The boss of Denmark’s biggest bank has resigned after admitting that the vast majority of €200bn (£178bn) flowing through its Estonian branch was money-laundered cash flowing illegally out of Russia, the UK and the British Virgin Islands.
The bank said an independent investigation had found “a series of major deficiencies” in its controls to prevent money laundering. The investigation found that more than half of Dankse’s 15,000 customers in Estonia were suspicious.
“We have gone through 6,200 customers starting with the customers hitting most risk indicators first,” the bank said. “Almost all of these customers have been reported to the authorities.”
The investigation found that several dozen of its employees may have colluded with customers to get around background and security checks. The bank said it had reported some of its employees and former employees to the Estonian police.
The bank’s chairman, Ole Andersen, said the scandal was a “a deplorable matter”. “The findings of the investigations point to some very unacceptable and unpleasant matters at our Estonian branch, and they also point to the fact that a number of controls at the group level were inadequate in relation to Estonia,” he said. “We take the task of combating financial crime and money laundering very seriously, and we do and will do everything it takes to ensure that we never find ourselves in the same situation again.”
Dankse only admitted to the true extent of the money laundering scandal on Wednesday following increasing political pressure and US law enforcement agencies this week launching an investigation.
Borgen, who was in charge of Dankse’s international operations (including Estonia) before he became CEO in 2013, had previously dismissed other executives’ concerns about Russian transactions in Estonia. In a 2010 investigation Borgen said he had not “come across anything that could give rise to concern”.
The independent report by Danish law firm Bruun & Hjejle on Wednesday found that under Borgen’s leadership the Estonian branch had failed to disclosure the full situation to Dankse’s board.
Borgen said on Wednesday that the law firm had not found him to have breached the law. “Even though the investigation conducted by the external law firm concludes that I have lived up to my legal obligations, I believe that it is best for all parties that I resign,” he said.
Estonia’s Financial Supervision Authority (FSA) said it was examining the findings of the investigation. “The report describes serious shortcomings in the organisation of Danske Bank, where risk appetite and risk control were not in balance,” Kilvar Kessler, the chairman of the Estonian FSA, said.
Bill Browder, a US hedge fund manager who has been leading a crusade against corruption and money laundering by rich and powerful Russians, has claimed that Dankse’s Estonian branch was involved in the fraud uncovered by his lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who was beaten to death in a Russia jail.
Dankse said it would donate all its profits earned from the suspicious accounts between 2007 and 2015 to a charity focused on “combating international financial crime”. The donation totals 1.5bn Danish kroner (£178m). Analysts expect Dankse to be fined billions of dollars by Danish, European and US regulators.
Dutch bank ING earlier this month paid a €775m fine to settle an investigation that it had failed to detect money laundering. Last year Deutsche Bank was fined almost $700m for helping wealthy Russians move about $10bn out of the country.
Credit rating agency Standard and Poor’s has warned Denmark that the scandal may lead it to cutting the country’s AAA credit rating.
Ill-advised land swaps and population transfers won’t bring peace. They’re more likely to revive the bloodshed that plagued the Balkans during the 1990s.
A Kosovar police officer walks past burning logs as Kosovo Albanians gather around a barricade blocking access to a village due to be visited by the Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, on the main road between Mitrovica, in the north of Kosovo, and the village of Banje, a Serbian enclave on Sept. 9. (ARMEND NIMANI/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
BYMICHAEL ROSSI-
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
Since Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian leadership declared independence from Serbia in 2008, the territory has remained a disputed and partially sovereign entity. At present, it possesses recognition from more than 110 countries as diverse in power and influence as the United States and Germany to Malawi and Vanuatu. However, Kosovo’s sovereignty remains de facto; it has yet to achieve membership in the United Nations, has only distant prospects for entering the European Union, and is still largely dependent on the diplomatic sponsorship of patron states that speak in its defense.
At present, Kosovo’s sovereignty is opposed by Serbia, which enjoys support from Security Council members Russia and China; five countries in the EU, including Spain and Cyprus, which both have separatist problems of their own; and a number of other countries around the world like India, Brazil, and Indonesia. As such, Kosovo finds itself in a frozen conflict similar to other disputed territories like Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, and Abkhazia.
All have functionally separated from the state they broke away from, but all are unable to obtain de jure sovereignty.
Since 2011, the European Union has been actively involved in organizing a “normalization of relations” between Serbia and its wayward province. A number of proposals envision both sides coming to some sort of modus vivendi that may or may not include recognition, but certainly calls for a stable, democratic, integrated, and multiethnic Kosovo with an empowered Serbian minority that retains strong institutional links with its parent country. The trouble is that no agreement has been reached, which means membership in either the UN or the EU remains indefinitely blocked.
