REVEALED: The full extent of US arms deals with Saudi Arabia and UAE

Commercial deals tracked by arms monitor prove the US is far more involved in the Yemen war than suspected

US President Donald Trump and then-Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman shake hands in the White House in March 2017 (AFP)

By Frank Andrews-4 April 2019

The United States has struck at least $68.2bn worth of deals for firearms, bombs, weapons systems, and military training with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates since the start of their war in Yemen – billions more than previously reported – according to data collected by an American think tank.

That colossal sum includes, for the first time, both commercial and governmental arms deals and indicates that US involvement in the disastrous war may be greater than suspected. In fact, the weapons expenditure could have funded the United Nations’s 2019 humanitarian appeal for Yemen – which totalled $4bn – 17 times over.

According to the data collected by arms trade watchdog Security Assistance Monitor (SAM) and reported here for the first time, American companies have made deals worth at least $14bn with the Emiratis and Saudis since March 2015, when the coalition intervened in the conflict.

Government sales tend to be for major systems, like combat aircraft, tanks, bombs, and ships, some of which are more likely than others to be used in Yemen – partly because it can take years to finalise such deals, which frequently grab headlines.

But it’s the smaller weapons like firearms and bombs sold in commercial sales that experts say are disproportionately likely to be used in the conflict and inflict significant damage.

William Hartung, director of the arms and security project at the Center for International Policy, a progressive think tank in Washington, DC, which houses SAM, said the commercial data shows the US footprint in Yemen is "dramatically understated” because commercial sales are “so rarely discussed, compared to big glitzy deals like the fighter planes”. 

SAM’s estimate was all but confirmed by a US state department official, speaking on background, who said the overall value of American weapons deals to the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen since March 2015 totalled about $67.4bn.

New details about the arms deals come amid a continued push in the US Congress to end Washington’s involvement in the war in Yemen, which has displaced millions and led to widespread disease and malnutrition.

In February, the Senate passed a bill to withdraw US military support for the coalition and the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted 247-175 in favour of the resolution on Thursday. US President Donald Trump has threatened to veto the effort, however.

“President Trump is going to have to decide if we are going to continue to aid the Saudi military in killing thousands of civilians and blocking humanitarian aid to Yemen," Senator Chris Murphy, one of three lawmakers behind the bipartisan bill, told Middle East Eye.

Some of the deals were struck just days after US-made weapons were shown to have been used by the Saudi-led coalition in air strikes that killed civilians, including school children on a field trip, guests attending a wedding, and an entire family, excluding a five-year-old girl, at their Sanaa home.

“It's hard to imagine a more dramatic example of the negative consequences of US arms sales,” Hartung said.

'It's hard to imagine a more dramatic example of the negative consequences of US arms sales'

- William Hartung, Center for International Policy

“They're supporting regimes that are murdering civilians and causing a humanitarian catastrophe… This is a stain on the United States.”

The weapons in the deals range from missile defence systems to grenade launchers to firearms, but most were offered in deals by US arms manufacturers to the Saudi and Emirati governments.

And that’s why, until now, the total figures used by journalists and researchers for approved US deals have been deceptively low: unlike government deals, data on commercial deals is difficult to obtain, with bare-bone details only made public long after Congress is notified, sometimes even 18 months later, said Christina Arabia, the director of SAM, which collected the data used in this story and is the only organisation which tracks both types of sales.

Without US weapons, experts say the coalition fighting in Yemen – which is led by Saudi Arabia and includes the UAE – would be largely unable to wage its war. As of 2017, three out of every five weapons imported by the coalition was US-made, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Some of those weapons have been used in more than 100 coalition air strikes and cluster bomb attacks which have killed civilians or targeted hospitals and villages since March 2015, NGOs and media outlets have reported.

The Saudi-led coalition is responsible for 4,764 reported civilian deaths since 2016, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED).

Yet deals over the past four years have continued largely unabated. “Most deals to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or anywhere else, basically sail through Congress without a discouraging word, much less a vote,” said Hartung.

Tracking nightmare

The main reason the total worth of US arms deals to the Saudi-led coalition has been publicly undervalued, said Arabia, is the convoluted and opaque way commercial deals are tracked and reported.

