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

Thursday, December 20, 2018

Congo Wanted an Election. This Isn’t What It Meant.

The country will vote for a new government, and then brace for a violent aftermath.

Michée Yolona Selenga of the Independent National Electoral Commission tests an electronic voting machine during a voter information session in Mbenzale near Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, on Aug. 21. (Holly Pickett for Foreign Policy)Michée Yolona Selenga of the Independent National Electoral Commission tests an electronic voting machine during a voter information session in Mbenzale near Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, on Aug. 21. (Holly Pickett for Foreign Policy)

No automatic alt text available.
BY 
 | 
, Democratic Republic of the Congo—The road that stretches through Mbenzale is unusual for this country: Not only is it paved, but it’s smooth, not a pothole in sight. The village has the good fortune of lying along the route from the capital to President Joseph Kabila’s personal ranch. But the benefits of this location don’t extend to reliable electricity, so when election commission officials arrived in August on the wide, flat road for a demonstration of the voting machines set to be used in Congo’s upcoming election, they also brought another crucial piece of equipment: a generator.
Residents waited in red, yellow, and blue plastic chairs arranged in a semicircle under a sprawling mango tree. An electrical extension cord snaked through the sand from the generator to a plastic table where the officials placed the voting machine, a large-screened tablet propped up on a stand. Unripe mangos dangled overhead. The crowd watched intently as an official called up a volunteer to demonstrate the voting process. They waited as the machine malfunctioned and had to be restarted.
Finally, the man fed his paper ballot into a slot in the tablet, and a series of options appeared on the screen: provincial assembly, national assembly, and presidential candidates. He touched the image of his preferred candidate for each race, and the tablet spit out his marked ballot, which he deposited into a waist-high transparent plastic bin. As more would-be voters stepped up to try the machine, the election official reassured them that the machine was a safe way to vote. It was basically just a printer, he told them. But a din grew, and soon the crowd drowned him out with shouts. “We don’t want this machine! It’s a trick! Trick! Take it away! You’re thieves!”

The upcoming election, which on Thursday was pushed back again until at least Dec. 30, is theoretically a historic opportunity: since 1960, when Congo earned its independence from Belgium, the country has never transferred power through peaceful or democratic means. For the first time since, the country’s ruler is holding a vote in which he is not a candidate and has pledged to step aside for the winner. But there are deep doubts about the election’s credibility. Kabila, who accrued vast wealth during nearly 18 years in power, handpicked his former interior minister Emmanuel Ramazani Shadary as his preferred successor. Last week he invited a succession of journalists to his ranch and told them he might run for president again in 2023, raising suspicion he was planning to use Ramazani as a placeholder to circumvent term limits. There are broad indications of an uneven playing field: problems with the voter rolls, disqualified candidates, and attacks on opposition campaign events. And many are concerned by the sudden introduction of voting machines. As in Mbenzale, Congolese citizens across the country worry the tablets will be used to rig the vote, ensuring Ramazani’s victory and the continuation of Kabila’s regime.

That virtually guarantees a contested result, which risks unleashing wider conflict in a country where millions are already suffering from violence. Congo’s citizens have spent years demanding an election, but the upcoming’s vote is not what they asked for.


When Kabila became president in 2001, he was just 29 years old. His father, a rebel leader who seized power from the dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, had just been assassinated amid a war involving multiple neighboring countries and rebel groups that killed millions. The younger Kabila was inexperienced, but there was hope Congo might have finally been headed toward stability and democracy. A peace agreement led to a transitional government, a new constitution, and, in 2006, an election. Kabila won after a runoff, and the vote was seen as largely credible despite some problems. Before the next election in 2011, the constitution was amended to eliminate runoffs in the presidential race. That vote was marred by fraud, giving Kabila a second term but eroding his legitimacy. At the end of his second term in 2016, he refused to respect constitutional term limits, delayed the election, and remained in office. In the face of widespread protests and international pressure, he announced in August he would step down.

Under his rule, Congo’s 80 million citizens continued to be some of the poorest in the world while politicians and the elite profited from Congo’s vast mineral wealth. Conflict also dragged on, with dozens of rebel groups fighting over resources, control, and local and national grievances, creating humanitarian crises and worsening an Ebola outbreak in the east. And Kabila cracked down on dissent, arresting protesters and imprisoning political activists. A poll conducted by New York University’s Congo Research Group in April showed the president’s deep unpopularity: 80 percent of respondents had a negative view of Kabila, and nearly 70 percent said they did not expect the election to be fair.

“I think the push for elections now, by hook or by crook, is really aimed at that legitimacy question,” said Tatiana Carayannis, the director of the Social Science Research Council’s Understanding Violent Conflict program and a longtime scholar on Congo. “I think that’s important for the government to be able to say they had elections and if Shadary wins, which most observers believe that would be the case, that he won not by the imposition of force, but by an electoral process.” But for many Congolese, she said, “the election won’t be credible or seen as legitimate unless an opposition candidate wins.”

Preparations for the election have been problematic from the very beginning. The body overseeing the vote, the Independent National Electoral Commission, is not impartial despite its name. An audit of the voter roll by the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie found more than 6 million registered voters had no fingerprints on file. Some international observers, including from the European Union and the Carter Center, were refused accreditation. The electoral commission declined an offer of logistical help from the United Nations mission in Congo, MONUSCO, despite the significant challenges of holding a vote in a vast country with little infrastructure. Two popular opposition figures were barred from becoming candidates, and since campaigning began, security forces have forcibly dispersed opposition campaign rallies, killing seven people, wounding 50, and arbitrarily detaining dozens more last week, according to Human Rights Watch.

The voting machines, which have never before been used in Congo, are perhaps the defining complaint. The government paints the tablets as a way to avoid unwieldy paper ballots in a country with more than 400 political parties. Some ballots in the past have included hundreds of candidates. But, apart from the logistical issues of deploying electronic machines in a country where many communities have unreliable electricity, many Congolese have never used a computer or a touch screen. Denis Kadima, the executive director of the Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa, said the responsible introduction of such technology in an electoral process “needs a lot of confidence-building measures.” Ideally the machines would be first tested on a smaller scale during a by-election, feedback would be used to improve the next implementation, and all of this would take place over at least two electoral cycles—a decade. “Here they introduced it very suddenly. People don’t want it, and all the measures of transparency and accountability have been completely ignored,” he said.