One option that frequently comes up is the partition of Kosovo at the Ibar River. This means reattaching to Serbia proper the northern tip of the territory that is overwhelmingly populated by ethnic Serbs and has effectively resisted being integrated into the ethnic Albanian-led government in Pristina, Kosovo’s capital. In return, Serbia would write off the rest of the territory as an independent state. Partition has been officially opposed by all sides, including the EU, the UN, and the United States, but it has been frequently suggested by a number of policymakers and analysts as a type of last-resort solution to ending an intractable impasse. Most recently, officials in the Trump Administration, including National Security Advisor John Bolton, have stated they are no longer opposed to such an idea if Belgrade and Pristina agree to it.
There is now talk of partitioning Kosovo alongside a larger “land swap” in which Serb-majority northern Kosovo is ceded to Serbia, while Kosovo gains the neighboring Albanian-majority Presevo Valley region of Serbia. In addition, Kosovo would allegedly be given membership at the UN while Serbia would get the proverbial “green light” for EU membership. The source of these rumors is Serbia’s president Aleksandar Vucic, whose grand political theatrics tend to portray him as the only person standing between Serbia and a diplomatic catastrophe over the fate of Kosovo. While he has neither confirmed nor denied such discussions are taking place with Hashim Thaci, his Kosovar counterpart, such talk has renewed tension between the two communities.
Arguments in favor of Kosovo’s partition have existed since 1999 and tend to revolve around the following points:
First, northern Kosovo has never come under the control of Pristina, either during the transitional period after NATO’s intervention in 1999 or after Kosovo’s declaration of independence in 2008. As such, Pristina lacks both authority and legitimacy among a population that overwhelmingly identifies as citizens of Serbia because, for all intents and purposes, Serbia has never really ceased to function there. Forms of identification are issued by Belgrade, goods are purchased with the Serbian dinar, Serbian election posters cover walls and signposts, and politicians from Belgrade regularly visit the region. Serbian radio and television stations fill the airwaves, Serbian power and telecommunications companies provide uninterrupted service, and schools continue to operate within a Serbian educational curriculum.
Second, despite the official claims by Kosovo’s Albanian leaders of territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders, most know the Serb-controlled north will never be fully integrated. Pristina’s authority there is, at best, visually symbolic. Real power resides within a murky mixture of authority from Belgrade, local political bosses, and a sophisticated organized criminal network that run the three municipalities and the urban center of Mitrovica north of the Ibar as a breakaway region within a separatist entity.
For years, Kosovo’s Albanian leadership has accused the north of running a number of “parallel” political, economic, and social systems with financial support from Belgrade
—an ironic statement to make since the roots of Albanian separatism in the region began with “parallel” institutions and active boycotts toward the-then Yugoslav state. More recently, these Serb parallel institutions have evolved into constitutionally-recognized political parties and organizations within Kosovo, but they still take their marching orders from Belgrade, rather than from Pristina.A third argument in favor of partition suggests there should at least be some sort of “concession” to Serbia if Kosovo is to gain de jure independence. The north will never be integrated, so the argument goes, but it is the only part of Kosovo that Serbia can feasibly defend due to its geographical proximity.
Given this reality, some Serbian officials favor partition in order to save what can still be saved before everything is lost, or so the rationalization has gone for years among officials in Belgrade. This would also mean that Serbia would renounce any claims to the rest of Kosovo which may also include a transfer of all Serbs living south of the Ibar. Similarly, the idea of a territorial swap of northern Kosovo for the Presevo Valley has been considered in some Kosovo Albanian circles as compensation for them “giving up the north.” In both cases, it would lead to population transfers reminiscent of those that took place in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and have no place in the twenty-first—a process disturbingly but tellingly labelled “peaceful ethnic cleansing” by the scholar Charles Kupchan in a recent New York Times op-ed.
Such a population transfer would produce, according to its supporters, a win-win situation in which both sides get territory populated by ethnic kin in exchange for losing a presumably disloyal and unruly ethnic minority.
They are wrong. Partition is both a bad and highly dangerous option—and has long been formally rejected by all parties for numerous reasons.
For Serbia, accepting partition effectively means having to recognize the loss of the rest of Kosovo, which not only undermines Belgrade’s claims about its territorial integrity, but also upends the idea that Kosovo is the heart of Serbia’s historical, cultural, and religious identity. Furthermore, the parts of Kosovo that actually matter to Serbian cultural identity and heritage—the medieval monasteries and towns, as well as the historical Kosovo Polje battlefield—are almost all south of the Ibar which would, in the event of a partition, be lost.
