Peace for the World

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

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

Analysis: On Iraq's border with Syria, Iran-backed militia warily eye U.S. forces


A Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) fighter takes his position in al-Qaim, Iraq, near the border with Syria, November 27, 2018. REUTERS/Alaa al-Marjani/Files

John Davison-DECEMBER 12, 2018

Al-QAIM, Iraq (Reuters) - From a desert hillside guarded by Iraqi Shi’ite paramilitaries, commander Qasim Muslih can spot Islamic State hideouts across the frontier in Syria. But he also keeps a wary eye on U.S. warplanes soaring overhead.

“The Americans are spying on us,” he said, squinting skywards. “But we can hold the borders. We’ll fight whoever lays a finger on Iraq and its holy shrines.”

The fighters Muslih commands are part of the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF), a grouping of mostly Shi’ite militias backed by Iran, which the United States regards as the biggest threat to security in the Middle East.

The PMF has been deploying in growing numbers at the border, fearing hundreds of Islamic State militants who fled Iraq are trying to cross back into Iraqi territory.

The deployment is strengthening the PMF’s de facto control over large stretches of the frontier while its leaders are calling for a formal, permanent role securing the border.

But with fewer Sunni militants to contend with on the Iraqi side a year after Baghdad declared victory over IS, many Shi’ite paramilitaries now see the United States as a bigger threat.

The White House has indicated the U.S. military presence is as much about countering Iran’s influence as fighting IS, which is also known as ISIS. Asked about the suggestion of spying on the PMF, a coalition spokesman said: “The Coalition is concerned with the enduring defeat of ISIS.”

As the battle against a mutual foe rumbles on, Washington and Tehran are keeping a close eye on each other in this part of the region, raising the risk of new violence.

The PMF officially became part of Iraq’s security forces this year after playing an important role fighting IS.

Factions including Iran-backed groups that fight inside Syria have concentrated their recent build-up around the town of al-Qaim, which was recaptured from IS in November 2017 and was the last IS bastion in Iraq to fall last year.

The PMF control movement in and out of the town near the border with Syria. One commander, Abu Seif al-Tamimi, said the PMF now held a 240-km (150-mile) stretch of frontier in the area.

“We’re ready to take over security,” Muslih said in al-Qaim. “We liberated these areas and didn’t need help from the Americans.”

Military commanders in units not allied with Iran say U.S. air power was crucial to the defeat of IS in a three-year campaign involving the military, Iraqi Kurdish fighters and the PMF.

U.S. forces have kept their bases in place. On the road to al-Qaim, U.S. armoured vehicles passed PMF pickup trucks with masked fighters behind machine guns.

‘WILD WEST SITUATION’

South of the town there are signs of growing PMF control and an increasingly crowded battlefield. The watchtowers of Iraq’s border guard which nominally polices the frontier disappear, and the paramilitaries are the only force. Flags of Shi’ite factions fly at outposts a short drive from a one of the U.S. bases.

In Syria, the U.S. coalition supports Kurdish-led forces who control areas east of the Euphrates and have been fighting off a new IS offensive. In Iraq it supports the Iraqi military.

Fighting the militants on the other side of the river is the Syrian army, backed by Iran, Russia and the PMF, whose elite factions straddle the frontier.

A fighter at one outpost said a U.S. warplane recently made a low pass over their position. “They’re trying to scare us,” he said.

Tension rose in June when the PMF blamed the United States for the deaths of 22 of its fighters in an air strike near the border and threatened to retaliate.
The U.S. coalition denied involvement in the strike.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said “outright” aggression was not expected by Shi’ite militias before IS was fully defeated.

“The question is what are they going to do once things are done,” the official said.
The build-up of forces already risks a clash even if both sides wish to avoid it, said Philip Smyth, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

“Nearly every major Iranian-backed Shi’ite militia has forces deployed near al-Qaim ... that is the glowing hot dot on the map,” he said. “The danger is always there (and) the Americans clearly don’t have the forces to handle that. We only have a couple of thousand guys in the area. If the militias want to turn on the problems, they can. It’s a Wild West situation.”

 Slideshow (9 Images)

Muslih said there were 20,000 fighters deployed near the border under his command, from al-Qaim to areas to the southwest near Jordan, and more reinforcements were ready. The PMF is estimated to have a total of about 150,000 fighters.

Iran is seeking to secure its growing sway over a corridor of territory from Tehran to Beirut.
Washington says it is prepared to counter that with force. “We’re not going to leave as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders and that includes Iranian proxies,” White House national security adviser John Bolton said in September.