His organization studied the machines and made a raft of recommendations for improving their use. “No one knows if they have been taken into account,” he said. “The software has not been inspected by anyone, which is a huge issue. And the server, no one knows where it is. … The procurement was not done in a transparent manner.” The commission has sought to allay fears by pointing out that paper ballots will still be used and counted. But Kadima said the machines themselves can tabulate votes, and if the commission relies on those tallies—or if there is a discrepancy between the electronic tallies and manual counts—it could lead to chaos. “So transparency is key here, and the credibility is not there,” he said.

The voters in Mbenzale were proof of that. The electoral commission official who led the demonstration, Michée Yolona Selenga, blamed the angry reaction on “enemies of the nation” who were manipulating the population, and incomprehension of technology. “I think it’s just about ignorance,” he said. “They don’t know exactly what’s going on. So they forget the world is going, technology is advancing.”

Guy Songo, a mechanic who watched the demonstration, may not have experience with computers, but his lack of trust did not lie with the machines themselves. He brought up the suspicious voter roll entries. “I think they are planning some tricky things,” he said. “What’s the need of this machine? Why did they bring it? I won’t vote if they use this machine. For me, no. It won’t be credible.”
Nearby, Chemina Nzuzi sat on the roots of the mango tree, holding her two young children. She was unsure about the machine, and the vote. What she is sure of is that life hasn’t gotten better in Mbenzale. “There’s no market here, no electricity, no water,” she said. “I would like things to change after the election.”

Despite the numerous problems with the election, the opposition is forging ahead. Two major opposition candidates are running against Ramazani, after an agreement to unite behind one candidate quickly fell apart. If the vote is seen as fraudulent, both the opposition parties and the peaceful pro-democracy movements that pushed Kabila to step down are certain to protest. What is less certain is what will come after that. Some Western embassies have ordered nonessential staff to leave the country ahead of the vote in anticipation of violence. In 2006, followers of former rebel leader-turned presidential candidate Jean-Pierre Bemba (who was barred from running this year) fought with security forces in Kinshasa after he lost the race to Kabila. Political instability could throw fuel on the flames of long-running insurgencies, particularly in eastern Congo, where government control is weak and where war raged from 1998 to 2003. Carayannis of the Social Science Research Council worries that faith in nonviolent protest as a means for change is waning, and that an illegitimate election could boost popular support for armed insurrection.

“What’s interesting is that even though … most Congolese see the election as being rigged, the push to go to elections, and all of the campaigning that you’re seeing, really shows you that the Congolese population also sees these elections as sort of their last hope for peaceful change,” Carayannis said. “So you’ve got this duality, both of not having faith that these elections will be free and fair, but really putting all one’s hopes on the election for peaceful change.” That could prove to be a combustible combination.

Mattis resigns after clash with Trump over troop withdrawal from Syria

President Trump announced Defense Secretary Jim Mattis would step down in February. Mattis joined the administration early in Trump's presidency. 
By Paul Sonne ,Josh Dawsey and Missy Ryan December 20 at 9:08 PM

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis resigned Thursday after a clash with President Trump over the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, saying in a parting letter that the president deserved someone atop the Pentagon who is “better aligned” with his views.

The retired Marine general’s surprise resignation came a day after Trump overruled his advisers, including Mattis, and shocked American allies by announcing the pullout. In the process, Trump declared victory over the Islamic State, even though the Pentagon and State Department for months have been saying the fight against the group in Syria is not over.

The discord caused Trump to lose a Cabinet official who won widespread praise at home and abroad but who experienced increasing differences with the commander in chief.

Long seen as a bulwark against Trump’s isolationist and more extreme impulses, Mattis served as a calm “reassurer-in-chief” as the president sent out startling and provocative tweets. Mattis’s departure adds new uncertainty about which course the administration might take on its global challenges.

[Jim Mattis’s resignation letter]

Mattis pointed to some of his differences with Trump in a resignation letter he submitted to the White House on Thursday. The retired general emphasized that the United States derives its strength from its relationships with allies and should treat them with respect. He said the country must also be “clear-eyed” about threats, including from groups such as the Islamic State.

“We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances,” Mattis wrote.

The defense secretary resigned during what one senior administration official described as a disagreement in the Oval Office on Thursday afternoon, in which Mattis sought to convince the president to stand down on the Syria withdrawal but was rejected. Trump was later given a copy of the resignation letter and noted to aides that it was not positive toward him. By then, the president had shocked the Pentagon by filming a video on the White House lawn in which he claimed the Islamic State had been defeated and said U.S. troops who had died in combat would be proud to see their fellow service members return home.

While the Syria announcement looked poised to score political points with the public, Mattis and other top advisers suspect that it will deliver a win to Russia, Iran and Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, while risking a resurgence of the Islamic State.

Mattis also has argued against drawing down troops from Afghanistan, which Trump is leaning toward executing in the coming months, according to administration officials. Senior administration officials said late Thursday that Trump had ordered the military to come up with a plan to remove thousands of troops from the country, after a 17-year war, starting as early as January. The United States has about 14,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan as part of a NATO mission.

The Pentagon released the resignation letter moments after Trump announced on Twitter that Mattis would be leaving, saying the already retired Marine would “retire.” Trump made no mention of his differences in opinion with Mattis.


The Trump administration is planning to withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria immediately. The president tweeted Dec. 19 that the U.S. had defeated ISIS in Syria. (Jason Aldag/The Washington Post)

“General Jim Mattis will be retiring, with distinction, at the end of February, after having served my Administration as Secretary of Defense for the past two years,” Trump wrote. “During Jim’s tenure, tremendous progress has been made, especially with respect to the purchase of new fighting equipment. General Mattis was a great help to me in getting allies and other countries to pay their share of military obligations. A new Secretary of Defense will be named shortly. I greatly thank Jim for his service!”