Aside from an historically significant monastery, a ruined fortress, and a curious Yugoslav-era monument, northern Kosovo holds little historic symbolism.
Its hub, the run-down industrial city of Mitrovica, has become an important outpost for Serbia that has empowered, and greatly enriched, a number of local officials. As a reincorporated part of Serbia, the influence of these individuals would diminish and the reincorporated northern part of Mitrovica would just become another dilapidated southern Serbian town under Belgrade’s influence. Local Serbs there might be in favor of partition because it solves their immediate problems, but the attention, special status, and generous funding from Belgrade the north has enjoyed since 1999 would effectively cease.
More important, it is the 60 percent of Kosovo’s Serbs south of the Ibar who risk losing the most, as partition would effectively leave them marooned within a rump Kosovo where the pressure to leave would come from both Belgrade and Albanian hardliners in Pristina who would feel far less obligated to respect minority rights. Alongside these communities is the influential Serbian Orthodox Church, whose monasteries and other holy sites have been frequent targets of Albanian extremists since 1999.
One of the most outspoken and internationally respected church figures, Father Sava Janjic, the Abbot of the immensely important Visoki Decani monastery, has taken to social media to point out the precarious position of the Serbian Church and its communities in central Kosovo where partition would be absolutely devastating for their future security and safety—especially if a potential land swap replaces 70,000 Serbs of northern Kosovo with nearly 70,000 Albanians from the Presevo Valley.
Albanians share the same sentiment against partition but for different reasons. Pristina holds that Kosovo’s borders cannot be compromised, and the north remains an inalienable part of its territory. While popular Albanian sentiment might favor getting rid of an unruly north, officials agree with the position of many Western policymakers that a partition of Kosovo would seriously undercut Kosovo’s future economic benefits. Northern Kosovo is home to the Trepca Mines—itself straddling both sides of the Ibar—and the Gazivode hydroelectric dam and power station. While including the north in Kosovo raises the possibility of Serbs having a definitive stake in both operations, partitioning the territory would cede these engines of the economy to Serbia. Gaining the Presevo Valley would add little value to Kosovo’s already rudimentary economy.
Beyond Kosovo, a partition and land swap would do nothing for the Albanians of the Presevo Valley, who as residents of Serbia currently benefit from being citizens of an internationally recognized country with all rights and benefits of travel, access to international organizations, and EU-supported standards of minority rights. Being annexed to Kosovo would suddenly make them part of a disputed territory with limited international access and even less international mobility.
Finally, partition would destroy years of work by the United States and key Western European powers that have provided a carefully crafted image of Kosovo as a multiethnic society as well as efforts in convincing Serb and Albanian communities to live together. Internationally backed agreements between Belgrade and Pristina in setting up powers of autonomy for Kosovo Serbs would go up in smoke.
Beyond that, the carefully crafted argument by the West that Kosovo’s separation from Serbia was “sui generis” and that no other changes to borders would be supported would suddenly be upended. The threat of drawing new borders could open a Pandora’s Box in the region that would encourage Serbs in Bosnia and Albanians in Macedonia to seek similar arrangements of territorial secession and unification with their ethnic kin.
Were this to happen, the international community would be forced to intervene in the Balkans to halt yet another ethnonationalist land grab.
The international powers invested in finding a lasting solution to Kosovo’s disputed status need to discourage any further talk of partition. It is an endgame that benefits no one except extremists and short-sighted elites on both sides. “Velvet divorces” and “negotiated” territorial adjustments are not part of the region’s history; war and ethnic cleansing sadly are. Any calls to redraw borders and swap territory would almost certainly degenerate into the sort of violence and chaotic population exchanges that plagued the region in the 1990s. It would be an abdication of leadership to invite the return of such wars to European soil.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un (R) and South Korean President Moon Jae-in (L) wave to Pyongyang citizens from an open-topped as they drive through Pyongyang on September 18, 2018. Source: Pyeongyang Press Corps / AFP
FOR the third time in less than a year, the leaders of North and South Korea greeted each other with outstretched hands and a reconciliatory mindset.
South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in stepped off the plane at Pyongyang airport on Tuesday and was greeted by cheering crowds and an honour guard of soldiers as the two leaders made their way to waiting limousines.