POWERFUL POLITICAL ALLIES

The U.S. coalition says it is focused on defeating Islamic State militants who analysts estimate number thousands along the frontier.

“The Coalition has an outstanding relationship with the Iraqi security forces and all decisions are made with close coordination with our partners,” coalition spokesman Colonel Sean Ryan said.

But those partners do not include the PMF, and this complicates coordination and Washington’s relations with Baghdad. The PMF has powerful political allies, some of whom have seats in Iraq’s parliament and say they seek an end to the U.S. military presence in Iraq.

“The army coordinates with the U.S. but doesn’t understand the threat posed by the American presence,” Muslih said.

Qais al-Khazali, a powerful militia leader whose political wing counts 15 parliamentary seats, told Reuters in an interview there was no reason for U.S. combat troops to remain.

Formed in 2014 as an unofficial umbrella group for Shi’ite fighters battling Islamic State, the PMF has always been dominated by factions close to Iran, and now reports to Iraq’s prime minister.

A recent wage increase from the government brought PMF pay into line with that of Iraqi soldiers. Many PMF commanders say they are now funded only by the Iraqi state, but praise Iran for support that has included weapons and advisers.

“Iran sent everything when we needed help,” Muslih said. “America is an enemy.”

Additional reporting by Jonathan Landay and Idrees Ali in Washington, Editing by Timothy Heritage

Nicolás Maduro accuses White House of direct role in assassination attempt

Venezuelan president also claimed ‘ultra-right locos’ within Brazil’s incoming government were plotting to invade his country

 Nicolás Maduro speaks during a press conference at the Miraflores palace in Caracas, Venezuela, on 12 December. Photograph: Federico Parra/AFP/Getty Images

 Latin -
Venezuela’s embattled president, Nicolás Maduro, has accused the White House of playing a direct role in an attempt to assassinate him and claimed “ultra-right locos” within Brazil’s incoming government were plotting to invade his country.

At a press conference in the presidential Miraflores palace in Caracas, Maduro said he had “no doubt” that the US government had ordered and authorized the botched strike against him last August with explosive-laden drones and continued to plot against him. He offered no evidence to support the allegations.

Maduro claimed the US hoped to install a rightwing dictatorship in Venezuela and accused the US media of waging an “incessant” media campaign against his government in order to justify a foreign military intervention in Venezuela.

The US national security adviser, John Bolton, had personally hatched a plan “to fill Venezuela with violence”, Maduro alleged, urging Donald Trump to abandon the supposed conspiracy and turn away from “conflict and confrontation”.

In November Bolton described Venezuela as part of a Latin American “troika of tyranny” that had “finally met its match”.

Last year Trump told reporters there were “many options” to resolve the Venezuelan crisis including a military one. In December the US defense secretary, James Mattis, called Maduro “an irresponsible despot” who would ultimately “have to go”.

Maduro vowed to resist what he called the “neo-fascist madness” of his foreign foes and called on the international community to denounce the alleged plot against him. “Our message to the world is: it’s time to defend Venezuela!” he said. “Venezuela will not be a victim of a neo-fascist aggression.”

“We will not retreat, we will not be brought to our knees, we will not give up. We will fight and we will guarantee Venezuela peace … whatever the price,” Maduro added.

“We don’t want violence, or international conflicts, or war, or coups. No, no, no, no. The people want progress, prosperity and coexistence.”

Venezuela’s president also lashed out at Brazil’s incoming president, Jair Bolsonaro, and his vice-president, Hamilton Mourão, who he claimed was obsessed with the idea of invading Venezuela.
“This guy is crazy,” Maduro said of Mourão. “Saying a Brazilian military force is going to enter Venezuela is crazy talk.”

“Nobody in Brazil wants the incoming government of Jair Bolsonaro to get involved in a military adventure against the Venezuelan people,” he said.

Bolsonaro, who takes power on 1 January, has made no secret of his loathing of Maduro and last year vowed to “do whatever is possible to see that government be deposed”.

But in a recent interview with the Brazilian magazine Piauí, Mourão struck a more moderate tone:
“It’s the Venezuelans who have to solve the Venezuelans’ problems,” he said.

President Trump sought Wednesday to gain leverage from a terrorist attack at a Christmas market in France in a battle with Democratic congressional leaders over funding of his long-promised wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

In a morning tweet, Trump referenced the incident in the eastern French city of Strasbourg as he made an appeal to Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for votes on border security.

