained response to China’s accelerating efforts to shape and influence outcomes in regions where the United States claims to have vital national interests.

About the Author

Micah Zenko is Whitehead Senior Fellow at Chatham House and is the author of Red Team: How to Succeed by Thinking Like the Enemy

America’s bitter domestic partisanship and dysfunction aids Beijing. Last month, a former Chinese official and diplomat told me, “Every country thinks America has gone crazy. We benefit by doing nothing, other than appearing sane.” Democrats endorse an engaged foreign policy that secures America’s interests and upholds universalist values, such as free markets, democracy, and human rights. If the Democratic Party still believes in this global vision, it should seriously grasp how China could upend it and introduce its own contrasting vision.

There is also a delicate domestic matter that comes with discussions of Russia’s alleged electoral interference. Democrats correctly focus the blame on Moscow but refrain from examining why U.S. society so prone and open to such foreign-directed interference. Reviewing media reporting and U.S. government claims about what happened in 2015 and 2016, what Russia achieved was less devious and stealthy than obvious and sloppy. Tens of millions of Americans of varying ideological leanings were wholly receptive to the information operations campaign perpetrated by Russian-connected agents. No politician will say that what Russia accomplished was relatively easy. It is as if the Germans had cleared the beaches of Normandy of any barbed wire, tank traps, and machine gun pillboxes before D-Day. But Democrats (and Republicans) would rather point the finger at Russian actions than Americans’ embrace of those actions.

Finally, to repeat, Trump’s depiction of Russia is singularly his own and does not represent current U.S. policy. If intelligence officials suddenly begin to describe Russian foreign policy in benign terms or defame allies in Western and Central Europe, worry. If the harsh Russia portions of the National Security Strategy or National Defense Strategy vanish from the White House or Pentagon websites, worry. Or, if U.S. foreign policy and defense priorities as they relate to Russia or regions where the United States and Russia compete suddenly and inexplicably change, worry. Until then, Democrats should appreciate how one individual’s foreign-policy instincts—albeit the most powerful individual on earth—have been largely ignored by those who actually develop and implement U.S. foreign policy.

Foreign threat inflation emerges from many motivations—financial, professional, reputational, patriotic, and certainly political. The Democratic Party may inflate the threat posed by Russia and Vladimir Putin for short-term political gain, but it does so at the longer-term peril of the United States. At a moment when “placing party over country” is a common slur in Washington, Democrats should refrain from doing just that as it relates to Russia.

Bright star Imran Khan could well go the way of his predecessors

---

Saturday, 21 July 2018 00:10

Imran Khan, the Pakistani cricket star, anti-corruption crusader and politician, appears to be within reach of his cherished goal of winning the 25 July Pakistan National Assembly (NA) elections and becoming Prime Minister.

But the political history of Pakistan shows that politicians come to power with one attractive credential or the other, but eventually end up losing it either because they turn out to be corrupt and vindictive earning the people’s wrath or they lose the support of the powerful army, which has its own vested interests to safeguard. Pakistan has had three military coups and four phases of military rule since it came into existence 71 years ago.

Imran Khan is today an anti-corruption icon and appears to be having the backing of the Army. But it remains to be seen as to how long his image of being pure as driven snow remains unsullied, and how long his domestic and foreign policies accord with those of the army.

Jockeying for power is constant and endemic in Pakistan and in a match between the civilian politician and the army, the winner is invariably the army. Thus, Imran’s political career which appears to be bright now, may well follow the dismal Pakistani pattern. Having a reputation of being an agitator and a street fighter, Imran might find it difficult to walk the tight rope vis-à-vis the Army.

Main contenders

By all accounts, Imran’s Pakistan Tehreeq-e-Insaf (PTI) party is the strongest contender among the three outfits in the field. The other two are the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) led by the family of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and the Pakistan Peoples’ Party(PPP) led by Bilawal Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari, son and husband respectively of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

The PML (N) has no prime ministerial candidate yet. Nawaz Sharif would have been the obvious candidate. But last year, the Supreme Court had banned him from holding public office following revelations in the Panama Papers of 2015. This year, he was jailed for 10 years by the Accountability Court.

The PML (N) is also divided. Nawaz’s brother Shehbaz Sharif is accused by a section of the party of not coming to his aid when he was arrested on arrival in Lahore from the UK. The expected big crowd and Shehbaz himself were not there at the airport.

