Officials tell Foreign Policy there is talk of forces staying at al-Tanf, seen as key to monitoring, thwarting Tehran’s efforts in Syria
The US military outpost al-Tanf in southern Syria, October 22, 2018. (AP/Lolita Baldor)
By TOI STAFF-26 January 2019 Amid reported lobbying by Israel, the United States is considering maintaining troops at a Syrian base seen as essential to countering Iran’s presence in the war-torn country, Foreign Policy reported Friday.
Officials told the outlet that under the withdrawal plan, troops stationed at the al-Tanf garrison will be the last to leave the country, but added that there were discussions on keeping some soldiers at the base.
Al-Tanf is seen as key to monitoring and thwarting Iranian efforts to move personnel and weapons overland into Syria, where it has been fighting alongside the Assad regime and, according to Israeli accusations, seeks to entrench itself militarily.
Officials in Jerusalem have warned that America’s absence would open the door to Tehran to create a so-called land bridge from Iran, through Iraq and Syria, into Lebanon and to the Mediterranean. The continued presence of US troops at the garrison would help prevent this from happening, they believe.
The exclusion zone around the garrison allows US troops to claim self-defense when striking forces belonging to a state actor such as Iran, a source close to the withdrawal discussions told Foreign Policy.
“When they come through, we’ve claimed, I think reasonably, that they’ve been threatening either US forces or partner forces,” the source told the journal.
However, one official said that it would be legally complicated for the US to keep troops in Syria to counter the Iranian presence rather than to fight the Islamic State terrorist group, as the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force only gives dispensation for fighting non-state actors.
Furthermore, US President Donald Trump has said that the only reason for the presence of troops in Syria was to fight Islamic State, and keeping soldiers there would not only go against his order to withdraw, but also against his stated mission.
Jerusalem has lobbied for the Trump administration to reconsider pulling troops out of the base, Bloomberg reported Saturday. According to the outlet, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is asking the administration to maintain a presence at al-Tanf as a deterrent to Iran.
Israel sees Iranian entrenchment in Syria as a major threat and has carried out hundreds of airstrikes to thwart Tehran and proxy terror group Hezbollah.
Jerusalem has gone increasingly public with its actions in Syria and earlier this week, Israel’s air force launched a series of strikes on Iranian targets in Syria. This came after Iran fired a surface-to-surface missile at the Golan Heights in response to a rare daylight attack attributed to Israel.
Netanyahu has said the planned US pullout will not deter Israel from continuing to carry out airstrikes against Iranian military interests in Syria.
Immigration Minister Yoav Gallant on Saturday said Israel has a plan in place to expel Iranian forces from Syria. The former top general did not provide further details but credited Israeli actions with preventing the emergence of an Iranian military presence in the Golan Heights.
In announcing the move last month, Trump said the 2,000 American soldiers leading the coalition against the Islamic State jihadist group while helping thwart an Iranian military foothold in Syria would be pulled out soon. He did not give details, such as a timetable, leaving bewildered US partners in the region jockeying for influence over terms of a withdrawal.
Since the announcement, there have been a series of seemingly contradictory statements from the Trump administration regarding the pullout, leading to confusion from allies on what the US policy is. Agencies contributed to this report.
US lawmakers are punishing Airbnb for delisting rental units in illegal Israeli settlements. Shadi HatemAPA images Nora Barrows-FriedmanActivism and BDS Beat25 January 2019
Florida’s governor has directed that his state should cease doing business with Airbnb after the firm announced it would stop listing accommodations in Israel’s illegal settlements.
Ron DeSantis alleges that the company has engaged in “commercial discrimination” against Israel and is in violation of Florida’s laws that punish supporters of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign for Palestinian rights.
In a 15 January directive to state contractors, in which he declares that Florida “is a pro-Israel state,” the Florida governor says that his mandate “is in response to policies undertaken by Airbnb against the Israeli people.”
According to a memo, the University of Florida has capitulated to DeSantis’ mandate and has urged its staff to cancel any upcoming reservations with Airbnb that would be used during official college business.
Airbnb announced in November it was delisting its units from Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank following years-long campaigns by Palestinian and international human rights activists.
Last week, despite months of intense pressure by Israeli and US lawmakers to rescind its decision, Airbnb seems to have reiterated its November announcement and said it would be pulling the rental properties.