[Mattis, once one of ‘my generals,’ loses his influence with Trump]

During his nearly two years at the Pentagon, Mattis secured sizable increases in defense spending after years of budget caps and oversaw the development of a new strategy that orients the military toward competition with China and Russia and away from combating extremist insurgencies in the Middle East.

A staunch Russia hawk, Mattis bristled at the president’s conciliatory gestures toward Russian President Vladi­mir Putin and moves to undermine NATO, according to people close to him. Russia and China “want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model,” Mattis underscored in his resignation letter.

Moscow and Beijing were looking for “veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic and security decisions,” he said, warning the president that the United States must “use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense.”

Lawmakers, ambassadors and policymakers for two years have looked to Mattis as a source of stability in a chaotic administration. His sudden resignation on Thursday sent jitters through a Washington establishment already coping with a meltdown in the financial markets and a possible government shutdown.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she was “shaken” by the resignation and described it as “very serious for our country.”

Republicans were also dismayed by the decision.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said it was “a sad day for America because Secretary Mattis was giving advice the president needs to hear.” Sasse said Mattis “rightly believes” that Russia and China are adversaries and described the isolationism that Trump sometimes promotes as a “weak strategy that will harm Americans and America’s allies.” Sasse added: “No, ISIS is not gone.”

Known as the “Warrior Monk” from his days in uniform, Mattis developed a reputation as a cerebral thinker in the Marine Corps who liked to deliberate, read and study all possibilities before making important decisions.

That style clashed with the most freewheeling presidential administration in the postwar era, most notably this week, when Trump decided to withdraw from Syria without first running the move through a regular policy process that would consider the options and ramifications.

Mattis’s frustrations grew with the arrival of national security adviser John Bolton, who curbed decision-making meetings and interagency policy discussions that the defense secretary valued, according to people familiar with the matter.

The final rupture between the defense secretary and the president came after weeks of tensions over Trump’s broadsides against allies, his demands to withdraw from military entanglements in the Middle East and personnel decisions.

Mattis told one confidante last month that he wasn’t going to leave because he had too many changes to make at the Defense Department, particularly on personnel.

But the defense secretary lost the most crucial battle on that front this month when the president disregarded his recommendation to make Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and instead chose Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley.

The person close to Mattis said that choice was particularly offensive to the defense secretary.
“It’s the one major selection the secretary of defense usually gets,” the person said, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the defense secretary’s private views. “And the president totally overruled him.”

It wasn’t the first time. The president announced the creation of a Space Force as a separate branch of the military, even though Mattis had opposed the idea. Trump forced his defense secretary to scramble after announcing a ban on transgender individuals from serving in the military by tweet last year. Trump also foisted other initiatives on Mattis that the defense secretary didn’t see as particularly important, from a deployment to the U.S. border with Mexico to a military parade that failed to materialize.

According to people in the White House, Trump didn’t consider Mattis to be fully on board with some of his key initiatives. Mattis expressed skepticism over the prospects of nuclear disarmament negotiations with North Korea and bristled at the president’s decision to suspend certain military exercises with South Korea as a goodwill gesture. Trump told advisers that he trusted Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who has led the North Korea negotiations, more than he trusted Mattis.
From the start, Trump and Mattis displayed starkly different attitudes toward long-standing American alliances. Trump threw Starburst candies on the table in front of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and berated British Prime Minister Theresa May; Mattis flew around the world thanking such allies for their contributions to American security.

Several possible replacements for Mattis this week decried the president’s decision to pull out of Syria, and the Senate may prove unwilling to confirm a replacement who would execute such a withdrawal. Retired Army Gen. Jack Keane called the move a “strategic mistake” on Twitter. Republican Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) signed a letter demanding that Trump reconsider, warning that the withdrawal bolsters Iran and Russia.

With a career shaped by the wars following the 9/11 attacks, Mattis caught Trump’s eye shortly after the presidential election in 2016. Revealing his choice for Pentagon chief, Trump hailed the retired general as “Mad Dog,” a nickname Mattis earned — but detested — for his conduct in battle.

In the weeks leading up to Mattis’s dismissal, Trump publicly called the defense secretary “sort of a Democrat” and began referring to him as “Moderate Dog.”

Pentagon officials downplayed accounts of friction between Mattis and the White House as speculation grew that Mattis would join other national security leaders, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump’s former national security adviser, who left their posts abruptly amid reports of distance from the president. Fellow retired Marine Gen. John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, is also leaving the administration, bringing an end to an era when Trump relied heavily on retired military brass.

But in recent months, media accounts described the secretary quietly challenging or setting aside requests from the White House, even from the president himself, further fueling speculation about a possible departure.

The departure of Mattis is likely to be greeted with mixed feelings among some in uniform, among whom he was generally revered as a straight-talking commander with deep knowledge of military affairs, though service members are prohibited from speaking negatively of Trump or other senior leaders.

Retired Sgt. Maj. Carlton Kent, Mattis’s top enlisted Marine when the two were deployed in Iraq, said Thursday night that his phone has been “ringing off the hook” because service members and veterans wanted to talk about the departure.

“They were concerned that he was the right man for the right job, and now he’s transitioning,” Kent said. “They thought he was leading the department in the right direction. And it was combat-hardened warriors saying that, people who have witnessed him in combat.”

Dan Lamothe contributed to this report.