Seeing the writing on the wall, and especially after it became clear that the Army is backing Imran Khan’s PTI, some leaders of PML (N) have joined Imran’s party. Moreover, the PML (N) is no longer in government, Pakistan being under a pre-election caretaker government. And without State power, the PML (N) is a toothless tiger.

The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) is but a pale shadow of what it was at the time of its founder Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his daughter Benazir Bhutto. The present Co-Chairman, Bilawal Bhutto, has little to his credit other than his ancestry.

His father and Co-Chairman of the PPP, Asif Ali Zardari, has been named the PPP’s prime ministerial candidate. But he was known to be highly corrupt and nicknamed “Mr. 10 percent,” when his wife, Benazir Bhutto, was Prime Minister. Zardari does not fit the bill at the present juncture when corruption is the main election issue.

Decks cleared

After more than two-decades in active politics, Imran Khan has now been able to clear the decks for a win.

He has harnessed “supernatural” power by marrying his “spiritual soothsaying guru” Bushra Maneka, who had convinced him that marriage to her would lead him to the pinnacle of Pakistani politics. He had successfully led a long agitation to remove the patently corrupt Nawaz Sharif from the Premiership and jail him. Imran has succeeded in making his pet theme “corruption” the main issue in the 25 July elections.

Army backing

And, most importantly, he has acquired the backing of the most powerful institution in Pakistan, namely, the Army.

“I think a democratic government rules from moral authority. And if you don’t have moral authority, then those who have the physical authority assert themselves. In my opinion, the army is a Pakistani Army and not an enemy army. I will carry the Army with me,” Imran told an interviewer.

Unlike Nawaz Sharif, who had fallen out with the Army over the issue of peace with India and lost power twice because of that, Imran has consistently praised the Army and acknowledged its stabilising role in Pakistani politics and governance.

About the current Army Chief Gen. Qmar Javed Bajwa, Imran said: “It’s the first time that I am seeing an Army Chief saying time and again that he will ensure free and fair elections, which is the one thing we want. It is music to our ears.”

He blames corrupt and irresponsible civilian leaders and neighbouring India and Afghanistan for the entry of the Army into Pakistani politics and governance.

“The hostility of India and Afghanistan toward Pakistan forces the military to play an outsize role in the country. I have very clear foreign policy objectives, and where there are security concerns of the Army, we will address them. It is our army.”

On another occasion, Imran declared that nothing can be done in Pakistan by maligning the Army and rhetorically declared: “Now is the time to decide whether we want to be used by the enemy and turn against the Pakistan Army. The country will not survive if the Army does not.”

In 2013 Imran had accused at least one officer of the Military Intelligence of rigging the Parliamentary elections in Punjab, but later absolved the Army as such by blaming it on one particular officer, Brig. Muzzafar Ali Ranjha. Imran was close to the extremist former Inter-Services Intelligence Chief Gen. Hamid Gul who he had hailed as a “Mujahid” (one who strives for the cause of God).

Nawaz Sharif had dubbed Imran as the “ladla” or the “pet” of the Army. Sharif’s daughter Maryam Nawaz had dubbed him a “stooge”. But Imran retorted saying that Sharif was “brought up on the lap of Gen. Zia-ul-Haq,” the military dictator of the 1980s who Islamised Pakistan. Subsequently, Sharif had used Army financial backing to rig elections in 1990.

In 2012 the Supreme Court had officially ruled that two Army Generals, Mirza Aslam Baig, and Asad Durrani (head of ISI) along with President Ghulam Ishaq Khan had provided financial assistance to Sharif’s campaign in 1990.

In 1993 the then Army Chief Gen. Abdul Waheed Kakar persuaded both President Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Prime Minister Sharif to step down. During his second term, which began in 1997, Sharif replaced Army Chief Gen. Jahangir Karamat and appointed Gen. Pervez Musharraf in 1998. But Musharraf sacked the Prime Minister in 1999 because of his soft policy towards India and opposition to the Kargil war with India.

However, Sharif came back to power though elections held in 2013. He allegedly had the Army’s support. The Army wanted an end to the squabbling coalition government of 2008-2013. From 2015 onwards, the opposition was unable to put up with Shareef’s corruption and the Army became insecure following his meetings with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

History of Army interventions 

Pakistan has a long history of seeking the help of the Army to restore governance made dysfunctional by squabbling politicians. It was political confusion and frequent changes in government which brought the Army into the game for the first time in 1958.Since then there have been three successful military coups and four periods of military rule.