The company stated on 17 January that it has “developed a framework for evaluating how we should treat listings in disputed territories, including territories some consider occupied where homes – the core of our business – are central to ongoing tensions.”
Though the company has not indicated exactly when the rental units will be delisted in the West Bank colonies, it asserts that it is continuing to “move forward.”
Palestinians who live under occupation and confinement in the West Bank – or elsewhere in exile – cannot rent Airbnb properties in nearby Israeli settlements. Israel bars Palestinians from accessing the areas simply because they are not Jewish.
But DeSantis and other US lawmakers are denouncing Airbnb for “discrimination” against Israeli settlers who wish to make money off of their properties on stolen Palestinian land.
In his directive, DeSantis “goes above and beyond” the laws already on the books in Florida “that seek to unconstitutionally coerce its residents not to engage in boycotts for Palestinian rights,” Zoha Khalili, staff attorney with the organization Palestine Legal, told The Electronic Intifada.
“While his target today is a global company, if his actions go unchecked, he could easily use the same tactics to blacklist mom-and-pop shops and everyday Floridians who support Palestinian rights,” Khalili warned.
A professor at the University of Florida, who wished not to be named in fear of losing their employment, told The Electronic Intifada that they were dismayed by the university’s capitulation to the governor.
Palestinian rights advocates, said the professor, are scared to speak out against the state’s anti-BDS laws and the governor’s aggressive enforcement of them on behalf of Israel.
“It’s not only the governor,” the professor said, “but a foreign entity is directing how you can carry out your normal life.”
The memo from the university administration mandates that staff “cancel all official university business travel reservations that utilize Airbnb services and make other arrangements.”
The memo was seen by The Electronic Intifada.
Airbnb continues to carry listings for properties in Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights, Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967. All Israeli settlements in occupied territory are illegal under international law.
Accusations
Immediately following the November announcement, Airbnb came under intense pressure by Israeli officials who accused the company of “submitting” to the “anti-Semitic” boycott, divestment and sanctions movement for Palestinian rights as well as “discrimination” against Israeli landlords in illegal settlements.
US lawmakers joined their Israeli counterparts in indignation over Airbnb’s announcement, with hundreds of state officials condemning the company and vowing to punish it using anti-BDS measures that have been passed in 26 states.
In December, Israeli mediareported that after meeting with Israel’s tourism ministers, Airbnb had reversed its decision to pull listings from Israeli settlements.
But the company itself said that the reports of reversing its policy were “inaccurate,” adding that it was “continuing our dialogue” with the Israeli government “and other stakeholders.”
Airbnb’s recent memo reiterating its intent to pull settlement listings indicates a rebuke to Israel’s efforts to bully it into keeping the listings on its website.
Florida protects Israel from criticism
While DeSantis works to shield Israel from international legal responsibility, a local Florida lawmaker is seeking to buttress the state’s anti-BDS legislation, taking aim against the rights of students and educators to criticize Israeli policies.
Introduced into the state government last week, the bill seeks to prevent anti-Semitism and discrimination against Jewish people in all public institutions in the state, even though federal laws against such discrimination already exist.
However, “under the law, Florida residents could sue or otherwise file complaints against teachers or administrators who criticize the Israeli state,” reportsThe Miami New Times.
According to the bill, acts of anti-Semitism would include “the work of a multilateral organization investigating Israel for peace or human rights violations” – a clear admission that even questioning Israel’s policies and human rights records would be conflated with anti-Jewish bigotry in Florida.
Meanwhile, Marco Rubio, a member of the US Senate for Florida, has been attempting to pass a new versionof his anti-BDS law in Congress that would protect states against legal challenge to their own anti-boycott measures.
Rubio’s bill has been defeated three times this month as Democratic lawmakers refused to pass any legislation that wouldn’t re-open the federal government, which President Donald Trump closed in order to extort $5 billion from taxpayers for a wall at the US-Mexico border.
“Now it’s time to lay it bare: You can’t fool the Party into starting this journey, nor can you allow the calls for political reform that lack a clear final goal to numb the minds of the people.”