“Another very bad terror attack in France,” Trump wrote. “We are going to strengthen our borders even more. Chuck and Nancy must give us the votes to get additional Border Security!”
Trump’s tweet came less than 24 hours after an extraordinary Oval Office meeting with Schumer and Pelosi in which they publicly sparred with Trump over his demand for $5 billion for the border wall that he made a central promise of his 2016 campaign.

Democrats have offered no more than $1.3 billion for border fencing as part of a larger budget deal.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) sparred with President Trump over border wall funding.
The stunning spat — which Schumer characterized as a Trump “temper tantrum” — ended with the president declaring he would be proud to shut down the government to get the money he wants for the wall.

If the president follows through on the threat, about 25 percent of the federal government would begin to run out of money Dec. 21, putting hundreds of thousands of federal workers at risk of getting furloughed without pay just before Christmas.

During remarks Wednesday on the Senate floor, Schumer did not respond directly to Trump’s tweet but called his promised wall “a petty campaign pledge to fire up his base.”

Earlier Wednesday, the Paris prosecutor announced that the attack on France’s largest Christmas market by a gunman with a long criminal record was an act of terrorism.

A manhunt is still underway for the suspect, who was wounded during the attack and has been identified by French authorities as 29-year-old Cherif Chekatt.

Paris Prosecutor Rémy Heitz, who leads terrorism investigations, said the suspect had 27 criminal convictions in France, Germany and Switzerland. He said two people were killed outright, while a third was left in a vegetative state. The attack also wounded 13 others, eight of whom are in critical condition.

Trump’s Wednesday morning tweet was the latest in a string of presidential attacks on France, a country that seems to be earning the lion’s share of Trump’s social media ire.

Although Trump once enjoyed cordial relations with French President Emmanuel Macron — a bond once described as a transatlantic “bromance” — the honeymoon has long since ended.

Last weekend, the fourth act of France’s ongoing “yellow vest” protest over dwindling purchasing power and income inequality triggered a Trump tweet falsely claiming that thousands of citizens had taken to the streets to say no to the Paris climate agreement of 2015 and, in doing so, to honor Trump.
“Chanting ‘We Want Trump!’ ” he wrote. “Love France.”

In response, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian urged Trump to stop meddling in France’s domestic affairs.

The height of the tension, however, came last month, when Trump visited France for the 100th anniversary of the 1918 armistice that ended World War I.

Before disembarking from Air Force One in Paris, Trump fired off a tweet attacking Macron for allegedly suggesting that Europe create its own army to defend itself from the United States. Trump’s statement was based on a misunderstanding of what Macron had actually said: He urged the creation of a European army so that the European Union would no longer have to rely so extensively on the United States for defense support, which Trump has long advocated.

But after Macron delivered a soaring speech in favor of multilateralism — blasting the same type of nationalism that Trump has repeatedly defended — the U.S. president launched a Twitter tirade against his French counterpart, attacking in particular his low approval ratings.
In a second tweet Wednesday, Trump cited the 2015 Iran nuclear deal in trying to make his case for the southern border wall.

“The Democrats and President Obama gave Iran 150 Billion Dollars and got nothing, but they can’t give 5 Billion Dollars for National Security and a Wall?” Trump wrote.

He was referring to Iranian assets than were unfrozen by the United States as part of the deal. In exchange for lifting nuclear-related sanctions, the United States and five other world powers obtained agreement from Iran to curtail parts of its nuclear power program that raised proliferation concerns, as well as a pledge to never acquire nuclear weapons.

The actual amount of Iranian money returned to the country under the deal was significantly lower than the $150 billion stated by Trump, according to government officials and independent 
economists. At the time of the agreement, the Treasury Department estimated that once Iran fulfilled other obligations, it would have about $55 billion left. The Central Bank of Iran said the number was actually $32 billion.

McAuley reported from Strasbourg. Erica Werner in Washington contributed to this report.

Channel 4 News special programme – will Theresa May survive as Prime Minister? #ComeWhatMay


12 Dec 2018

Watch a special extended Channel 4 News tonight as Conservative MPs vote on whether they want Theresa May to continue as Prime Minister or not. Will she gain the 158 votes she needs to survive?
Watch a special extended Channel 4 News tonight as Conservative MPs vote on whether they want Theresa May to continue as Prime Minister or not.
Will she gain the 159 votes she needs to survive?
If she fails, who will put their names down for the leadership contest?
Watch Channel 4 News live tonight at 7pm as we cover events as they unfold.
(Subscribe for more Brexit coverage: https://bit.ly/C4_News_Subscribe)
——-

Upholding the ‘employable’ paradigm – who is responsible?