Pakistani politicians have made it a habit to hobnob with the military and use them to achieve their narrow political ends. The military naturally takes advantage of this and dictates terms, which the politicians generally accept. In case they don’t or they fail to live up the Army’s expectations or fall out of line, they would get thrown out, either through a coup or through electoral rigging.

Police admit mistake in handling deadly cow vigilante attack in Alwar

People shout anti-government slogans during a protest against what the demonstrators say are recent mob lynchings across the country, in Ahmedabad, India, July 23, 2018. REUTERS/Amit Dave

Malini Menon-JULY 24, 2018

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Police in Rajasthan on Tuesday admitted they made a mistake in handling a deadly vigilante attack in Alwar on a man suspected of cow smuggling by tending to his cows before taking him to hospital.

It took police more than 2 hours to take the victim to a nearby hospital, where he later died, opting instead to take his two cows to a shelter first, some 17 km (10 miles) away.

“We found that there was an error in the judgment of the police officer, who felt that the condition of the victim was good and that he was normal,” Rajasthan’s top police official N. Ravindra Kumar Reddy told Reuters.

“He gave him water. He gave him tea. Washed him off all the black, sticky mud. He then took the bovines to the shelter.

“It took the officer about 40 minutes to drop the cows to the shelter. That was the time he should have used for taking the victim to the hospital. For that error of judgment, we have placed him under suspension,” Reddy said.

Suspected cow vigilantes in Rajasthan’s Alwar district, about 160 km (100 miles) from state capital Jaipur, on Saturday attacked 28-year-old Rakbar Khan, a Muslim man transporting two cows. The attack highlights growing influence of pro-Hindu fringe groups after a widely reported incident 15 months ago.

The latest incident triggered an uproar in the lower house of parliament on Tuesday with several opposition parties demanding strict action against vigilante lynchings.

 

“We’ve taken note of lynchings with utmost seriousness,” India’s home minister Rajnath Singh told lawmakers, adding, New Delhi would soon finalise an action plan, including formulating a new law to deal with lynchings.

Many Hindus regard the cow as sacred, but India’s Muslim minority engages in the trade of cattle for slaughter and consumption, chiefly of buffalo meat, as well as dairy purposes.

A police investigation into the deadly attack is looking into allegations whether local police had also beaten Khan and delayed taking him to hospital, Alwar’s superintendent of police Rajendra Singh said.

“If there is any kind of lapse from the part of the police, we will take necessary legal action,” Singh told Reuters.

 

People shout anti-government slogans during a protest against what the demonstrators say are recent mob lynchings across the country, in Ahmedabad, India, July 23, 2018. REUTERS/Amit Dave

Police arrested three people in connection with the incident and are looking for a few more, Reddy said.

Cow vigilantism by pro-Hindu groups has surged in India since Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party came to power in 2014, although most of the country’s 29 states have banned the killing of cows for meat.

Reporting by Malini Menon; Editing by Michael Perry

Arron Banks denies allegation of bribery over mining interest

Jonathan RugmanForeign Affairs Correspondent-23 Jul 2018

In part two of our investigation into Arron Banks’ mining interests in Southern Africa, Channel 4 News details the transfer of thousands of pounds to a Lesotho cabinet minister and the subsequent issuing of a mining licence.

Channel 4 News has spoken to the minister, who admits he received the money, but both he and Banks strenuously deny that this was for the licence or a bribe.

Channel 4 News reveals the Brexit-backing businessman arranged and authorised the payments totalling ZAR 330,000 (GBP 19,000). One of these payments was paid in cash, and another was transferred to a private account in South Africa.

The investigation reveals allegations that:

•At the time of the payments, Banks was in the process of applying for a government licence to prospect for alluvial diamonds in Lesotho.

•Banks appears to have made false public statements about the success of his diamond mining operation in Lesotho.

•Banks made misleading statements about his charitable activities in Lesotho.

The evidence includes a series of emails seen by Channel 4 News, court documents and also in interviews carried out by this programme.

John Maseribane relationship

Channel 4 News reports that Banks fostered a close relationship with a leader of the Basuto National Party in 2013 and 2014. During that time Mr John Maseribane was a cabinet minister in the coalition government that was running Lesotho.