The US government publishes details about arms deals concluded with other governments – through the “Foreign Military Sales” programme – whenever the administration gives its approval. But tracking deals between commercial US arms manufacturers and foreign governments – ‘Direct Commercial Sales’ – is tricky.

'There’s some information about the type of weapon in one committee report. Then another committee report will say the country name, and then I have to contact another committee to get the dollar amount of the sale'

- Christina Arabia, Security Assistance Monitor

Some deals are listed as going to multiple countries, hiding the true recipients of the weapons or any dollar amount. Other agreements don’t give specific weapon types, only rough categories like "firearms and ammunition".

There are also thresholds, which mean certain, lower-value deals aren’t disclosed to Congress – any firearms deal under $1m, for example – and some deals are only listed at a threshold amount when they are worth far more.

The US state department recently listed an arms export deal to Saudi Arabia – for work related to the Patriot air defence system – as being worth “$50 million or more”. SAM data shows it was in fact worth over $195.5m.

The result of this murky reporting? The public is left in the dark about where, how many and to whom US arms are sold, said Arabia.

“There’s some information about the type of weapon in one committee report,” she said. “Then another committee report will say the country name, and then I have to contact another committee to get the dollar amount of the sale.”

Sometimes, Arabia said, she only gets figures because she has built relationships with specific committee staffers. She says that since the US midterm elections in November, when the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives, she has been unable to get her usual flow of information.

However, bit by bit, Arabia has pieced together a database of commercial deals to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Combining figures from both the government and commercial deals she has tracked, Arabia’s totals show that the US has agreed on over $54.1bn in weapons and training with the Saudis and more than $14bn with the UAE since the coalition’s intervention in the war.

Their figures only date back to 2015, making it impossible to know how many weapons the US sold commercially to the coalition pre-war. The commercial and government sales programmes both began in 1976.

While the state department attests to the accuracy of her numbers, Arabia suspects she may still be billions of dollars too low.

Attacks followed by deals

It is now clear, using SAM’s data, that the US has approved arms deals with Saudi Arabia and the UAE just days after the coalition were shown to have used US bombs to kill civilians in Yemen and also after the brutal killing of Washington Post and Middle East Eye columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

Most recently, on 6 December, two months after Khashoggi was dismembered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, the Trump administration approved a commercial deal for more than $195.5m in upgrades to Saudi Arabia’s Patriot missile defence system.

The Saudis have used a Patriot system to defend against Houthi rocket attacks. 

Deals made soon after coalition attacks using US weapons include:

• On 9 August 2018, a coalition bomb hit a school bus in northern Yemencarrying boys on a field trip. It killed 54 people, including 44 children. A week later, Congress was notified of a commercial deal with the UAE worth $344.8m for spare parts for a Patriot missile defence system.
• CNN reported on 17 August that the bomb used in the school bus attack was manufactured by US firm Lockheed Martin, the biggest arms maker in the world. Three day’s after CNN’s report aired, the Donald Trump administration made a deal with the UAE for $10.4m in rifle parts.
• Saudi-led coalition pilots bombed a wedding northwest of the Yemeni capital Sanaa on 22 April 2018, reportedly killing 33 people, including the bride. Days later, Bellingcat proved that US firm Raytheon had made part of a bomb found at the scene of the attack. The Trump administration approved a commercial deal with the Saudis on 21 June for $2.1m in rifles and grenade launchers.
• On 25 August 2017, a laser-guided bomb hit a residential area in Sanaa and killed a couple and five of their six children. A photo of five-year-old Buthaina – the only family member who survived – taken soon after the attack went viral. In it, swollen and bruised, she pulls her eyelids apart to see. Amnesty International proved a month later that a chunk of a bomb found amid the ruins was made by Raytheon. Weeks later, on 6 October, the US authorised a deal to send a THAAD missile defence system worth $15bn to Riyadh.

Similar Saudi-led coalition attacks and US weapons agreements happened throughout 2015 and 2016, when former US President Barack Obama was still in the White House.

The Saudis and Emiratis led a coalition of Arab countries into the Yemeni civil war in March 2015 to quell a Houthi uprising. The Saudis say the Houthis are a proxy for Iran, while analysts say the UAE seems to be attempting to crush opposition groups and gain territory in Yemen, particularly along the Red Sea.