2018 has proven to be a whirlwind of diplomacy on the Korean peninsula. Just 12 months ago the prospect of the two sides meeting at all seemed an impossibility, but after an unorthodox and surprisingly effective intervention by US president Donald Trump – not to mention months of groundwork from Moon – North Korean leader Kim Jong Un finally came to the negotiating table.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un (R) and his wife Ri Sol Ju (2nd L) welcome South Korean President Moon Jae-in (2nd R) and his wife Kim Jung-sook (L) during a welcoming ceremony at Pyongyang SooAn airport on September 18, 2018. Source: Pyeongyang Press Corps / AFP
The summit is expected to last three days with a lot to discuss in that relatively short period of time. Given the shifting geopolitical relationship between the two, the agenda promises to be jam-packed with denuclearisation no doubt near the top of the list.
Denuclearisation
Moon is expected to act as mediator in faltering talks between Kim and the United States regarding the regime’s plans to denuclearise.
Talks have reached a stalemate with Pyongyang insisting the US make some concessions before they begin the process of denuclearisation, and the US insisting Pyongyang begin denuclearisation before the US makes any concessions. Needless to say, the process has stalled.
The hope is Moon can jumpstart discussion by extracting some even minor concession from Kim, who has repeatedly reaffirmed his commitment to disarm.
All players in this game have pledged to work towards ending the Korean War. As it was halted by an armistice in 1953, the war has never officially been declared over.
In the Panmunjom Declaration from the first inter-Korean summit, both North and South agreed to peace on the peninsula before the year is out. And Trump reportedly told Kim in June that he would sign a declaration to end the war soon after their meeting in Singapore.
And there lies the sticking point. Trump hasn’t done this. In fact, the United States has backed away from the idea, cancelling talks and reaffirming sanctions to be stricter than ever.
Pyongyang citizens wave bouquets as they watch a car parade of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in on a street in Pyongyang on September 18, 2018. Source: Pyeongyang Press Corps / AFP
As Trump has not fulfilled his promise, Kim has shown no leeway on his part. But the clock is ticking, and if the end of year goal is going to be met, something’s got to give.
Moon is scheduled to travel to New York after the Korean summit where he will meet with Trump. If he is able to come bearing a sign of goodwill from Kim, he’s is likely to find a far more receptive president.
It’s possible – although unlikely – Kim may be willing to provide an inventory of his weapons (accurate or not). Something the US has been after for some time. Failing this, he may at least make his freeze on nuclear and missile tests official by putting it down on paper.
Central to discussions will be improving ties between the two Koreas through cooperation and joint projects.
Moon entered their first negotiations in April with grand plans for major economic partnerships. But with the US cracking the whip with sanctions against the North, any meaningful collaboration is difficult to engineer.
Having said that, there’s no doubt they will still be discussed. Collaborations include plans to improve North Korea’s failing infrastructure and intentions to one day break ground on the Seoul-Pyongyang-China railway.
Given the Supreme Leader’s newly discovered focus on improving his country’s crippled economy, Kim is likely to be frustrated at the slow progress on the economic front as he has been calling for sanctions to be eased since his flurry of diplomacy began in early 2018.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un (front L) and South Korean President Moon Jae-in (front R) review honour guards during a welcoming ceremony at Pyongyang airport on September 18, 2018. Source: Pyeongyang Press Corps / AFP
One area they will likely make progress is military cooperation. In April, the two sides agreed to halt “all hostile acts” against each other on land, sea and air. Since then, high ranking military officials have been conducting talks to build military trust and reduce tensions.
Seoul’s top presidential security adviser, Chung Eui-yong, told a security forum in Seoul last week: “South and North Korea are making attempts virtually at an entry level of an operational arms control beyond the level of confidence-building between their military authorities,” as reported by Yonhap.
If Kim and Moon can walk away with concrete arms control measures and an official agreement on military cooperation, then this would be a win for both sides.
Until America is ready to play ball, a lot of the agreements to come from the three-day event will likely be symbolic rather than concrete and actionable. But any progress is better than no progress, and this will be another significant step on the road to Korean reconciliation.
Venezuela’s President says he may skip the United Nations General Assembly in New York next week, because he’s worried he’ll be assassinated if he travels abroad.
He’s facing a furious backlash at home over the last foreign trip he made, when he stopped in Istanbul to dine on a sumptuous steak dinner with a celebrity chef. He’s been accused of gluttony and indifference, amid crippling food shortages in the country.
People walk in front of polling stations covered from outside by Egyptian flags and posters of Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi during the preparations for tomorrow's presidential election in Cairo, Egypt, March 25, 2018. REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
CAIRO (Reuters) - Amnesty International on Wednesday accused Egypt’s government of mounting a crackdown on freedom of expression that had turned the country into an “open-air prison” for critics.