It was during this period that Banks applied through Mohokare Mining for a government licence to prospect for alluvial diamonds at the Sebapala site.

Channel 4 News has obtained a series of emails between Banks and his associates which lay out payments made to John Maseribane in 2013 and 2014. One of these payments was made in cash, and a second was transferred to a personal bank account in South Africa from his personal account.

The emails raise serious questions about whether these payments were intended to facilitate Banks’ obtaining of a prospecting licence in Lesotho. He strongly refutes this.

A series of emails seen by Channel 4 News reveals that:

On 13th December 2013, Banks emailed John Maseribane to say: “The money for both purposes will be ready for collection by moss next week.”

Banks is copied in to a series of emails on 18th December 2013 in which a cash payment of ZAR50,000 to John Maseribane, via Moss Maseribane, is facilitated. The emails also discuss a further payment (ZAR280,000) which needs to be paid to the minister. When an associate of Banks suggests that Banks transfers the money from a UK bank account, he replied: “I prefer to deliver the cash…”.

On 24th December, Moss Maseribane, the daughter of John Maseribane, emails Banks and others saying: “Looking forward towards a fruitful business relationship this coming year.”

On 30th December 2013 an associate emails Banks to say that John Maseribane would prefer the further ZAR280,000 to be transferred into “his South African account”, and provides the bank account details.

Later that day, Banks emails his personal bankers requesting an “immediate transfer” of “280K SARand” to that very bank account.

On 16th February 2014, Moss Maseribane emails Banks to say: “My father had meeting with the minister of minings and our application has been approved.” Banks’ reaction to this was: “Finally – now the fun begins !!!”

On 5th June 2014 an associate sends Banks an email regarding a licence which will allow his company Mohokare Mining to prospect in Lesotho for two years. The email reads: “at long last………..one more for the mining portfolio”.

It is an offence under the Bribery Act 2010 to offer, promise or give any financial advantage to induce or reward a person to perform a function or activity improperly. It is also an offence to offer, promise or give any financial advantage to a foreign public official in order to obtain or retain business, or an advantage in the conduct of business.

Channel 4 News has interviewed Mr Maseribane and has asked him about these payments.
Mr Maseribane did not deny he had received the payments but instead he claimed Banks had provided him with financial support, including during his 2012 election campaign. Both Maseribane and Banks deny that the payments constituted a bribe.

Interview with John Maseribane

“We’ve got a long way… me and Arron. We can talk, we can look at other options of investing in Lesotho. He was very… an influential person in terms of finding how he could also become a economic advisor for Lesotho.”

“Yes, Arron supported my party. Because I am a politician and I am running Basotho National Party. They supported me for 2012 elections. Yeah.”

Reporter: “You mean financial support?”

“Financial support, t-shirts, marketing. And also my policy conference, he supported my policy conference.”

“There was a way that he proposed that we work. He will pay for the – what do you call – for the supplier – let’s pay the supplier – let’s see what the design of the t-shirts – this is not what I like, I will bring somebody professional from London, from South Africa, to say can we please try and fine tune this. Then he will pay for everything like that. Then at the end we will receive the goods.”

Reporter: “I saw an email from Moss, your daughter, in 2013 or early 2014 that said: “My father had a meeting with the mining minister and our application has been approved.”

“That is an information.”

Reporter: “She said ‘our application’ as if you were involved?”

“No no no no. ‘Our application’ can be implicated in so many ways. The application was, information will be relayed to Arron.”

Reporter: “But why wasn’t he dealing with the mining ministry direct? Why was he dealing with you?”

“No, I just wanted to know how far his application was, like, you know. It’s normal. To ask how far you are..? I am aware because I am a friend of Arron, but I am not his partner.”
Reporter: “So he wasn’t paying you to lobby to get a prospecting contract? To get a prospecting contract?”

“No, I do not think that was the motive.”

Reporter: “But he was paying you?”

“No. What do you mean paying me?”

Reporter: “Well, he was paying you what I think was described as political donations?”

“No. I don’t think journalists will be able to understand when you ask somebody, “can you please support me on my t-shirts?”

Reporter: “So it was just t-shirts and marketing?”