I. Why Hasn’t Political Reform Happened?
In the late 1970s, China undertook a reform; the main elements were the restoration of the household production system in rural China [that allowed individual families to take control of their farming], opening up the private economy, and allowing farmers to go into the cities to find work. In the early 1990s, seeing that it was likely that this reform would run aground, Deng Xiaoping once again pushed a reform agenda, which was known as “reform of the economic system.” As for corresponding political reform, Deng Xiaoping and the leaders that came after him all mentioned it in succession, and even said: “Without successful reform of the political system, reform of the economic system will be impossible to carry through to the end.” Subsequent history proved this argument.
It is precisely because political reform did not happen in China that “reform and opening up” fell far short of meeting people’s expectations, and the developments up to the present have led to a fear of further regression. Why did political reform always remain in the realm of words, with not even one step taken towards action? The truth is actually quite obvious, but unfortunately, it seems that it was never clearly pointed out.
When referring to political reform in speeches, the above-mentioned leaders meant the following: first, the separation of Party and government and the separation of government and enterprise; second, decentralization of power, avoiding excessive concentration of power; third, improving the legal system; fourth, initiating social and political consultations.
Why did these leaders propose political reform? Because they realized that if rule of law is lacking and power is abused, then social and economic life cannot get on the right track.
But why, ultimately has political reform not been implemented? Because intuition has also told the Communist Party leaders that every component of political reform weakens the Party. First, the separation of Party and government, and the separation of government and enterprise, means that the Party is losing power to others, and that the Party will lose control of the administration of the state and the society and economy. Second, the soundness of the rule of law will, on the one hand, guarantee citizens’ rights and freedoms such as speech, association, assembly, and demonstration, and on the other hand, limit the sphere of action of the Party. The society will not be completely controlled by the ruling group as in the past. Third, once genuine political consultations are initiated, it’s possible the Communist Party’s views will fall into a disfavored position. In order to avoid such a situation, the Party leaders eventually created political consultations in form only, in which they had the final say. Fourth, in the competition with the Party’s internal and external opponents, the rulers are increasingly firmly convinced of this: in order to suppress and respond to the trend of social diversification, democratization, and liberalization, even internally the Party cannot practice democracy and must concentrate power.
Before the reform of the economic system, and afterwards too, it’s difficult to say that most of the Communist Party’s guiding principles and policies have been in the fundamental interests of the vast public. But ahead of us there is something that is in the common interest of both the broad Chinese public and the Party, and that is, the Communist Party should fade into history peacefully, avoiding violence and minimizing social unrest. I think that the one great thing the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party can do that would enter the annals of history is to honorably and with dignity lead the Party off the historical stage.
During its 70-year rule, the Party has brought too many disasters to the Chinese people. And as the Party has evolved up until now, its power structure as well as its ecology have predetermined that it can no longer deliver excellent leaders for Chinese society at all levels; it has almost completely lost its self-correcting mechanism. Its nature has already completely degenerated: for a long time it’s been a group that lacks belief; people join the Party to become officials, and they defend the Party to protect vested interests. The mindset of preserving power at all costs ruined the souls of those involved: hatred of different political views grows ever stronger, and the fear of a crisis has led to their own dysfunction.
The path to escape the shackles on their souls is to strive to melt the Party into the larger society.
However, to make the Party that has ruled Chinese society for 70 years end the one-party dictatorship by itself, there will be a long period of transition. During the transition period, the Party will necessarily be the one to guard social order. This transition period will allow other political forces to emerge, preparing to launch real and meaningful political consultations. Every school of thought and political faction can have its own ideas, but China’s blueprint for the future, and the path it will forge, can only be produced through negotiations involving many political groups.
Don’t we already have the “Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference” (CPPCC)? It is difficult in this world to find a business like the CPPCC that squanders taxpayers’ money and is so hypocritical, contrived, pointless and boring, and deceptive. I’m speechless as how to describe it. If the rulers had courage and confidence, they should either disband the CPPCC and engage in a real one-party dictatorship; or give different political factions a platform for dialogue and engage in real political consultations.
Ending autocracy is in the interest of the Chinese people, but bloodshed and turmoil are not. A peaceful transition is in the interest of the Communist Party, because it is the only dignified path of retreat.
In sum, pursuing prosperity while fearing for its political security has resulted in the Party professing interest in something it fears for more than 30 years, and swaying to and fro, left and right, in the economic and ideological fields. However, in the past few years, the seesawing has come to a halt at the left side because the Party leaders realized that the private economy and the liberalization of thought bears a threatening and close relationship to the survival of the Party. In contrast to the increasingly stereotypical conduct of the power oligarchy, the call for political reform has not declined at all in society. Unfortunately, the latter has been weak at best. It’s been weak because everyone is scared; it’s been weak because those few in the know have stopped short of telling the whole truth. Chen Ziming (陈子明) said: We should promote democracy together with the Communist Party. Zhou Duo (周舵) advocated Party-led constitutional government.