Taliban — Challenge to the Hegemony


by Ali Sukhanver- 
A school going Afghan boy would simply remain silent rather dumb if someone asks him what he is going to be when he grows up. The reason behind this silence and dumbness would be nothing but fear of uncertainty. More war, more injuries, more casualties; what is the future of the war-torn country Afghanistan; certainly there must be an answer to this painful question. Decades have passed but the situation in Afghanistan is still the same.
The people of Afghanistan are leading a life full of uncertainty, insecurity and anxiety. What did the US planners get out of the war in Afghanistan? Did they succeed in winning the hearts of the Afghan people or they succeeded in conquering the Afghan lands; surely they did nothing but wasted a lot of time and a lot of money. The Taliban were the basic target of the US and NATO forces from the day one but the US planners badly failed in ‘crushing’ the Taliban; they even could not make Taliban unpopular in spite of a very well organized media campaign against them. The Taliban are still there, playing a very active role in Afghan politics. Time is strengthening them day by day; their strengthening means defeat of all the forces hostile to them.
We see today US is left with only one option; to bring Taliban to the negotiation-table. A few weeks back General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said talking about the Taliban at a security forum in Halifax, Nova Scotia, “They are not losing right now; I think that is fair to say.”  He further said, “While there is no military solution to peace in Afghanistan, Washington and its allies in the NATO military alliance are trying to use all their military, political and economic potentials in a bid to convince the Taliban to come to the negotiation table. The key to success is to combine all the pressure to incentivize the Taliban to negotiate.” It is a very strange contradiction that on one hand Gen. Dunford is claiming that Washington has no military solution to the Afghan problem but on the other hand U.S. President Donald Trump is in favour of designing a strategy for a long-running war which focuses on bringing more troops and use them to force a political resolution to militant groups. Under this new strategy President Trump last year, announced an increase in U.S. troop levels, bringing the total number of foreign foot soldiers in the country to about 14,000.
 Efforts for peace-talks and adding more troops to an already war-torn territory; these two actions are going opposite to each other. President Trump must try to convince himself that war is never a solution to conflicting issues. War gives birth to new conflicts. Moreover, at present it is out of question to pressurize the Taliban by sending more troops to Afghanistan because with the passage of time the Taliban have become expert in tackling with the foreign troops. They are now the ‘experienced-targets’. The most feasible way to resolve the Afghanistan issue is to concentrate only on the peace-talks with the Taliban; threatening them with more troops would simply distort the situation.
Recently a report was published on the pages of the Albawaba News with the title ‘U.S Officials Admit Taliban Are Not Losing in Afghanistan. The report said, “The Taliban are gaining strength as the Afghan government in Kabul struggles to keep ground. The U.S. government’s overseer for the military push in Afghanistan warned in a report earlier this month that the Taliban had cemented their position by taking control over larger chunks of the country while the Afghan government had seen its control shrink to about 56 percent of the land — down from 72 percent in 2015.”
Contradiction in US’ approach towards the settlement of the Afghan issue is simply adding to the gravity of problem. On one hand the Trump Administration is seeking Pakistan’s help in bringing the Taliban to the negotiation table and on the other hand Pakistan is being continuously blamed for ‘patronizing’ the Taliban. In a recent interview with the ‘Atlantic’ Washington’s envoy to UN, Nikki Haley has repeated allegations against Pakistan. She is the first Indian-American ever appointed to a Cabinet position in any US presidential administration. She said, “The US did not need to give money to countries that wish harm to America, go behind its back and try and stop us from doing things.” She further said, “The one example I’ll give you is, look at Pakistan. Giving them over a billion dollars, and they continue to harbour terrorists that turn around and kill our soldiers —that’s never okay. We shouldn’t even give them a dollar until they correct it. Use the billion dollars. That’s not a small amount of change.” Could someone ask Nikki Haley if she has given this statement as Washington’s envoy or as an Indian-American?

Israel’s war against a widow

The Abu Humaid home after it was blown up by Israeli occupation forces in al-Amari refugee camp, 15 December Mohamad TorokmanReuters

Budour Youssef Hassan-20 December 2018

It was a few minutes past midnight when hundreds of Israeli soldiers stormed al-Amari refugee camp. They had come to demolish the house of Latifa Abu Humaid, a widow in her seventies.

Latifa was expecting the raid from Israel’s forces of occupation. The previous day, she had been instructed to evacuate her home within 24 hours.

She decided to stay put. Youth from the camp – situated south of Ramallah in the occupied West Bank – had joined her, determined to resist the invaders.

When they arrived, the Israeli troops beat and pushed the people gathered inside the home. They fired stun grenades and tear gas before dragging Latifa and everyone else out. Many of Latifa’s neighbors were rounded up.

“We were first detained in the football field, in the freezing cold, at 1am,” said Naimah Fayiz, 64, who lives near the Abu Humaid family. “The football field was full of detainees, including children. We were forced to stay there for almost half an hour before being taken to the village’s school.”

Israel’s mid-December raid on al-Amari sparked confrontations with local youth that lasted for hours.

 It was never going to be a match of equals. An army was taking on a widow. The invading soldiers had modern weapons; the local youth had rocks and Molotov cocktails. A small refugee camp was pitted against Israel, a state backed by the US and other powerful governments.

At 5:30 am, the Israeli military blew up Latifa’s home with dynamite. Her home was located within a four-story building. Four hours later, the military blew up that entire building.

“Full-blown operation”

The home of Naimah Fayiz was damaged in the second explosion. So were the homes of several other neighbors.

“Not since the invasion of the second intifada can I recall a raid like this,” Tamer Hammad, a resident of the camp, told The Electronic Intifada. “It was as if they were planning to carry out a full-blown military operation, not just demolish a house.”

The tactic of punitive home demolitions is used systematically by Israel. It involves collective punishment. A whole family gets penalized for the resistance activities allegedly undertaken by one of its members.

Israel suspended its policy of punitive demolitions in 2005. Yet it was reactivated under the government led by Benjamin Netanyahu a decade later – officially as a response to a Palestinian uprising which began in October 2015.

“It is difficult to comprehend why they brought such a large number of troops when they could have demolished the house with a much smaller unit,” said Yousif Abu Humaid, one of Latifa’s sons.

“Perhaps because they expected the resistance to be strong or maybe it was done to boost Netanyahu’s popularity. It is hard to know.”

The demolition in al-Amari and the way in which it was orchestrated went beyond “normal” punishment or retaliation. It appears that the Israeli military sought to turn punishment into a public spectacle aimed at humiliating a community.