“That was not paying; that was helping a friend. To say I am leading your party and then I am going for elections. And elections are so expensive in Lesotho as you will get the [unclear] situation that we have. So the interpretation should not be paying me. Was just a relationship that I wanted to have.

Like you can have a relationship with a South African person or even a Basotho business person, or someone you can approach.”

Reporter: “So why were there all these emails between your daughter Moss and Arron Banks, some of them copying you, about the exchange of money?”
“In terms of what?”

Reporter: “Well, from December 2013 an email to you from Arron Banks saying: ‘Hi john, the money for both purposes will be ready for collection by moss next week’ — and that’s your daughter’. So, clearly money was being sent to you.“

“Yeah, well, not to me, but to the operations. But not to me.“

Reporter: “But you are on the email. And there are several emails. And there was one saying: “the minister” –that is you– ”said he only collected 50,000 rand” that is about £2,800. So the minister did collect money, and the minister is you. “

“Yeah but that money was used to pay transport because you have to pay transport for people to come from Lesotho all over. It was not used to bribe or to do anything.”

“He contributed to Lesotho, that is all.”

Reporter: “Well I mean it says here”

“I have the right to talk to anybody. Anybody! So many people”.

Reporter:” And you talked to the minister for mining?”

“Not Arron only.”

Reporter…” the thing is, you were minister for er youth, gender, recreation. And he was asking your advice, and sending you money, on the subject of of diamond mines? That is what I don’t quite understand. The emails clearly show that he was in contact with you while he was trying to get a mining licence. Except you were the minister for gender, youth and recreation“

“No bribe was paid to release the prospecting licence. Please, I said this earlier. Don’t go around and come with the same question.”

Reporter: “The thing is, that when your daughter writes an email to Banks saying she looks forward to a “fruitful business relationship, what am I supposed to make of that?”

“But who are you? Are you Banks cousin? Are you Banks lawyer? Or what…?
Reporter: “But what relationship is it?”

“It’s a relationship”

Reporter: “Business relationship?”

“No, it’s a relationship.”

Reporter: “You say he was just giving you some money to support your party”

“But it’s a relationship that she requested, what’s the problem, what’s the problem”

Reporter: “So did she work for him?”

“No”

Reporter: “So why would she write that?”

“She would write it because Arron was part of the family. He’s a friend, he was a friend to me. Please man, can you respect my friendship with Arron?!”

Reporter: “It says on your office wall we shall cultivate a culture of zero tolerance towards corruption? You believe that?”

“Yeah, I believe that.”

Reporter: “And nothing in your relationship with Mr Banks might make me question that?”
“It is your own opinion. I am putting my own opinion.”

The Sebapala Mine

Channel 4 News travelled to Banks’ Sebapala Mine in Quting, Southern Lesotho.

The mine is a small operation employing just 18 people. Workers on the site told this programme they are paid approximately ZAR2000, approximately £100 a month. The local community suffers from extreme poverty. Many have no access to basic utilities like electricity.

Channel 4 News carried out interviews with Banks’ employees who said that in the three years in which the mine has been operational, they have never heard of any diamonds being recovered from the site. Now they have been told the mine will close in August 2018.

Channel 4 News has also spoken to the woman who owns the land where the mine is situated. In an on-camera interview she said that Banks has paid her no money to mine her land, but that he compensates her for that work with 13 sacks of maize meal a year.

The Lesotho Minister of Mines, Hon Keketso Sello, has told Channel 4 News this constituted “daylight robbery” and did not amount to fair compensation.

She is also separately employed and paid by Banks as a general worker at the mine.

Banks’ claims about the Lesotho diamond mine

In September 2017 an article appeared in the “Economic Voice” in which Banks claimed to have made a “significant find” at his mine in Sebapala.

The article stated:

“THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DISCOVERY

The diamonds found have been identified as the same quality and price per carat as ‘Letseng’ diamonds ($2,000 per carat).”

In a statement given to the publication he stated:

“This is another important development for Lesotho’s future economic growth, spearheading the revival of the kingdom’s diamond industry. We are confident the mine will generate important royalties for the economy, which we will continue to distribute through our ongoing program of philanthropy in Lesotho via www.lovesavestheday.org.uk.

“The area around the latest find has already produced some of the world’s most beautiful and clear stones, and judging by our initial exploration I am confident it won’t be too long before we find similar large diamonds.