A Yemeni child prays at the grave of a schoolboy killed when his bus was attacked by the Saudi-led coalition in August 2018 (AFP)

Just before Obama left office, his administration, which authorised $117bn in arms deals to the Saudis in eight years, halted the sale of precision-guided munitions due to human rights concerns over attacks carried out by the Saudi-led coalition.

But in May 2017, while in Saudi Arabia on his first overseas visit as president, Trump announced he would overturn that suspension. 

As a result of the ongoing conflict, Yemen – already one of the poorest countriesin the Middle East – has “all but ceased to exist”, according to the UN, which saidthe country is now facing “the worst man-made humanitarian crisis of our time”.

Unofficial channels

But while US government and commercial arms deals to countries in the Saudi-led coalition total tens of billions of dollars, many US-made weapons also make their way into the hands of warring parties in Yemen through unofficial channels.

'It's so normal to find American weapons in Yemen'

-  Nadwa al-Dawsari, Center for Civilians in Conflict

An arms dealer in Yemen’s Houthi-controlled north offered to sell an M4 rifle to an ARIJ journalist posing as a buyer earlier this year for $4,500.

The journalist – who asked to remain anonymous because of safety concerns – said it is common to see US firearms and grenades in Yemeni weapons markets, and that they can be found in both the north and the south.

When Houthi fighters attack coalition positions, they often take their weapons, he said. There’s also a black market, where a network of traders buy and sell arms.

“It's so normal to find American weapons in Yemen,” said Nadwa al-Dawsari, Yemen country director for the Center for Civilians in Conflict, a Washington, DC-based NGO.

In fact, the presence of US-made arms across the country is “not a surprise to any Yemeni”.

That’s in part due to the fact that the US backed former Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh in the so-called war on terror after 9/11, al-Dawsari said. A former US ambassador to Yemen said in 2018 that the US had spent more than $115m equipping Saleh's forces between 2002 and 2009.

In 2015, the Pentagon also lost track of $500m worth of firearms, aircraft, and other military hardware in Yemen.

Now, the Saudi-led coalition appears to be diverting American-made armoured vehicles to local militias, a violation of arms agreements, an ARIJ report published last year found.

The documentary showed that the Abu Al-Abbas Brigades – a Salafi group in Taiz backed by the Emiratis, whose leader is now on a US terror list – received three US-made Oshkosh M-ATV armoured vehicles in November 2015.

The South Yemen flag was also seen flying on another such vehicle – the BAE Caiman MRAP –which is typically used by Yemeni militias backed by the UAE. Abu Dhabi claims to have trained about 25,000 Yemeni soldiers.

Endless involvement

Beyond the weapons, training and technical help, the full extent of American involvement in Yemen – in the war and in counter-terrorism – is impossible to measure.

The US has provided the coalition with intelligence support and military advice, according to a Congressional Research Service report. And while Washington previously helped Saudi aircraft with mid-air refuelling, the US defence department said it stopped that programme in November.

The aftermath of an air strike in November 2017 on Sanaa (AFP)

But amid ongoing pressure to end all assistance to the Saudi-led coalition, the Trump administration has insisted Yemenis would be worse off – and the civilian casualty count much higher – without its involvement in the war.

They also argue that the threat of Iran justifies continued US arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition.

“If you truly care about Yemeni lives,” said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at a recent press briefing, “you’d support the Saudi-led effort to prevent Yemen from turning into a puppet state of the corrupt, brutish Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Senior Trump administration officials have also insisted that they are making sure the weapons are not being used to commit human rights violations.

“We will not provide arms where we believe they will be used to conduct a gross violation of human rights,” said Tina Kaidanow, who worked on arms sales for the US state department, at a conference last year.  

A state department official speaking on background said US defence sales to the Gulf are part of a commitment to regional stability, and that civilian deaths would likely increase were it not for US pressure on the Saudis.

Yet the defence department said it does not track coalition planes, their targets, or the success of their missions post-refuelling.

This has been contested, with a former state department adviser who worked with the coalition until 2017 telling the New York Times that American officers had access to a database detailing every air strike.

Exporting American's gun problem? The proposed rule that has monitors up in arms

Read More »

"On the issue of the air strikes, the Pentagon has been lying about how much they know,” Hartung said.  