Just exactly what will the position of the Communist Party be when democracy and constitutional government are realized in China? Now it’s time to lay it bare: You can’t fool the Party into starting this journey, nor can you allow the calls for political reform that lack a clear final goal to numb the minds of the people.
II. Rarely Seen Common Interest of the Party and the People
The core of the theory is “the Communist Party of China must always represent the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people.” Unfortunately, during most of its rule, the Party’s principles and policies have not represented the interests of the vast majority of the Chinese people. Property rights are the greatest manifestation of interests. In the rural areas, through the chain of land reform, mutual aid groups, cooperatives, and people’s communes, the land has changed from privately owned to state-owned. In the cities, private economy vanished following the public-private partnership movement. The benefits of the economic reforms of the 1980s proved that the above-mentioned two revolutions seriously violated the fundamental interests of the Chinese people, and suppressed their zeal for production. Otherwise, why would there have been a need for reform to begin with?
So after the reform, did the policies represent the interests of the vast majority of the people? When land was nationalized, what did the government do? Creating revenue by selling land. It sold lots at high prices to real estate developers. This is the first cause of excessive housing prices in China and a great portion of the population became slaves to their mortgages. Isn’t it too tyrannical to say that a policy that enriches the state and impoverishes the people is in the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people?
For 60 years, from 1949 to today, only once did I see a time when most of the people in the ruling class had reform aspirations, and that was in 1978. Just once.
Has there ever been a policy of the Communist Party that has been in the fundamental interests of the Chinese people? Yes, but it really is rare; that was the reform of the economic system in the late 1980s. I stated the following view at a seminar in 2008: top-down reform is not common; it is a rare thing because the reform aspirations at the higher level and motivation to reform exist only in rare moments. For 60 years, from 1949 to today, only once did I see a time when most of the people in the ruling class had reform aspirations, and that was in 1978. Just once.
What was the motivation for the reforms in 1978? Because they were at a point at which they could either choose to reform, or see the Party demise. “If the Party falls, so does the nation” is the axiom so often repeated by the state propaganda machine. But there is no such thing as the demise of the country. The age of colonialism is all but in the past; China and its people no longer face the same threat of extermination. It’s the Party that is going down. Thanks to its dismal management of the country, there are so many people who can’t make ends meet. What happens if the Party falls? The Party will fade into history. Of course, they want to avoid that scenario, so reform was implemented.
We can credit Mao Zedong for creating this consensus among them: Mao, in his dogmatic ways since 1956, had drawn himself ever further apart from his colleagues. No one except for the bootlickers and careerists were inclined to support him. By the time of his death, he had driven upwards of 95 percent of the people within the Party into the ranks of a hidden opposition. The end of Mao led the other senior officials to jointly discuss how they should move away from Mao’s political line. I have yet to find a second dictator in history whose subordinates stood together in such unity after his death. It is extraordinary and rare: the Party elders were of one mind, working in concert to turn things around.
Reform is not a novel concept: going back to 1956, and even earlier. In the Ming and Qing dynasties (1368–1911), and all the way back in the Qin Dynasty (221–206 B.C.), household production system had been the model for agricultural production. Throughout history, there had been a private economy that existed to varying degrees in urban areas. Reform isn’t some sort of groundbreaking thing, it’s actually conservatism: look at what the ancients did and follow the path they took. It’s just that Mao Zedong introduced his utopian thinking that repudiated common sense. This thinking led to constant disagreement during the reform period despite the broad consensus; as a result, the general secretary [of the CCP] was replaced time and again. Today, that rare moment of consensus that once permeated the leadership is gone; they will not come to this kind of understanding again. What reason do we have to hope that any new top-down reforms can be sustainable?
III. Successful Transition Requires the Cooperation of Two Forces
No discussion regarding the end of the one-party dictatorship in Taiwan can do to omit Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國). At the same time, the Taiwanese themselves firmly deny the notion that the course of their history was shaped by one individual. They think that Chiang would not have made that choice if not for the perseverance of Taiwan’s democratic activism as well as the massive pressure that arose from the social diversity at the time. I am of the same opinion.