The international human rights group said authorities had arrested at least 111 people since December for criticising President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and Egypt’s human rights situation in a campaign that surpassed any under ousted President Hosni Mubarak.
“It is currently more dangerous to criticize the government in Egypt than at any time in the country’s recent history,” Amnesty’s North Africa Campaigns Director, Najia Bounaim, said in a statement.
“Egyptians living under President al-Sisi are treated as criminals simply for peacefully expressing their opinions.”
A government spokesman had no immediate comment on the Amnesty report when contacted by Reuters.
The security services had ruthlessly clamped down on independent political, social and cultural spaces, Amnesty said.
“These measures, more extreme than anything seen in former President Hosni Mubarak’s repressive 30-year rule, have turned Egypt into an open-air prison for critics,” it said.
Sisi’s supporters maintain the president, who was reelected in March, has been trying to combat an Islamist insurgency and restore order to the country following years of chaos after Arab Spring demonstrations forced Mubarak to step down in 2011.
They say that Sisi has improved security since 2013, when as army chief he ousted Islamist President Mohamed Mursi following mass protests against his rule.
Among those arrested were at least 35 people held on charges of “unauthorized protest” and “joining a terrorist group” after a peaceful protest against metro fare increases, and comics and satirists who posted commentary online, Amnesty said.
They also include prominent figures and possible presidential contenders, such as former military chief of staff Sami Anan and former presidential contender Abdel Moneim Abol Fotouh, as well as former state auditor Hesham Genena.
Amnesty said at least 28 journalists were also among those detained since December 2017.
“President al-Sisi’s administration is punishing peaceful opposition and political activists with spurious counter-terrorism legislation and other vague laws that define any dissent as a criminal act,”
Bounaim said.
Suu Kyi was blamed for not using her “moral authority”. The Outgoing Human Rights Chief Ali Hussain added his bit to declare that Suu Kyi should have resigned! Good that he has himself left his job
by Dr S. Chandrasekharan
( September 17, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Myanmar Government appears to be coming under a siege mainly by the international organizations and some western countries. If their idea is to throw Myanmar back into the arms of the Chinese, they are perhaps already succeeding. Even if the Government and the people want to get out of the stranglehold of China, the mission of these agencies is to ensure that it does not happen.
First, was the highly critical report of the UN Sponsored Fact- Finding Mission on the Rohingya Issue. The Report was not expected to be favourable, but what was surprising was that the report was unusually severe and controversial words like “genocidal intent”, “War Crimes” were freely used. It even went to the extent of asking other countries not to provide arms to the Myanmar Army.
Suu Kyi was blamed for not using her “moral authority”. The Outgoing Human Rights Chief Ali Hussain added his bit to declare that Suu Kyi should have resigned! Good that he has himself left his job
Then came the report that the Rohingya incidents are being taken up by the International Criminal Court, where Myanmar has not so, far accepted its jurisdiction. Yet a case is being made out that since some part of action took place ( no one knows what these were) in Bangladesh which is a signatory, a specious case is being made that the court has jurisdiction.
The most recent one is the conviction of two Reuters Correspondents Kyo Wa Lone and Ko Kyaw Soe Oo to seven years in jail by the Yangon Northern Court Judge for possessing Secret documents and thus culpable for “state Security Breach”.
There is no doubt that the case was badly handled by the prosecution with prosecution witnesses stumbling while giving evidence. It is also admitted that the two correspondents who had been sent by the Reuters secretly investigate the Inn Din Killings were lured into a trap laid by the security forces and caught with official documents. This was admitted by one of the Prosecution witnesses himself.
Yet what is not understandable is -How can the journalists sponsored by the Western Media violate the local laws to obtain some information when investigation on these incidents were being conducted at various eves by the Government and other international entities? Would they have made a similar attempt in a country like China where it is well known that the minority Uighurs are being suppressed?
Instead, the State is being accused of waging a war against the media!
Suu Kyi in one of her meetings in Vietnam strongly defended the jailing of the two Reuters correspondents.
During the four- day visit to Singapore Suu Kyi made very significant points on the 2008 Constitution, the role of the Army , relationship of the Government with the Army etc. These appear to have been lost sight of. It looks that the West as well as international agencies have not understood the internal political dynamics of Myanmar where the Army has a stranglehold on matters relating to Defence, Internal administration and on border management.