Defiant

“If they think that this demolition will break me, they clearly know nothing about me and my family,” Latifa – who is also known as Um Nasser – told The Electronic Intifada. Her home was previously destroyed by Israel in 1991 and 2003.

“This is the third punitive demolition that targets my home,” she said. “And each time they demolish, our commitment to the liberation of Palestine grows even greater.”

Latifa’s son Islam is accused of dropping a marble slab from a rooftop – thereby fatally injuring a soldier – during an Israeli raid earlier this year. He is being held in Ofer, an Israeli military jail within the West Bank. Latifa has been able to visit him only once since he was arrested in June.

“Israel wants to portray Islam as the aggressor for killing the soldier,” one woman living in al-Amari said. “But he was defending his camp, his people. The attackers are the Israeli soldiers who repeatedly invade the camp and terrorize us. Are we expected to celebrate their raids?”

Four other members of the family are imprisoned, having been convicted on charges relating to suicide bombings and other armed actions inside Israel. Jihad, another of Latifa’s 12 children, is being held without charge or trial – a practice known as administrative detention.

Whenever Latifa has been able to speak with her sons in jail, she has always offered them words of encouragement. She recalls going to see her son Nasser on one occasion. “I told him to remain defiant just as I raised him to be,” she said. “When you choose the path of Palestine, you should never look back.”

Bearing witness

Latifa has also suffered the pain of losing a child. Her son Abd al-Munim was assassinated by Israeli forces in 1994. He was accused of killing an intelligence officer during an ambush in the Ramallah area. Abd al-Munim was a commander in the Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas.

Israel issued an order to confiscate the land on which the family’s home was built following Abd al-Munim’s assassination.

A protest tent has now been set up next to Latifa’s demolished home in al-Amari. Many visitors to the tent have spent time in prison with her sons. Others – such as Hazem Shunnar from Nablus – know what it is like to see their home destroyed.

“They also demolished my family’s home as punishment for our involvement in the resistance,” Shunnar said. “Our pain takes different forms but its substance is the same.”

Originally from Abu Shusha – a village near Ramle in historic Palestine – Latifa was an infant during the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing at the time of Israel’s foundation in 1948. She has spent most of her life in al-Amari.

“I’ve seen my children grow here,” she said. “I’ve lived my happiest and hardest moments in this home. I shared my life with my husband here. I’ve rebuilt the home after they demolished it. It is rooted in me. It’s not about the physical structure, it’s about the memories, the moments.”

One of her sons, Naji, has an idea for what should be done with the demolished building. He thinks its first floor – severely damaged but not entirely destroyed – should be turned into a museum.

“We will restore it and turn it into a museum that commemorates the resistance of our family and of al-Amari camp,” said Naji. “Unfortunately, my mother will not be able to live here again. But her house will continue to bear witness to our perseverance and to Israel’s oppression.”

Budour Youssef Hassan is a Palestinian writer based in Jerusalem. 
Blog: budourhassan.wordpress.com
New reports claim that Facebook has been allowing tech companies greater access to its users’ data. Source: Shutterstock
By  | 20 December, 2018
LOOKS like Facebook is in trouble yet again.
Barely days after the social media giant was in the news for exposing photos of seven million of its users to third-party developers and apps, Facebook finds itself in the limelight again, for yet another data privacy offense, that is potentially far more egregious.
Recent exposé by the New York Times (NYT) claims that Facebook had allowed some of the biggest tech companies unrestricted access to its users’ personal data, much more than the social media network previously disclosed.
The report, citing Facebook’s internal documents, claimed that the company gave Microsoft’s Bing search engine access to Facebook users’ friends’ list and had allowed video and music streaming platforms, Netflix and Spotify, respectively, access to user’s private messages.
Amazon was allowed to access users’ names and contact information through friends, while friends’ posts were made available to Yahoo. The revelation contradicts Facebook’s claim that it has ceased data sharing of such nature.
As a result of previous discoveries made by media and regulators, shareholders have called for Zuckerberg to step down from the chief executive position.
The NYT report also claims that Facebook had agreements in place with more than 150 tech, media, automobile, and other companies, to provide access to data from more than a couple hundred millions of its users.
Facebook, however, denied speculations that it allowed these companies to override its users’ privacy setting.
Steve Satterfield, Facebook’s Director of Privacy and Public Policy, in a statement, said:
“Over the years, we’ve partnered with other companies so people can use Facebook on devices and platforms that we don’t support ourselves.
“Unlike a game, streaming music service, or other third-party app, which offer experiences that are independent of Facebook, these partners can only offer specific Facebook features and are unable to use information for independent purposes.”
A 2011 consent agreement with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) required Facebook to strengthen privacy protections and disclose its data sharing practices more thoroughly, and concernshave been raised that the latest revelation may have violated that agreement.
Facebook meanwhile is adamant that the content sharing partnership is within an exemption to the agreement.
Regardless of whether or not the data sharing agreement violated any regulatory compliance, Facebook’s assurance that it will do more to protect users’ data has to be taken with a grain of salt, until a comprehensive user data policy revamp takes place.