The ruler is created by the ruled, and vice versa. Ruler and ruled sculpt one another, together creating a vicious circle. The ruler bears most of the responsibility, but his wantonness is also induced by the meekness and submissiveness of the Chinese themselves. They have spoiled the CCP too much. Only when we the vulnerable speak up can China escape this vicious cycle. If there is no pressure from outside [the political system], no demand for the independence of the press or tolerance of opposition parties, there can be no change: Even supposing the Party leader himself is willing to reform, he would encounter opposition from his colleagues — they would think that he has gone insane. It needs not be said that without external impetus, the idea of reform will never occur to them. If we don’t voice our opinions and exert pressure, we don’t deserve to see the dictatorship come to its end.
On the other hand, a wise leader is needed to bring a peaceful end to dictatorial Party rule. Otherwise, violence will be inevitable. It is hard to say if this sort of positive development has much probability of occurring, but at least there’s the possibility, since those in the upper echelons of power know the truth, better than anyone on the outside, that the Party can hardly change its ingrained habits. For the Party to voluntarily give up its power in a way that saves face would be a win-win outcome.
There’s a third “win” involved: I have always believed that politicians must possess ambition. For one’s name to be honored by history should be enough to satisfy the ambition of any politician. This is the best way out for the Chinese people, the Party, and the Party leader.
Being the Party leader though, it’s really no easy task to take the Party on this path. The challenge comes not necessarily in the form of opposition from the outsiders, but the lack thereof, which is also a consequence brought about by the Party itself. As it doesn’t face any credible opposition, it has little reason to choose the path of ending its rule.
This is also the reason why I have decided to “poke through the paper window” and point at the truth hidden within. Let us gather and pool our efforts to take the single path that will lead to an amicable resolution. This opportunity will not last long.
IV. Blame Not He Who Speaks But the Wise Men Who Remain Silent
It is written in the Chinese constitution that the “socialist system is the basic system of the People’s Republic of China.” and that “the leadership of the Communist Party of China is the defining feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Given that the central theme of this article goes against the words above, should I be considered a criminal for writing it? No, because it is an expression of opinion and not an action. There should be no such thing as a thought criminal in a civilized country.
The Thirteenth People’s Congress convened in 2018 is instructive. There used to be a rule in the constitution limiting the number of presidential terms, and a motion to remove the term limit was proposed prior to the conference. Is it a crime to suggest a constitutional amendment to the presidential term limit? No. I am in favor of terms being limited, but I don’t think it’s wrong to suggest any amendment to the constitution. The characteristic of the law is that it is authoritative and inviolable under a specific setting, but it also progresses along with the course of history and as such is subject to revision. The process of revision is dependent on the ability of citizens to freely discuss and criticize the laws, so long as their criticism remains in the realm of speech and not action as this would be illegal.
Over the years I have scribbled millions of words. How could I forgive myself if I fail to write a few words on the one question that has been on my mind for so long, the question that concerns the future of our country?
While I write this primarily in my own self-defense, I also write them for the people who came before, or will come after, me. For a peaceful transition to become reality, China needs citizens who abide by the law. I am such a citizen. Everyone shares a collective responsibility for the welfare of the nation, as it’s said, and this is one of the reasons I wanted to write this article. A humbler reason is to allow myself some semblance of self-respect. Over the years I have scribbled millions of words. How could I forgive myself if I fail to write a few words on the one question that has been on my mind for so long, the question that concerns the future of our country?
In January 1948, three months after the CCP published the “Outline Land Law of China” (《中国土地法大纲》), late Chinese sociologist Fei Xiaotong (费孝通) wrote an article titled “Standards for a Moderately Prosperous Society Free of Hunger and Cold” (《黎民不饥不寒的小康水准》) to argue against violent land reform. He wrote: “History is not always reasonable, but in any historical setting there has always been a reasonable solution available. Whether history can develop along a reasonable course is dependent upon whether people can make rational choices. Those in the position of scholars have the responsibility to point out rational solutions, while it is up to the politician to bring it into history.”
I don’t believe we’ve reached the point where we can hold the politicians responsible for everything. This is because at present, the intellectuals have yet to fulfill their duty. Had they stayed true to their conscience and mustered the courage to speak their minds, China would not be in the state it is in today.