When Suu Kyi was asked in Singapore on amendment of the Constitution, she made a clear statement that the undemocratic provisions in the Constitution that gave rights to the Myanmar Army (Tatmadaw), needed to be changed by negotiation and that she would rely on step by step negotiation towards national reconciliation.
To another question whether there is a possibility of an Army Coup she said that this question has to be put to the Army. In one of the commentaries in a media, it was said that if the Tatmadaw sticks to the Constitution, there could be no seizure of power. This appears to be a very naïve assessment- constitution or no constitution the Army will grab power if needed as it had done before under NeWin!
However, Suu Kyi can take some satisfaction on the developments in the ethnic conflicts that have afflicted the country since independence.
First, was that for the first time, in the first week of September, the Representatives of the Peace Commission formally met three members of the Northern Alliance – the Arakan Army, the Ta’ang National Liberation Army and the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army. These groups have not signed the National Cease fire Agreement. The Representatives of the two major groups the KIA/KIO and the Wa State Army were also present.
These groups all operate on the China border and the meeting took place in Yunnan with Chinese support. This was a first and an historic occasion. Though there were no substantial progress in the talks, the fact that a meeting took place officially is a positive indicator.
Ten Ethnic Groups that have signed the Cease fire Agreement met separately for two days at Chiangmai on September 7, to draw up a strategy to move the peace process forward and to engage with the other armed groups that have not signed the cease fire agreement.
These are positive developments, but the Elephant in the Room is the Myanmar Army- the Tatmadaw who will have to stop fighting the Kachins and even with some of those groups that have signed the ceasefire agreement. Unless the Army relents there could be no progress on ethnic reconciliation which was one of the priorities of Suu Ky’s government.
The International Criminal Court has initiated a preliminary investigation into alleged crimes against the Rohingya. More than 700,000 mostly Muslim Rohingya have fled their homes into Bangladesh since August last year [Mohammad Ponir Hossain/Reuters]
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has launched a preliminary investigation into Myanmar's crackdown on the Muslim-majority Rohingya that forced hundreds of thousands to flee across the border to Bangladesh.
The examination will look at a range of allegations against Myanmar's security forces that could include the killing of Rohingya civilians, sexual violence, forced disappearance, destruction and looting, ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said in a written statement on Tuesday.
"A preliminary examination is not an investigation but a process of examining the information available in order to reach a fully informed determination on whether there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation," Bensouda added.
Myanmar has repeatedly argued that the ICC does not have jurisdiction to investigate the allegations because it is not a party to the Rome Statute, which established the court.
The ICC authorised Bensouda to open the case after its judges ruled that the alleged crime of deportation happened partly in Bangladesh, which is a member of the court.
"While Myanmar is not a State Party to the ICC, Bangladesh is. The Court may therefore exercise jurisdiction over conduct to the extent it partly occurred on the territory of Bangladesh," Bensouda wrote.
The announcement followed the release of a UN report that detailed allegations of crimes committed by the Myanmar military against the Rohingya.
It reiterated earlier findings that some senior Myanmar military officials should be prosecuted for war crimes and genocide.
Myanmar's ambassador in Geneva called that report "one-sided" and "flawed."
Exodus
More than 700,000 mostly Muslim Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh since August last year.
The UN's refugee agency, UNHCR, estimates that children make up 55 percent of the total Rohingya refugee population in Bangladesh.
A family-counting exercise conducted in December 2017 by the UNHCR found more than 5,500 families being led by children under 18.
The Rohingya were stripped of citizenship in 1982 and have been subject to persecution in the Rakhine state of Myanmar, where most lived.
Labelled 'Bengali' by the government and much of the Myanmar population, to infer that they are interlopers from Bangladesh, Rohingya are denied access to healthcare, education and freedom of movement.
Sick babies admitted to a neonatal unit after a difficult birth could benefit from a new bedside tool to detect brain damage, researchers believe.
The team at University College London has developed a device which shines light into the brain to monitor oxygen and energy levels.
Broadband near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) could help doctors assess brain damage earlier and tailor treatment.
A clinical trial of the technology is now planned.
According to the National Neonatal Database, around three in 1,000 babies born in England suffer brain injury at or soon after birth, due to lack of oxygen during delivery.
While many affected newborns recover, more than half develop disabilities, and one in 10 dies.
The risk is higher in babies born before 37 weeks, where up to 26 in 1,000 babies are affected.
Light detection
Early detection and treatment of brain injury could help doctors work out whether treatments are working and predict the severity of injury.
Until now, doctors have often had to wait several days before newborn babies are stable enough to undergo an MRI scan to look for brain injury.