‘Least affordable’ Hong Kong aims to sell ‘cheap’ homes


ADMINISTRATORS in Hong Kong look set to sell its first batch of subsidised flats in a pilot “starter homes” project in its bustling Kowloon district.
Nestled across the habour from Hong Kong Island, the starter homes will be priced at nearly 40 percent below market levels at around HK$13,000 (US$1,661) per square foot, according to the South China Morning Post.
From January, interested home buyers can begin applying for the homes, sources said, adding the Urban Renewal Authority board overseeing the scheme approved the pricing on Tuesday.
Earlier, the board had decided that the 450 flats in Ma Tau Wai in Kowloon would be put up for sale for discounts of up to 38 percent.
A board member from the authority who declined to be named said: “I think it’s a reasonable price, and I believe the project will be popular, as all URA projects have been, due to their urban location and convenient transportation.”
“For young couples who are buying their first flat, it’s still acceptable,” the member told the South China Morning Post.
“At least they’ll have a higher degree of freedom and independence compared to living with their parents.”
Measuring from 260 to 510 sq ft, the starter homes could be sold at a knockdown price of about HK$3 million (US$383,406) to HK$7 million (US$894,634), sources said.
shutterstock_591340397
Hong Kong’s notoriously expensive housing market will be seeing ‘cheap’ homes sold in Kowloon beginning next year. BookyBuggy/Shutterstock
Denis Ma, head of research at JLL, told Bloomberg the initiative will “accommodate a very small portion of those wanting to get on the housing ladder.”
The starter homes would compliment another government programme providing cheap apartments which saw more than 260,000 applications for 4,431 flats as home ownership dipped to its lowest level in nearly three decades.
In 2017, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam pledge to initiate the starter-home programme in her inaugural address and has since announced plans to build homes on artificial islands and imposed taxes on unsold apartment units.
To qualify for the 450 starter homes, applicants must have single permanent resident status with an income below HK$37,000 (US$4,728) a month. They must also be first-time home buyers.
However, the buyers would face restrictions on reselling the properties.
Citing the Centraline Property Agency, Hong Kong’s Home Prices are almost 50 percent higher than five years ago despite a dip in the past four months. On Tuesday, the government said the market is having an “orderly correction.”