Drafted August 2018; finalized December 2018.
Zheng Yefu (郑也夫) was born in 1950 in Beijing. He was one of the 17 million “educated youths” sent down to the countryside, and served in the Heilongjiang Construction Corps. He is now a retired sociology professor from Peking University. The Chinese version of the article can be found here.
China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi speaks during the opening session of the Belt and Road Forum on Legal Cooperation at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing on July 2, 2018. Source: Greg Baker/AFP
CHINA’S Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has gained huge momentum, with governments, companies and lawyers keen to maximise the many opportunities it presents. But it has also come with more than its fair share of push-backs, disputes and accusations of debt-diplomacy – landing developing nations into a pit of financial strife from which they are unable to dig themselves out.
To combat the inevitable clashes that occur on the multi-billion-dollar worldwide project, Singapore and China this week established an international panel of mediators.
Dispute resolution professionals from both countries, along with representatives from the country in question, will work together to resolve any issues before they escalate.
“BRI projects tend to be high-value, multi-party and multi-jurisdictional,” George Lim, chairman of Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC), said in a statement.
“These factors raise the chances of a dispute occurring during the course of project delivery and also complicate the dispute resolution process… Adversarial processes will inevitably be costly and time-consuming and cause significant delay to project delivery.”
China’s Belt & Road Initiative will sweep across some 70 nations in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Pacific region. Source: Mercator Institute for China Studies
A Memorandum of Understanding to set up a BRI mediator panel was signed between the SIMC and the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) in Beijing on Thursday.
The BRI is President Xi Jinping’s flagship project to boost global trade and further Chinese diplomacy. It stretches across Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Europe, connecting regions with a serious of major infrastructure projects, including railways and major ports.
Despite, or maybe because of, Beijing’s aggressive attempts to further the initiative, they have run into a number of disagreements with other governments.
The nature and funding of the China-led projects has raised concerns across Asia.
Malaysia’s new prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, has scrapped US$22 billion-worth of Belt and Road projects in the country, including the 688-kilometre East Coast Rail link, and two natural gas pipelines.
The financial burden was given as the reason behind the cancellation, Mahathir said in August Malaysia could not repay the money and accused China of “a new version of colonialism.”
Chinese President Xi Jinping shakes hands with Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta prior to their bilateral meeting during the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China May 15, 2017. Source: Reuters/Etienne Oliveau
Burma (Myanmar) also sought to scale back a US$7 billion port project in troubled Rakhine state, again out of fears it involves too much debt for the country to repay. Reaching a compromise, the two signed an agreement in November to go ahead with the project at a reduced cost of US$1.3 billion in the initial phase.
Sri Lanka was forced to cede control of a strategic port to Beijing because it was unable to repay massive debts to China.
It’s a similar story in Africa where Beijing has pumped in nearly US$150 billion in loans since the turn of the millennium.
Despite hitting several roadblocks, China is continuing to bullishly forge ahead with the initiative. The hope is that the panel will be able to weather some of the storms that arise along the way.
Under the new agreement, both parties will jointly develop the rules, case management protocol and enforcement procedures for BRI dispute cases submitted for mediation.
Those on the panel will also undergo a skills exchange programme to familiarise themselves with the business and dispute resolution culture of the BRI jurisdictions.
The FBI came for him before dawn, dressed in combat gear, using night-vision equipment and shouting “Open the door”, before arresting former Trump campaign aide Roger Stone as part of the investigation into alleged Russian collusion.
Nothing to do with us, the White House insisted, while Stone declared he would plead not guilty and fight charges including witness tampering and false statements.
Authorities say that 40 people have died, and more than 300 people remain missing according to the company. The disaster comes only three years after a similar failure of the Fundão tailings dam near Mariana – co-owned by Vale – which killed 19 people.
Speaking after the latest disaster, the local fire chief Col Edgar Estevão said 100 people had been rescued from the sea of mud released by the dam. However, Vale later released a list of 412 employees and contractors whom it had still been unable to contact, and the state governor, Romeu Zema, said he did not expect many more survivors. “We know now that the chances of having survivors are minimal and that we will probably rescue bodies,” he said.
Brazilian television showed images of survivors being winched to safety by a helicopter after the disaster at the Feijão mine near Brumadinho, less than two hours from the state capital, Belo Horizonte.