At the same time, a new arms transfer policy under Trump, encouraging arms dealers to be more proactive and easing restrictions on manufactures, aims to increase US competitiveness in the global arms market and create more jobs.

“Under this administration there will be no more active advocate for US sales than the US government itself,'' said Kaidanow.

Meanwhile, future arms deals to the Saudi-led coalition are increasingly likely to be done commercially, as pressure mounts on the US to end its role in the war, Arabia said.

The most recent $195.5m deal with Saudi Arabia for work related to the Patriot air defence system, she added, “probably would have been halted in Congress” if it had been a government deal.

Raytheon declined to answer questions about human rights considerations and any responsibility it may bear for civilian deaths in Yemen. “I don't think we're going to have anything for you on that," a spokesperson said in a phone call.

Lockheed Martin did not respond to several requests for comment to the same questions.  

‘A tacit alliance’

The sheer amount of weapons and training the US provides to the coalition means that both Saudi Arabia and the UAE are heavily reliant on the US for their war effort in Yemen. This is especially true of the Saudis.

“It would take decades,” wrote Hartung in a recent report, “for the kingdom to wean itself from dependence on US equipment, training and support.”

Over two-thirds of the entire Saudi combat-ready fleet comes from the US, according to the same report. In November 2015, the US made $1.29bn in deals for bombs, warheads, and laser-guidance tail kits because Saudi supplies were “depleted”.

The US also supplies the lion’s share of weapons used by the UAE and has trained thousands of their soldiers. According to Hartung, 78 of the UAE’s 138 fighter planes come from the US.   

Hartung said he believes a withdrawal of all channels of military support to Saudi Arabia and the UAE “would cripple their ability to wage war in Yemen [and] particularly the indiscriminate air war”.

Instead, Hartung accused the administration of “putting [a] stamp of approval on what these countries are doing” in Yemen, where now about 24 million people need humanitarian assistance, thousands have died of war-related malnutrition, and over 67,000 civilians and fighters have been killed.

“It is essentially a tacit alliance,” he said.

Ecuador denies it will imminently expel Assange from embassy

A supporter of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange holds a placard in front of a police officer, as he stands outside Ecuador's embassy in London, Britain April 6, 2019. REUTERS/Simon Dawson

APRIL 6, 2019

QUITO (Reuters) - Ecuador’s government said late on Friday that it rejected reports that it would imminently expel Wikileaks founder Julian Assange from its London embassy, where he has lived in asylum for nearly seven years.

Assange was “prepared” for expulsion from the building, a British friend of his said on Tuesday, after Ecuador’s President Lenin Moreno said he had “repeatedly violated” the terms of his asylum.

Moreno accused Assange of harming Ecuador’s relations with other countries by intervening in their politics and said he did not have the right to “hack private accounts or phones.” WikiLeaks said Moreno’s remarks were in retribution for WikiLeaks having reported on corruption accusations against Moreno, who denies wrongdoing.

In a statement, Ecuador’s foreign ministry denied it had reached an agreement with the British government to jail Assange if he left the embassy.

Ecuador “categorically rejects the fake news that have circulated recently on social networks, many spread by an organization linked to Mr Julian Assange, about an imminent termination of the diplomatic aslyum granted to him since 2012,” it said.

The ministry said it reserved the right to terminate asylum when it considered it justified.
“By releasing information that distorts the truth, (Assange) and his associates express once again their ingratitude and disrespect to Ecuador,” it said.

Assange took refuge in the embassy in 2012 to avoid being extradited to Sweden, where authorities wanted to question him as part of a sexual assault investigation.

That probe was later dropped, but Assange fears he could be extradited to face charges in the United States, where federal prosecutors are investigating WikiLeaks.

Ecuador last year established new rules for Assange’s behavior while in the embassy, which required him to pay his medical bills and clean up after his pet cat. He challenged the rules in local and international tribunals, arguing they violated his human rights. Both courts ruled against him.

Last month, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which is linked to the Organization of American States, rejected Assange’s request that Ecuador ease the conditions it has imposed on his residence in the London embassy.

Assange says Ecuador is seeking to end his asylum and is putting pressure on him by isolating him from visitors and spying on him. Ecuador has said its treatment of Assange was in line with international law, but that his situation “cannot be extended indefinitely.”