Bangladesh’s national elections scheduled


by Anwar A Khan-
Bangladesh goes to the 11th national polls on December 30. This will be the most important election in the history of Bangladesh. There is just no other time at which voters’ decisions will determine the fate of the country and its direction to such an extent … We are at a moment in which a conservative, communal, reactionary and rightwing pro-fascist-type opposition political front is chuting in front of us. I don’t even want to imagine what that is going to be like if they win … It would be the beginning of the end of democracy, secularism, and the remaining oddments of our glorified liberation war of 1971.
The violence will get worse and become more visible as one can auspicate. We live in a democracy and we want to continue living in a democracy. I am really hesitant to make analogies with the 1930s – but similar things happened to Germany. We know Hitler came to power through legitimate forces. If the opposition political combine (Jatiya Okiya Front) succeeds in the polls, they have got to give the core ideologies on which Bangladesh was founded in 1971– a kick up the bum, but we can’t allow this to bechance in the approaching national elections.
It has been 47 years since this country emerged from a dreadful bloody war. Millions of people died. Many were tortured. There were parents who had not been able to bury their children … and we have never been so close to what happened back then. The time has come for us to pause, find our voices and say: No vote to the anti-Bangladesh liberation force and their mango-twigs in a loud applause.
Bangladesh is now seen as an up-and-coming developing country, with strong economic growth and a rising global profile. A change in leadership will likely mean a shift in current policy. When voters head to the polls this month, they will elect not only a new parliament but also a political party to power. The two major political fronts in the election on December 30 will go that will ultimately determine country’s next government.
Not adhering to ethical or moral principles, National Unity Front (NUF) under the billet of Dr. Kamal Hossain has a vague plan to return the people’s power to the hands of people. The rise of NUF is not a just cause, but a symptom of deeper crisis to bring in to punish our people with more ferocity. Given Bangladesh’s fractured political landscape — where alliances among political figures and parties are more often based on corruption and political expediency than on actual principles — it will be difficult for any of the political fronts to implement their domestic policy agendas when they take office.
The forthcoming elections will also have a lot of influence over the way the country interacts with its neighbours and the rest of the world. If the outcome of the election is a Grand Alliance’s victory, it will refine efforts to address further people’s welfare oriented development programmes in Bangladesh. The Bangladesh’s state is a very big machine and very complicated to run and people, regardless of their political preference, are very concerned about what comes after the election, and where the country goes from there.
The 2018 election will have a big blackball impact on the country and its people if the voters fail to pick out the right political party.
It is reported in the news media that the obnoxious nexus of CIA and ISI in collusion with their local cronies are very combat-ready to send off the present political party in power by hook or by crook to fulfil their inauspicious designs. We know the west and particularly the US have a long history of rigging polls, supporting military coups, channelling funds and spreading political propaganda in other countries.
According to a research, there were 117 “partisan electoral interventions” between 1946 and 2000. That’s around one of every nine competitive elections held since Second World War. The majority of these – almost 70 per cent – were cases of US interference.  And these are not all from the Cold War era; 21 such interventions took place between 1990 and 2000, of which 18 were by the US. 60 different independent countries have been the targets of such interventions. The targets came from a large variety of sizes and populations, ranging from small states such as Iceland and Grenada to major powers such as West Germany, India, Bangladesh, Brazil and many more countries. It’s important to note that these cases vary greatly – some simply involved steps to publicly support one political and undermine another. But almost two thirds of interventions were done in secret, with voters having no idea that foreign powers were actively trying to influence the results.
Those countries where secret tactics have been deployed by the US include: Guatemala, Brazil, El Salvador, Haiti, Panama, Israel, Lebanon, Iran, Greece, Italy, Malta, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, South Vietnam and Japan.
Historically, election meddling has actually been far more common than other methods of political intervention, like military invasions and coups. Covert interventions have been done by many countries over the years and – because they are shrouded in secrecy – it’s impossible to get a comprehensive picture of every instance across the world.
Part of the reason why we know about lots of US operations is that its government is relatively transparent when compared to some others. ‘Relatively’ is the key word here: there is much we may never know about its secret foreign plots, but the release of many historical documents do allow us to shed some light – albeit usually years later. One of the very earliest examples of covert US interventions came with Italy’s 1948 election, when the CIA helped the Christian Democrats beat the Communist Party.
Nearly 50 years later, a former secret agent admitted: “We had bags of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their political expenses, their campaign expenses, for posters, for pamphlets.” The Washington Post has reported the CIA’s operation also included “forging documents to besmirch communist leaders via fabricated sex scandals,” and “spreading hysteria about a Russian takeover and the undermining of the Catholic Church”.
Over the years, many of America’s interventions have involved ploughing funds into their preferred candidate’s campaign. For instance, throughout the 1950s and 60s, the US secretly financed the ruling Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, despite denials from party leaders. Former intelligence officials have said America’s aim was to undermine the Left and make Japan one of Asia’s most strongly anti-communist countries. In the 1980s, an American official confirmed to the New York Times that “about US$20,000” had been given to support Nicolas Barletta presidential campaign in Panama.
And, in 1990, US$400,000 was given to organisations Czechoslovakia, which were leading the revolution against Communist rule, and which become political parties for the country’s first free elections in decades.
Funding was also provided for parties in Albania. According to reports, one US diplomat explained: “If Albania votes for socialism in this election, a lot of Western investors and governments are going to direct their aid elsewhere.”
All this is to say nothing of US-backed coups against democratically elected leaders. For instance, in 2013 the CIA finally admitted it had been behind the coup against Iran’s secular prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddeq, which took place 60 years earlier. Reports say that the UK persuaded President Eisenhower to take action after Mosaddeq nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, (later known as BP). The CIA duly planned to install a “pro-western government” in Iran.
An internal CIA document stated: “The military coup that overthrew Mosaddeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government.” It was a similar story in Guatemala, with the overthrow of President Jacobo Arbenz in 1954. The New York Times has likened his personal politics to a “European-style democratic socialist”, but Arbenz’s reforms angered the American multi-national United Fruit Company, which had huge landholdings in the Guatemala.
Declassified CIA documents reveal how it launched a huge US$3m clandestine operation against the government, including “attempts to subvert and or defect Army and political leaders, broad scale psychological warfare and paramilitary actions”. They trained military groups and set up a “clandestine broadcasting station” which aired anti-communist propaganda designed to “intimidate” public officials.
Secret agents also made up fake reports claiming that the Soviet Union was sending submarines full of weapons to help arm the Arbenz regime. (Eventually a real shipment did materialise). The CIA itself justified action citing Arbenz’s “communist influence and a hardening anti-US policy”.
Reports of American interference in other countries is not confined to Cold War history. But with more recent cases, there is generally less evidence available because secret documents have yet to be declassified. This means many of these incidents broadly remain allegations, without the detail to tell the full story.The Honduran coup of 2009 saw President Zelya being “seized and, still in his pyjamas, hustled onto a plane to Costa Rica“. The US refused to join other countries in declaring it as a “coup”, claiming that – if they did – “you immediately have to shut off all aid including humanitarian aid”.
What’s more, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said there were “very strong arguments” for the coup which had “followed the law”. And crucially – rather than calling for the democratically elected president’s return – America pushed for fresh elections. Clinton later admitted developing plans to ensure “elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelya moot”.
There are also questions around America’s role in the Ukraine. After the country’s government made a trade policy u-turn, towards Russia rather than the west, Senator John McCain joined protesters in the capital. He said he was there “to support your just cause” and supported “a grassroots revolution”. Later, a leaked phone conversation between the US Ambassador to Ukraine and the US Assistant Secretary of State hinted at extensive involvement. They spoke about the need to “midwife this thing” and said Arseniy Yatsenyuk was “the guy”, shortly before he became president.
The true extent to which America was actually involved in these cases may not be known for years. And Bangladesh is no exception from this trap-net to be used by the obnoxious nexus of CIA and ISI.
Prof Dr. Muntassir Mamamun Sir, do you hear me? A quite few years ago, having grossed out, you wrote in an article that ‘everything is possible in Bangladesh.’ Yes, tout de suite it has come out that you wrote it aright. A fraction of seasoned Bangladesh liberation force has now melted down with the criminal outfit of Anti-Bangladesh liberation force, the war criminals and their batrachians. They have now taken sanctuary in their den before the 11th national polls to bring the country back to the public slaughter house like 1971 and with a primal design only to slice up power for their own interests in the forthcoming parliamentary elections. These unblushing ring-leaders are no one else but Dr. Kamal Hossain, ASM Abdur Rob, Kader Siddiqui, Dr. Zafrullah Chowdhury and their compadres. On the one hand, they have encamped them with the anti-Bangladesh liberation force which brutally murdered three million of our people including the intellectuals and molested 3 hundred thousand of our mothers and sisters in 1971; on the other hand, they went to place the floral wreaths on the sanctified graveyards of martyred intellectuals at Mirpur, Dhaka on December 14. Look at their irremissible temerities! They have made them dunghill and can be thought of as third rater highwaymen and these midgets deserve to be excoriated in the most abrasive language. Policemen also should have ruthlessly stamped down the assaulters on the motorcade of Dr. Kamal Hossain and his chums.
Bangladesh’s political parties are in full campaign mode ahead of national elections and unfortunately signs are emerging that election-related violence is a real possibility. Every stake-holder to take steps to reduce the risks of coercion and possibly even bloodshed. Since the demise of its military dictatorship in the early 1990s, the country has made remarkable democratic progress and development works to build the country as a modern Bangladesh. Still, widespread corruption bedevils the country—which in many respects presents its biggest policy challenge and its biggest threat to stability and development.
Political parties or political fronts are targeting the youth, in particular and in the build up to the election, the Bangladesh’s Grand Alliance is leaving nothing to chance. Withal, we want to frontwards to vote down the anti-Bangladesh liberation force and their confederates in the December 30 national elections; must we defeat them; and upraise our glorious National Flag being triumphant.
-The End –
The writer is a senior citizen of Bangladesh, writes on politics, political and human-centred figures, current and international affairs.

Rising Tides Will Sink Global Order

Global warming will produce national extinctions and international insurgencies—and change everything you think you know about foreign policy.

An American flag is attached to the boardwalk damaged by Superstorm Sandy, on Nov. 24, 2012 in Ortley Beach, New Jersey.  (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)An American flag is attached to the boardwalk damaged by Superstorm Sandy, on Nov. 24, 2012 in Ortley Beach, New Jersey. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

No automatic alt text available.
BY 
|  The meeting held in Katowice, Poland, last week to discuss the further implementation of the Paris climate agreement was hailed by the participants as a success. A complete breakdown was avoided; the appearance of multilateralism was preserved. But it was a triumph of process over substance. The alliance of the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Russia blocked adequate recognition of the apocalyptic findings of the latest report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Brazil has withdrawn from hosting the next meeting. More important, no decisions were taken on emissions. The governments of Poland and the United States even used the meeting to reaffirm their commitment to coal.