“I saw a gigantic cloud of dust and a wave of mud. It was one wave on top of another,” one contractor, Mayke Ferreira, told the Folha de S.Paulo newspaper. Ferreira said he had been sleeping in a nearby dormitory when he was woken by an enormous crash.
It is not yet clear what caused the tailings dam to burst. However, the Brazilian environmental agency Ibama has already slapped a 250m reais (£50m) fine on Vale for violations related to the tragedy. The company has caused pollution, made the area unfit for habitation and committed other regulatory violations, Ibama said. State prosecutors have also filed a request to freeze 5bn reais in Vale’s accounts to help fund recovery works.
Brazil’s new president, Jair Bolsonaro, visited Minas Gerais and flew over the disaster area. “We will do what is within our reach to attend the victims, minimise damages, investigate the facts, demand justice and prevent new tragedies like Mariana and Brumadinho,” he tweeted.
However, environmentalists have accused Bolsonaro of persistently attacking them for calling for tighter regulations at the mine and for failing to take action to tighten safety there.
“This tragedy was only a matter of time,” said Carlos Eduardo Pinto, a prosecutor who worked on the Mariana case. “Since the Fundão tailings dam, nothing has been done to increase control of this activity.”
Darcy Brum walks past mud that entered in the kitchen of the house of his father-in-law near Brumadinho, Brazil on Saturday. Photograph: Léo Corrêa/AP
Most of the victims of the disaster were Vale employees or subcontractors, around 100 of whom were having lunch in a canteen on the mine complex when the torrent of mud swept over them. A busload of workers was also killed, it was reported.
Maicon Vitor, 22, an electro-mechanic technician, told O Globo newspaper that he had just left the canteen when he heard the roar of the tailings dam breaking. “It came down dragging workshops, offices; the whole canteen which was in front of me went,” he said.
Fabio Schvartsman, the chief executive of Vale, said he was devastated by the tragedy. “Most of those affected were Vale employees,” he said. “I’m completely torn apart by what happened.”
Vale said the 86-metre-high tailings dam at the Corrego de Feijão open-cast, iron ore mining complex was built in 1976 and held 11.7m litres of mining waste. It was being decommissioned and had been pronounced safe in inspections.
Mud and waste from the mining disaster in Minas Gerais. Photograph: António Lacerda/EPA
But the National Civil Society Forum for Hydrographic Basins, a network of civil society groups, said that it had urged the authorities not to grant Vale a licence to continue operations there.
“The population of Casa Branca is very worried, with good reason,” Julio Grillo from Ibama, told a meeting on 11 December, according to minutes obtained by the Observer.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, an official at the state environment agency asked why the company had built a canteen at the foot of the dam. “How can you approve a dam like this with the guy building an administrative centre with canteen at the foot of the tailings dam?”
It cost billions to clean up after the Mariana disaster in 2015, which polluted the drinking water of hundreds of thousands. Yet no individual was ever held responsible. “Cases like these are not accidents but environmental crimes,” Greenpeace Brazil said in a statement.
“I hope now they will create a new way to mine that doesn’t mount up waste, a safe way of working that does not leave widows,” said Sandra Quintao, a survivor of the Mariana disaster.
The Mariana dam was operated by Samarco, a joint venture between Vale and BHP Billiton, an Anglo-Australian mining giant.
Celine Haeri, co-founder of Aleph Networks, a cyber security company poses, on December 4, 2018 at the company's headquarters near Villefranche-sur-Saone. Source: Jean-Philippe Ksiazek/AFP
CYBERCRIME is something that all business leaders are keen on discussing, but the real cost of cybercrime (or security) is something that doesn’t receive due attention.
Over the past years, we’ve seen how corporate cybersecurity lapses not only cost companies money but also damage their reputation beyond repair, sending the company on a downward spiral.
According to a new report by consulting giant Accenture, cybercrime could cost companies US$5.2 trillion in additional costs and lost revenues over the next five years.
The value is congruent with reports from other agencies, experts, and security analysts in the region.
The Herjavec Group, for example, issued a similar projection last year suggesting that cybercrime damages would cost the world US$6 trillion annually by 2021.
Obviously, the risk is great, and with new-age digital policies such as bring your own device (BYOD) and implementation such as the internet of things (IoT) creating more vulnerabilities than cybersecurity professionals can possibly track, companies constantly find themselves over-exposed.