“Our aim now is to invest heavily in the future development of the mine and ultimately the Lesotho economy.”

Channel 4 News reports that contrary to his statement that he intends to “invest heavily in the future development of the mine”, the workers have been told operations at the Sebapala mine will cease in August 2018.

The programme has also filmed the apparently “significant find” which is held by the Ministry of Mining in Lesotho. The Commissioner of Mines, Mr Piel Rochacha, showed Channel 4 News five small stones which he told us amounted to a total of 12 carats. He said the value of the stones found was less than $3,000.

Asked about Banks’ claims in the Economic Voice, The Commissioner told us:

“that is a pure lie… the stones are small… for the quality of diamonds you would normally expect for a find in Lesotho I wouldn’t call it significant.”

Arron Banks told Channel 4 News

“Our mining activities in Lesotho were restricted to one licence where we have undertaken exploration work rather than full scale mining, we have made a small number of high quality alluvial diamond finds and we continue to assess the viability of mining in Lesotho. The purpose of an exploration licence is to establish whether diamonds are present in the area and then for alluvial traps.

“We absolutely refute the allegation that payments made to Mr Masirebane were made for granting of any licences. We have made four such applications for licences in Lesotho all of which are outstanding, two years after the original applications, for the very reason we would not prepared to make such payments.

“We met Mr Thesele Masirebane, who was the minister for Women and equalities , who promoted a number of charitable projects in Lesotho including Women’s empowerment and a group called the Lesotho Federation of Lady Business women.

“We financed a project to create a co-operative chicken farm in Lesotho and a number of micro projects that would employ women in their own cooperative businesses. The funds went directly to the Women’s group and not via the BNP or Mr Masirebane.

“I also donated £100,000 to “Sentbale”, to a charity formed jointly by the King and Prince Harry to help AIDS orphans in the country.

“We donated under R2M to help “Thesele Masirebane” and his work in Lesotho and were pleased to do so, given his commitment to women’s empowerment and poverty issues in the Kingdom, far from hiding this association we attended a rally in Maseru where we were publicly thanked in front of the crowd. This was reported in “the Times” at the time. We are proud of the work we did in Lesotho!…”

Greek fire survivors: 'All we have seen is tragedy and loss'

Mati residents describe the wind, flames and waves that devastated the resort


 Charred remains of cars in Mati, Greece. Photograph: Aristidis Vafeiadakis/Zuma/Rex/Shutterstock

Helena Smith in Mati-Tue 24 Jul 2018 

On Tuesday the devastation was complete. Much of Mati, the seaside resort at the centre of Greece’s worst wildfires in more than a decade, was no more.

In the inferno it had been rendered lifeless, its streets turned into carpets of ash, its buildings blackened, its cars morphed into carcasses of steel, some piled one on top of the other, testimony to the terror that had descended on the community on Monday afternoon. Gale-force winds had fanned flames as high as walls that had gobbled up the village.

And then there were the dead. By Tuesday afternoon an official death toll of 74 had been announced. With rescue workers going door to door and car to car finding bodies, there were almost certainly more.

What many had hoped would be the best escape from the flames and smoke – the sea – had instead become a route to death. Charred bodies were plucked from the water or found on beaches.


 A house burns during the wildfire in Mati. Photograph: Yannis Kolesidis/EPA

Nikos Stavrinidis, one of more than 700 survivors to be rescued by a flotilla of coastguard vessels, fishing boats and private craft, told how the winds had fanned the flames and whipped up the seas, disorienting those who had rushed into the ocean when there was nowhere else to run.

“It’s terrible to see the person next to you drowning and not be able to help,” he said, describing how he and a group of friends spent two hours struggling to stay afloat before salvation appeared in the form of an Egyptian-manned fishing boat.

Before disaster struck, it was the sound of the wind – louder than a roar and all-consuming – that had sounded the alarm. “It happened so fast. The fire was in the distance, then sparks from the fire reached us. Then the fire was all around us,” he said. “The wind was indescribable. It was incredible.”

As Alexis Tsipras, the Greek prime minister, declared three days of mourning, and firefighting planes flew overhead, disbelief hung heavy in Mati’s putrid air. Locals sat outside buildings, many in shorts and ash-covered T-shirts, holding their heads in their hands or looking aimlessly into the distance.