In due course this blindness may be overcome. But time is of the essence. It is commonly said that climate change is a global risk that affects everyone. But that truism hides an essential difference. It is far riskier for some populations than for others. The current targets put the world on track for a 3.5-degree Celsius temperature rise; that is enough to doom the island nations in the Caribbean, Pacific, and elsewhere whose very existence is called into question by rising sea levels. Inhabitants of coastal areas around the world face mass displacement. In delta regions like Bangladesh that will involve tens of millions of people. But they at least have a hinterland to retreat to. For islanders, there is no retreat.

In addition to practical contingencies, this crisis has raised new and fundamental questions about international politics. What does sovereignty mean when global risks are so unequal? How will countries with a finite life expectancy conceive of politics? And what is the world’s responsibility when the first nations begin to disappear under water? The answers will likely add up to a revolution in global order.

This will become especially apparent for the United States. The conservative wing of American politics is the global leader in climate change denialism—indeed, it is the credo of the Trump administration. But, given the consequences for the international order that the United States has underwritten and the responsibilities that will soon be forced upon the country by its immediate neighborhood, this is an increasingly untenable position for the American government machinery to uphold.

The most vulnerable island states tend to be small. In the blunt economic calculus of climate change, as specified by one of this year’s economic Nobel laureates, William Nordhaus, the fate of the Maldives, Jamaica, or the Bahamas barely weighs in the balance. Their small scale also means that they are powerless to affect what happens. No renewable energy policy they might adopt will make any difference. It will be the consumption and production of fossil fuel by the great population centers of the West and Asia and the fossil fuel economies of the giant producers—the United States, Saudi Arabia, Russia—that will decide their fate.

The big states have their own economic and political reasons for their reticence. The governments in Brazil and the United States that are boycotting climate change diplomacy are democratically elected. But the violence they are threatening to smaller states is radical.

One might shrug. The archipelago nation-states are fragile entities. The history of human settlement on many of them is not continuous. But the fact is that during the 20th century they were cast as nation-states. Sovereign equality may be a hypocritical fiction. But one of the core assumptions of nation-state sovereignty is permanence. The only legitimate way to dismantle a sovereign is for it to spawn others. The extinction of sovereignty as, for instance, in the partition of Poland in 1939 between Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, is the definition of international crime. The Soviets at least incorporated the population of eastern Poland as citizens. There is little discussion today of compensating for the impending widespread loss of sovereignty.

This development will also have affect the basic structure of international relations. Sovereign permanence is a basic assumption of our present global order. Internationally, the assumption that nations have infinite time horizons is the foundation of all ideas of a stable and lasting international community, which structures all international cooperation. Domestically, in any given country, this assumption structures all policy discussions by distinguishing states from the individuals who are their citizens; in extremis, it’s the legitimacy of the state’s permanence that entitles governments to call on their citizens to make the ultimate sacrifice. In mundane terms, it is what gives states their ability to sustain enormous debts on an essentially permanent basis.

These basic unquestioned features of our political order are now in jeopardy. Rich countries worry about “dying out” due to demographic decline. But that can be fixed by migration. Climate change faces island nations with something even more elemental. They will cease to be viable as territorial states. They will literally disappear from the map. Relatively affluent island states like the Bahamas talk boldly about mitigation. But 80 percent of the Bahamas is one meter or less above sea level. What can mitigation possibly mean in that case? And what of Haitiwhose impoverished population lives crowded in the flood plain that borders deforested and infertile mountains?

The weakening of the basic assumption of sovereign permanence will inevitably have political and financial knock-on effects that have yet to be reckoned with. The world must decide how to treat sovereign states when their time horizon becomes limited. What kind of investment can be justified in a state whose life span is numbered in decades? When does lending money for reconstruction after the latest devastating hurricane no longer make sense? These are already questions for sovereign debt markets and ratings agencies. But they will also become basic political questions for the entire international community.

And if there is no reinvestment and reconstruction, what then? How will the political systems of post-colonial states react when it becomes evident that they have been doomed to extinction by decisions taken by more powerful and far larger actors in the rest of the world? One might speculate darkly that the existential crisis of the island nations might produce a radical response. It’s possible to imagine they would resort to some type of threat to force more urgent policy change in the rest of the world.
The problem is that the coercive pressure would need to be exerted now, when the consequences are not yet obvious and severe. By the time that they are, it will be too late. Then protest will be a matter of mourning, akin perhaps to the Native American ghost dance: a symbolic interpretation of mourning and loss rather than a means of changing actual politics.

If the pessimistic scenario unfolds, there may come a time when evacuation is the only option. But it’s not clear where to. The island nations are small states, which is why they are easily dismissed in the macroscopic calculus of global change. But we know how difficult it has proven for large states to accommodate comparatively tiny flows of refugees. Pinpricks can have remarkable political effects.
If the rich countries close their doors, if they seek to contain the fallout from the inundation within the maritime regions, the likely consequences are no less dire. In the Caribbean there is already a clear racialized hierarchy between the locals, both black and white, and the main groups of migrant workers—above all Haitians and Guatemalans. How much more stark—and how much less tolerable for the migrants, and the world watching on—will those lines become when entire nations are on the move?

A recent U.S. government report spelled out the serious impacts climate change will have across the United States and particularly in Hawaii. What they did not factor into their calculations were the regional effects of the crisis. In the crosshairs of extreme weather and sea level rise, the Caribbean will be among the regions most immediately affected. It has long been a zone of American predominance, a region of semicolonial incorporation, and a touristic playground. What threatens it today is not so much American power as American neglect.

Today the juxtaposition of the news from the U.N. climate change talks in Poland and the death of a 7-year-old Guatemalan girl in U.S. custody is still coincidental. A few decades from now it no longer will be.