“Our expanding attack surfaces, built onto an aging internet that wasn’t conceived with security in mind, are opening us up to a whole host of new vulnerabilities faster than they can be secured and trust is eroding,” Accenture’s Security Lead for Asean Andrew McLauchlan told Tech Wire Asia.
As a result, CEOs are increasing their spends on cybersecurity, looking for new and innovative solutions to help protect their business.
(L-R) Cyber Security Agency CEO David Koh, MCI Permanent Secretary Gabriel Lim, Minister for Communications and Information S. Iswaran, Health Minister Gan Kim Yong, Ministry of Health Permanent Secretary Chan Heng Kee and SingHealth CEO Ivy Ng attend a press conference regarding the SingHealth cyber attack in Singapore. July 20, 2018. Source: The Straits Times/AFP
Gartner projects that such spending was more than US$123 billion for 2018 and will grow by 10.8 percent per year to nearly US$170.5 billion by 2022.
Given the growth in demand, the number of vendors and startups providing solutions have also significantly increased, prompting several venture capitalists to plonk their money into new cybersecurity ventures.
On reviewing data from CB Insights, Accenture’s analysts found that investments to the tune of almost US$33 billion were made in 2,479 security startups since 2009, exceeding even investments in blockchain, which have surged with the interest in business applications and cryptocurrencies.
In fact, some of the most exciting cybersecurity startups are experimenting with artificial intelligence (AI) and how that can help find and prevent attacks on the fly, transforming the meaning of cybersecurity for businesses altogether.
The use of AI might seem to make logical sense, but the MIT Technology Review calls it “a dangerous gamble”, and for good reason.
Experts warn that companies are simply launching such solutions because customers (companies) have bought into the AI hype cycle — and that their offerings need more “training” before they can actually provide a strong defense.
However, you can’t really blame companies for looking for new solutions to fend off attackers. There’s a lot of confusion, and it seems as though some protection is better than no protection at all.
According to Accenture’s latest study, 59 percent of organisations say the internet is becoming increasingly unstable from a cybersecurity standpoint and they are not sure how to react.
The bottom line, therefore, is that it’s time for companies to make sure they’re doing all the right things to protect themselves.
And while fending against sophisticated cyberattacks might be difficult, companies must realise that going back to the basics and following certain “cyber hygiene” techniques is a great starting point.
“The good news is that if digital trust can be secured it adds about 2.8 percent annual revenue growth over the next five years to global corporate growth that will otherwise be at risk,” pointed out McLauchlan, who believes that companies that get it right can bring great value to their business.
Here are some ideas to help companies looking to get great at cyber-hygiene:
A screenshot shows a WannaCry ransomware demand, provided by cyber security firm Symantec. Source: Reuters
1. Train your people
When a company starts using technology that many or even most of its relevant employees don’t understand, the firm is bound to suffer from lost opportunities or higher cyber vulnerabilities—or both.
Security will be determined by the company’s weakest link; often that is an employee who inadvertently presents the opportunity for a breach.
Yet systematic training is, in general, still not accepted as a basic practice, even with attacks increasing in frequency, size and scope. Incentives are also important: Some companies are linking executives’ remunerations to security.
2. Protect against phishing
Hackers often use social engineering tactics, such as phishing, to attack companies, so training to avoid falling in this trap is especially important.
3. Strengthen your passwords policy
Though it sounds obvious, many companies still struggle with the implementation of cybersecurity basics, such as sound password policy. Multifactor authentication should be the default option for every business.
4. Never ignore patches
Unfortunately, when a company detects a vulnerability, the fix is often put off until security managers and staff “have time.” Now is the time to prioritize fixing any detected weaknesses.
This article was originally published on our sister site Tech Wire Aisa.
The US military outpost al-Tanf in southern Syria, October 22, 2018. (AP/Lolita Baldor)
Amid reported lobbying by Israel, the United States is considering maintaining troops at a Syrian base seen as essential to countering Iran’s presence in the war-torn country, Foreign Policy reported Friday.
US lawmakers are punishing Airbnb for delisting rental units in illegal Israeli settlements. 
Darcy Brum walks past mud that entered in the kitchen of the house of his father-in-law near Brumadinho, Brazil on Saturday. Photograph: Léo Corrêa/AP
Mud and waste from the mining disaster in Minas Gerais. Photograph: António Lacerda/EPA