Study International logoBy  |  | @nafisastudies

With fierce competition in the global job market, a degree is simply no longer enough to support career success for recent graduates. It hasn’t been for more than a decade.
Students are finishing their degrees, some with top marks and impressive academic profiles, but remain unable to secure their first  meaningful role post-graduation.
Considering the hefty cost of these degrees and the levels of debt incurred, many are asking whether it’s really worth it in the end, frustrated and dissatisfied with universities for not making them ‘employable’ enough upon graduation.
Is it fair to say that embedding wider skills that boost employability within degree programmes is the solution to tackling graduate unemployment? If so, whose responsibility is it to provide or seek these wider expertise? The university’s? The student’s? Or both?
More importantly, how can employability be instilled as a portfolio of soft skills that pay off throughout graduate life?
md-duran-628456-unsplash-1024x683
A degree doesn’t mean a fast-track ticket to employment. Source: MD Duran/Unsplash
Soft skills – a hard sell for students?
One major problem is that students aren’t actively shown how what they’re learning relates to future employment. They aren’t aware of how to sell skills they’ve picked up within their degrees and ultimately, how these make them employable to prospective employers.
Many students are aware of generic expertise like problem-solving, team work and personal attributes such as being conscientious and enthusiastic, and many don’t hesitate to list these neatly on their CVs.
Listing the skills and qualities you think will look good on paper is all very well, but the truth is, without hard, demonstrable evidence of these claims, the CV or application is not worth the paper it’s written on.
More than just getting a job
Most students view employability as simply being able to get a job, rather than a personal and professional development process that varies from person to person, depending on their respective career. If more students were to view it as such, they would build an evidence-based cache of skills, qualities and achievements connected to their programme instead of simply listing generic skills they’ve been taught.
This requires a mental shift, demonstrating that employability can’t be taught solely by the institution at hand, but is rather a partnership between students and universities. The educator provides awareness and tools; the student must reflect on this in their learning and beyond, enabling professional development similar to that experienced by  teachers, doctors and lawyers throughout their professional lives.
This requires accountability, urging students to take ownership of cultivating and managing their skills and personal attributes, drawing on their entire university experience including intra-curricular (academic), co-curricular and extra-curricular (work experience).
Maximising opportunity
On the other hand, universities are  responsible for providing opportunities and awareness through active promotion of the CareerEdge model developed by Pooland Sewell (2007), which sets out five essential elements that mobilise student employability. These include career development learning, work and life experience, degree subject knowledge, skills and understanding, generic skills and emotional intelligence.
It’s important to note that these elements are important on their own, but to maximise graduate employability, all five elements should be implemented and developed since they work hand in hand, and are thus integral to ensuring a more positive, achievable outcome.
Universities must promote employability as an ongoing developmental process that continues into professional practice beyond graduation. This goes beyond simply providing a careers service, employability consultancy or even career fairs.
Instead, they should provide comprehensive guidance strategies that cater to the individual needs of students and their chosen careers, presenting ample opportunity for them to make connections and learn from industry leaders through mentoring projects, guest speakers and lectures with open floor question and answer sessions – not forgetting the more traditional methods of acquiring work experience through internships and placements.
Employability – a partnership
Universities that are active in providing and promoting opportunities for students to develop and widen their employability prospects from the outset promise a much better return on investment, taking into account the high costs of attaining a university degree. Upon graduation, students with these finely-tuned skills  are more likely to succeed in professional practice, and are therefore more likely to feel satisfied that their money has been well spent.
A degree cannot simply make you employable, but ultimately, universities can give students crucial tools and insights that help them land a meaningful job. It’s a necessary partnership that inspires learners to take charge of their own employability, giving them a head start as they progress with high-level graduate attributes.