Doctors already use light sensors to measure tissue oxygen levels, but the new equipment also measures energy levels in brain cells.
The device shines red and infra-red light into the baby's brain
Speaking at the British Science Festival in Hull, Dr Gemma Bale, an engineer from University College London working on the NIRS instrument, explained: "The device, which can be used straight after birth, is placed on the head and shines red and infra-red light into the brain.
"This type of light can more easily penetrate the body, like when you shine a torch on your hand.
"Changes in brain oxygen levels and energy usage change the colour of the light that is reflected back.
"Our sensors measure the reflected light to work out whether brain cells are healthy or damaged," she said.
'Critical time'
Babies with reduced metabolism are those who are likely to do badly, as it means parts of their brain are too damaged to function.
Dr Bale said this offered a more patient-focused approach.
The light can penetrate the body more easily, as light from a torch does onto a hand
"The first week after birth is a really critical time in babies' development. If we are able to get in sooner to assess the damage, we can tailor treatment to save lives and help prevent disability further down the line."
Dr Kathy Beardsall, a neonatologist from Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge, said: "In these vulnerable babies, being able to use a bedside, non-invasive technology would be a great advance in care.
"It overcomes the problem of having to wait and transfer babies off the intensive care unit for an MRI when they are more stable."
The UCL team is planning a clinical trial to see whether the new technology could improve the care of newborn babies with suspected brain injury.
The recent interventions of President Maithripala Sirisena into issues of governance brings out sharp differences of opinion within the government coalition he heads. The most significant of these is his bid to break free from the commitments made by the government to the international community with regard to issues of war time accountability for serious human rights violations. In October 2015 the newly elected government eased tensions that had been escalating between the previous government and sections of the international community and which had contributed to the imposition of economic sanctions. The European Union had withdrawn the GSP Plus tariff concession and there were indications of further sanctions to come. By co-sponsoring UN Resolution 30/1 at the UN Human Rights Council, the government pledged to embark on a wide ranging series of actions that would deal with the past and pave the way for national reconciliation.
However, the issue of accountability for war crimes and human rights violations as a result of international pressure has been a controversial one to the Sri Lankan security forces and the Sinhalese ethnic majority. Recently President Sirisena has been stating that he will amicably propose alternatives to the commitments that the government made in Geneva. The most controversial of those has been to have the participation of the international community in the establishment of a special judicial mechanism to look into questions of accountability. Both President Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe have clarified that this international participation does not amount to the setting up of hybrid courts in which international judges sit in judgment alongside national judges.
President Maithripala Sirisena has said that he will go before the UN General Asssembly to urge in an amicable manner that the resolution on Sri Lanka co-sponsored by the government should be amended as it had led to the perception that the Sri Lankan security forces were being unfairly targeted for punitive action. He has said he will submit these proposals to the United Nations Secretary General António Guterres as well as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet. The President said that the proposals aim at solving issues and providing relief without causing harm to the pride of the security forces or endangering Lanka's independence. The president will be addressing the UN General Assembly on September 25.
POLITICAL SIEGE
The government is today under political siege for many reasons, not least for failing to boost the economy and ensure adequate trickle down to the masses of people. But another major reason is for having co-sponsored UNHRC resolution 30/1 of October 2015 which set out ambitious targets to be achieved within a two year framework. The daunting nature of the government’s task in implementing this "Geneva Resolution" becomes clear in the absence of support from within the ranks of government for its implementation. Every reform has been contested, including the establishment of the Office of Missing Persons. It was therefore no surprise that in March 2017, the Sri Lankan government requested a further two years to implement the transitional justice agenda set out in UNHRC resolution 30/1.
Last week, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, who commanded the army in the concluding phase of the war, and is a cabinet minister, claimed that the cabinet of ministers was unaware of the contents of UNHRC resolution 30/1 at the time it was signed by the government. Even today it would not be too surprising if knowledge of what that resolution contains is a haze to the members of the government. In these circumstances, it is to the credit of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, and a handful of ministers such as Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera (who signed UNHRC resolution 30/1 on behalf of the government as Foreign Minister) that the transitional justice process is moving forward at all. They have accepted the need to reach international standard. The question is how to accommodate those standards to national political realities.
The Office of Missing Persons (OMP) is the first of the transitional justice mechanisms to be established in keeping with the pledges of UNHRC resolution 30/1. Last week it issued its interim report. This is a comprehensive document with strong recommendations. The question is how much can and will be implemented. The OMP recommended the publication of a full list of all detention centres as well as detainees and ensure that persons are not detained in any unauthorised detention centres. However, there is a fundamental problem that the OMP will need to deal with. This is the fact that the Sri Lankan security forces, the defense establishment and the Sinhalese ethnic majority led by President Sirisena himself see in every effort to dig into the past, an insidious attempt to find evidence that will one day incriminate those who won the war in a court of law.