“No one has really understood reality, they are all in a state of shock,” said Aris Bouranis, the community’s president, stopping momentarily in his pickup truck on Poseidonos, Mati’s main street. “Dead people, dead people, there are dead people everywhere.”

Early on Tuesday the remains of 26 men, women and children had been found in an open lot off Poseidonos, almost all of them locked in embrace. Among them, mothers protectively holding their children – a last act before the flames engulfed them.

Retracing their steps, rescue workers believe most headed to the area because of its proximity to the sea before discovering in the smoke and confusion that there was no access from the clifftop to the beach below.

“It’s an absolute catastrophe,” sighed Tesse Pappa, one of countless volunteers who had rushed to the resort in her car to hand out medicine, water and food. “All we have seen, all day, is tragedy, sadness, disaster and loss.”

Among those who felt they had cheated death was Cleanthis Rorris, a retired sea captain. At 81, the white-haired former sailor has lived in Mati for almost half his life. He had built a studio – “my kingdom” – in the garden of a two-storey villa he had since handed to his children.

In a few hours the property had been reduced to cinders, with the exception of the studio which remained intact. “When the flames began to leap across the street I ran to my car so fast my shoes fell off,” he recalled, standing outside the villa’s charred remains on Stefanou Street.

An upright man, even in this dark hour he was sanguine. Was he not angry at how wicked nature could be?

“I’ve spent the day thinking about the elements. Half my life was spent at sea, the rest here on this piece of earth, and now with this awful fire I realise I have come full circle,” he said. “I’ve experienced them all and I am lucky. I am still here. I am still alive.”

A toxic town, a search for answers

Industrial chemicals dumped long ago still haunt Minden, W.Va., a community beset by cancer and fear. Like her father, physician Ayne Amjad is trying to track the links.

MINDEN, W.Va.

Story by Brady Dennis-

JULY 23, 2018
Even before Hassan Amjad’s family buried him on a West Virginia hillside, phone calls flooded his daughter’s office.

The callers remembered him as a kind man, boundless in his curiosity, fiery in his convictions, who had long maintained a medical clinic in nearby Oak Hill, in an old whitewashed house with a squeaky screen door and creaking wood floors.

A toxic town, a search for answers.docx by Thavam on Scribd

What companies can learn from the SingHealth hack

By Soumik Roy | 23 July, 2018

 

PATIENTS who had visited SingHealth’s specialist outpatient clinics and polyclinics between May 1, 2015 and Jul 4 this year have lost critical information to hackers.

The cyberattack, in progress since June this year, managed to acquire personal and clinical information related to 1.5 million Singaporean citizens and residents.

Among those affected are the country’s Prime Minister and several other government officials.
The leak, which came to light late on Friday evening, sparked the organization to send out 700,000 text messages to those affected, with the remaining messages set to go out soon.


According to local media, “investigations by the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) and the Integrated Health Information System (IHIS) confirmed that the attack was a “deliberate, targeted and well-planned cyberattack” and was not the work of casual hackers or criminal gangs”.

The recent cyberattack on Singapore’s largest group of healthcare institutions, which led to an unprecedented breach of personal data, indicates that no industry is safe from the increasingly targeted nature of cyber attacks.

Cybersecurity needs to be a priority

“Though no single silver bullet can mitigate all the risk, having the ability to detect threats in real time along with adopting a ‘data-centric’ approach can add credible strength to an organization’s defenses,” Micro Focus President for Asia Pacific and Japan Stephen McNulty told Tech Wire Asia.
In a large and heterogeneous technology environment, such as those within governments and businesses, finding a balance between data security and usability is a complex task.

While the information owners are looking to harness the power of data and develop its usability to drive better outcomes, they must ensure end to end security, which requires data to be secured at rest or when it’s being used across all environments.

It is important for governments and enterprises to build an overall cyber strategy that spans across traditional IT environment, modern application workload and smart devices.

This strategy must encompass identity, data security, application security, advanced security monitoring, and effective incident response.

“Today, information technology delivers incredible capabilities to our society and businesses. The evolution of Smart Cities and its corresponding Internet of Things (IoT) devices will certainly bring value and significantly improve citizens’ quality of life,” added McNulty.

However, this also means that as hackers and cyberattacks become more sophisticated, we must do more to protect what matters most – the data.

Evaluate, understand, and secure your data

Ultimately, data-centric security is the key enabler for unleashing the business potential, and its importance should never be overlooked.