Liked this? Then you’ll love…

Why countries are opposing the Global Compact for Migration


By  | 
THE Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) sets out a common, comprehensive approach to international migration.
It aims at cooperation between states and promotes measures to strengthen regular migration pathways, to tackle irregular migration, and to protect human rights of migrants among other objectives. It is expected to be endorsed by the UN member states in mid-December in an intergovernmental conference in Marrakesh.
But it is also subject to growing controversy – and the number of countries opposing the pact is increasing almost daily.
The Dominican Republic is the latest country to join Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Israel, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia in refusing to sign the document that they negotiated for 18 months.
The GCM is creating heated political tension in other countries, too.
In Belgium, the government was even in danger of collapse over it. Italy and Estonia will not attend the conference. Switzerland, which led the negotiations as a co-facilitator, won’t back the GCM in Marrakesh either, instead delaying the decision until a vote in Parliament.
The US quit negotiations early on, in December 2017, and was followed by Hungary seven months later.
So why have so many countries decided not to endorse the pact that they negotiated?
000_1BH4HH-940x580
Journalists at work at the press centre of the United Nations Global Compact for Migration, at the Moroccan city of Marrakesh. Source: Fethi Belaid / AFP
The GCM is a voluntary, non-binding document that introduces no additional obligations to states. It is a global agreement setting out a common framework, shared principles and best practices on international migration.
The GCM emerged, and has been negotiated, in parallel with the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) as a concrete commitment of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2016.
In contrast to the GCM, the GCR has been widely supported so far by the international community, with the recent exception of the US.
The final draft of the GCM was approved in July 2018 by all UN member states – except the US and Hungary – with the aim of becoming the first global framework on migration.
As one of the interviewees in our ongoing research project on global migration stated, the GCM is “an aspirational document” but “it doesn’t impose and it fully respects the sovereignty of states”.
Many analysts have recognised that the final text is far from perfect. Yet most agree about the significance of the negotiation for multilateralism and global cooperation.
Several of our interviewees – high-level officials and decision makers in the field of migration – recognised that this was both the best and the worst moment to negotiate the GCM.
The attention on migration in the past four years has created the conditions to start an unprecedented global negotiation, but within the most hostile environment possible. The risk of countries leaving the pact overshadowed the process from the beginning.

Not wanting to look welcoming

We can see four interrelated reasons that explain this growing opposition.
First, states with a restrictive migration agenda, such as Hungary, consider the symbolic act of approving the GCM as a sign that they are promoting migration.
The regulation of migration is not only seen as a matter of laws, policies, and “border walls”, but also as a matter of communication. Some officials believe that if a country is perceived to be open towards immigration, it is providing incentives for migration, whereas harsh rhetoric is seen as a deterrent.
000_1BH4G5-940x580
A view of the exterior of the secretariat premises for the United Nations Global Compact for Migration, at the Moroccan city of Marrakesh. Source: Fethi Belaid / AFP
Such a perspective partly obscures the complexity and multifaceted reasons why people migrate.
It is also unrealistic to believe that many would-be migrants closely follow the GCM process. But countries with a restrictive migration agenda don’t want to take any risks. Instead, their aim is to reaffirm their restrictive position by rejecting the GCM.
Second, while state officials are well aware that the GCM is non-binding, those that have rejected it fear it will turn into common practice, or even common law.
In turn, advocates of the GCM have underlined that this is an inaccurate view. Its potential, though, lies somewhere in between.
Some of our interviewees pointed out that, while not legally binding, it should be a politically guiding framework, which sets out ground rules for the long term.

Rights and the right-wing

Third, some states that have rejected the GCM are especially worried about human rights references within the document. In their view, an emphasis on human rights contradicts what matters for them: securing borders.
The Hungarian government argued that applying a human rights perspective to border control measures is “an extremely dangerous approach”.
This position is based on a hyper-securitised view of immigration, in which migrants are seen predominantly as a threat. A framework that includes human rights of migrants, such as the GCM, is seen as incompatible with effective border control.
Fourth, hostility to the GCM mirrors the growing influence of new far-right movements, especially in countries where radical right parties are in power or are prominent.
Ideas and myths about the GCM that circulated on extreme right social media sites, are said to have influenced Austria’s decision to withdraw.
In Italy, there was little discussion of the GCM until recently. But the extreme right, most notably the Fratelli d’Italia, ultimately managed to put the issue on the country’s political agenda.
There is a common denominator here: the rise of “sovereignism” as a political ideology. This is defined by anti-migrant nativism, and the rejection of multilateralism and international institutions. The GCM touches upon both of these core issues. 
The question is not whether the GCM will be adopted, as a large majority of the 193 UN states still endorse it.
Rather it is over the impact it is likely to have, given that its upcoming adoption has already been overshadowed by political statements that contradict the solidarity and multilateral approach to international migration it aims to promote.
By Marcia Vera Espinoza, Lecturer in Human Geography, Queen Mary University of LondonLeila Hadj-Abdou, Research Fellow Migration Policy Centre, European University Institute, and Leiza Brumat, Research Fellow, Migration Policy Centre, European University InstituteThis article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.