SLOW MOVEMENT
Despite these contrary pressures, the government is still pushing ahead, even if slowly. The second transitional justice mechanism, the Office for Reparations, has recently been approved by the Cabinet of Ministers and is now to be placed before Parliament to be passed into law. The third mechanism, the Truth seeking Commission is on the drawing board. In the context of Sri Lanka’s divided polity and opinion on the issue of transitional justice there will be a need for more time, more wisdom and more political will to find the way forward. In other parts of the world, these processes have taken decades to unfold. However, it will be important for President Sirisena and the government to be mindful that UN institutions such as the UN Human Rights Council have their own mandates and autonomy.
The UN Human Rights Council, which co-sponsored UNHRC Resolution 30/1 is not under the direct control of the UN General Assembly. This explains why even the United States, though arguably the most powerful country in the world, was unable to influence the UNHRC and has withdrawn from that institution while denouncing it. Therefore it is not reasonable to believe that the international community, especially those whose mandate is to protect human rights, will be prepared to negotiate and water down the need for accountability as measured by international standards as against Sri Lankan standards. The President’s actions are also likely to come at a political cost to the government as they will not be acceptable to the Tamil people and to their elected representatives.
President Sirisena’s recent interventions in regard to a case involving the Chief of Defence Staff Rear Admiral Ravi Wijegunaratne who is wanted by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) in connection with allegedly aiding and abetting a navy officer in a criminal case has led to the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) demanding that the entire range of accountability issues here should be subjected to international judicial process. Jaffna District MP and TNA spokesman M A Sumanthiran has told The Island that interference by ‘highest authorities in the country’ meant that the victims could not expect justice through domestic judicial process. There is a need therefor for more and more leaders within the government to understand the complex elements of transitional justice that need to be followed for Sri Lanka’s transition to a reconciled society.
A request made by Northern Province Chief Minister C.V.Wigneswaran to defer contempt of court proceedings filed against him was yesterday rejected by the Court of Appeal.
Wigneswaran through his lawyer K.Kanag-iswaran PC made an application to defer contempt of court proceedings until the Supreme Court makes an order regarding a leave to appeal petition filed by his client.
However, the Court of Appeal’s two-judge-bench comprising Justice Kumuduni Wickremesinghe and Justice Janak de Silva decided to proceed with the contempt of court charges.
The Court of Appeal made this order as a part of contempt of court proceedings filed by B.Denishwaran alleging that the Northern Province Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran and Ananthi Sasitharan and K.Sivanesan have willfully acted in contempt of the Court of Appeal order since they prevented him from acting as a Minister of the Northern Province.
Wigneswaran and two others appeared before the Court of Appeal yesterday over the complaint that they have intentionally acted in contempt of the Court of Appeal order.
President’s Counsel K.Kanag-iswaran raised several preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the contempt of court proceedings.Further hearing fixed for October 16.
The Court of Appeal yesterday further extended the Interim Order, preventing the decision of Northern Province Chief Minister C.V.Wigneswaran to remove B.Denishwaran from functioning as the province’s Fisheries and Transport Minister until October 17.
Denishwaran stated that Justice Wigneswaran has, by his conduct and statements, acted in contumacious and willful disobedience of the order of the Court of Appeal and thus committed an act of contempt against the authority and dignity of the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal on June 29 issued an Interim Order preventing the decision of Northern Province Chief Minister C.V.Wigneswaran to expel B.Denishwaran from functioning as the province’s Fisheries and Transport Minister.
The petitioner B.Denishwaran had challenged Northern Province Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran in the Court of Appeal, complaining that the Chief Minister had no power to appoint or remove any Provincial Council minister.
Wigneswaran had also filed an appeal in the Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeal’s Interim Order to prevent Wigneswaran’s decision to remove B. Denishwaran from functioning as the province’s Fisheries and Transport Minister. This appeal is to be taken up before Court on September 28.
Counsel Suren Fernando appeared for petitioner Denishwaran. President’s Counsel K. Kanag-iswaran appeared for Chief Minister Wigneswaran. M.A.Sumanthiran PC appeared for the fifth respondent.
More than 700,000 mostly Muslim Rohingya have fled their homes into Bangladesh since August last year [Mohammad Ponir Hossain/Reuters]