With so much at stake and data driving information-driven companies, there are a lot of resources placed in protecting live data.

However, this sometimes comes at the cost of neglecting data that might be considered at first glance to be “offline”.

These include backup and archives, as well as secondary storage data that, while not always forming part of online systems, are still used by businesses for insight and analysis.

“Businesses should not fall into the trap of thinking that offline system data is safe – they still require proper control and audit, a comprehensive protection approach to ensure only authorized access, Commvault’s Director Systems Engineering Gary Lim told Tech Wire Asia.

In fact, 70 percent of data are secondary data but most businesses are only investing in protecting primary, or live, data.

A simple, complete approach to data protection and management is required to protect data, otherwise the weakest link (secondary data) – whether exploited by attackers or exposed through outages and technical failures – simply shifts to an equally vulnerable entry point.

Sri Lankan ‘war criminals’ deployed as UN peacekeepers

Confidential report says officers implicated in the abuse of Tamils were operating in Africa

UN peacekeeping forces in Darfur. Photograph: Ashraf Shazly/AFP/Getty Images

Mark Townsend@townsendmark-Sat 21 Jul 2018 

The UN has been sending alleged war criminals to act as peacekeepers in conflict zones, a confidential report claims.

The document, seen by the Observer, and sent to the UN’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations last month, claims that senior Sri Lankan officers accused of war crimes have been deployed to UN operations in Mali, Lebanon, Darfur and South Sudan.

Drawn up by the South-Africa based International Truth and Justice Project, the 41-page document, marked confidential, claims a cohort of senior Sri Lankan commanders who have been deployed to UN operations were involved in alleged abuses during the final phase of war with Tamil rebels in 2009.

Among them is a commander sent to oversee UN peacekeeping operations in Mali, west Africa, and who controlled Sri Lankan troop divisions alleged to have committed war crimes during the finale of Sri Lanka’s 26-year civil war, which left at least 100,000 people dead.

Another Sri Lankan commander said to be implicated in alleged abuses was appointed to lead a UN peacekeeping mission earlier this year, but was not eventually deployed.

However, it is confirmed that in 2016 a senior Sri Lankan officer was sent to Darfur, western Sudan, and another was deployed to South Sudan where fighting continues. Although the UN has introduced a vetting process for Sri Lankan soldiers involved in its peacekeeping missions, which is designed to screen out anyone who was involved in frontline combat positions in the final phase of the country’s civil war, campaigners say it has failed.

During the military offensive, reports of gross violations of international humanitarian law emerged, including allegations of repeated targeted attacks on civilians, hospitals and extrajudicial killings.
Yasmin Sooka, executive director of the International Truth and Justice Project, who has sat on a UN commission inquiry into sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers in the Central African Republic, said: “Sri Lanka’s security forces were involved in mass atrocities in 2009, for which there has been zero accountability – instead, alleged war criminals have been promoted and rewarded with prestigious and lucrative UN postings.

“This is an affront to those they are supposed to be protecting in Mali and Lebanon – as well as to victims in Sri Lanka who are desperate for justice. The UN needs to ensure countries like Sri Lanka publish the names and photographs of their peacekeepers a reasonable period before deployment, so that civil society can play a role in vetting them. Peacekeeping is a privilege, not a right – only the very best should represent the country.”

Her comments follow concerns raised by Tory MP Paul Scully, chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Tamils, who in May wrote to the UN’s peacekeeping operations asking for details of the vetting and screening process of members of Sri Lanka’s Special Task Force who may be deployed by the UN.

His letter makes reference to a senior Sri Lankan special task force officer “who appears to be currently deployed in Africa in a UN peacekeeping role, despite there being allegations that he was involved in ordering summary executions of Tamils in the east of Sri Lanka during the war”.
A UN Peacekeeping spokesperson said it was developing a strict vetting process with Sri Lanka to ensure all peacekeepers met their standards.

The UN said it was working with the government of Sri Lanka to ensure that the country’s domestic screening process complied with the UN’s policy on screening personnel. “This is necessary before the UN can receive any further deployments or rotations from Sri Lanka,” it added. It is important that all procedures and institutional arrangements are in place so that the domestic screening process can meet these requirements.

“The national Human Rights Commission plays a key role in this process and we trust the government will facilitate its important work.”