Reporting by Alexandra Valencia; Writing by Angus Berwick; Editing by David Gregorio

FactCheck: viral video doesn’t show violence in a ‘Sharia Law Zone’ in London

This video is shockingly violent – but it doesn’t show what many people say it does.

By Patrick Worrall-5 Apr 2019

A video entitled “Christian woman defends a Buddist (sic) praying in a ‘Sharia Law Zone’ in London when she is knocked unconscious!!!” has been watched more than 400,000 times on Twitter.

It is attracting considerable attention from anti-Muslim far-right social media users, many of them based in the United States.

The video does contain shocking footage of a man punching a woman in a London street.

But almost everything else being said about it is false.

What happens in the video?

The best quality version we can find is here. It was uploaded on to YouTube on 2018.

Another version of the incident, filmed by the woman who was punched, is here. Some readers may find it distressing to watch.

We see Muslim men praying on the pavement outside an Islamic centre in a London street.
A man kneels down in front of the worshippers and begins a loud monologue, to the annoyance of various people at the scene.

Some pushing and shouting ensues, then the woman who is also filming the scene on her phone is punched in the face by a heavily-built white man. She is shown lying on the pavement afterwards.
The attack took place on Friday, September 14, 2018.

Who are these people?

The man who kneels in front of the Muslim men praying will be well known to visitors of London’s Speaker’s Corner, an area of Hyde Park that is traditionally the scene of soapbox speeches and heated public debate.

He calls himself Tan, is understood to be a Malaysian national, and has a long history of confronting Muslims who attend Speaker’s Corner, sometimes saying things like: “I hate Islam and I don’t like Muslims.”

Tan makes liberal use of the swastika on T-shirts, placards and online material – a symbol obviously associated with the Nazis, but one that is also considered holy in several eastern religions.

Critics describe him as an Islamophobe, but Tan evidently sees himself as a radical defender of free speech, including the right to offend people and mock their religious beliefs.

It’s obvious from the video that he has come to publicly confront the Muslim men praying – as he has done on other occasions – rather than to offer Buddhist prayers.

While he does mutter phrases that sound like fragments of a Buddhist mantra, he also shouts nonsense like “this is the holy juice of Tango” and “hallelujah – gay power”.

Tan’s website describes a mock religion of his own creation, states that “religion is a joke” and describes his activities as “performance”.

The woman filming the performance on a mobile phone is called Amy Beth Dallamura.
She is also a well-known face at Speaker’s Corner, where she has been filmed waving bacon sandwiches in the faces of Muslims.

Miss Dallamura is also a vocal supporter of far-right activist Tommy Robinson and has been photographed at his public appearances.

Who punches her?

The assumption being made by many people sharing this Twitter post and commenting on it is that the man who punches Miss Dallamura is himself one of the Muslim worshippers, but there are several reasons to think that this wrong.

The man is clearly walking along the street with a dog when he stops and gets involved in the angry confrontation. There is nothing that connects him to the men praying on the pavement.

The man is heard to say to Tan: “They’re praying outside their mosque.” Note the use of the word “they” rather than “we”.

It would also be very unlikely that an observant Muslim would wear shorts and bring a dog (traditionally shunned in Islam) to Friday prayers.

In fact, we know who the man who punches Miss Dallamura is, as the Met Police arrested him shortly after the attack and he has now been convicted and sentenced.

Patrick Perry, 54, of Westminster, was found guilty of common assault in his absence after failing to show up at Westminster Magistrates’ Court last month.

Perry was given 16 weeks imprisonment for the assault and a further four weeks for failing to attend the trial – both suspended for two years.

A Patrick Perry of the same address comes up in Westminster Council documents after he wrote in support of a local pub that wanted to extend its licence to serve alcohol outside.

All the evidence – his name, the way he is dressed, his dog, the words he uses and his apparent fondness for pubs – suggests that Mr Perry is not connected to the men praying on the street and is unlikely to be a practising Muslim.

Is this a “Sharia Law Zone”?

There is a popular canard among right-wing commentators in the US that Islamic law holds sway in some London neighbourhoods with large Muslim populations, and that the situation is tolerated by the authorities.

In fact, there is no evidence that such zones exist anywhere in the capital. The closest thing we can find is the notorious case of the “Muslim patrol” phenomenon of 2013, when a small number of young Muslim men filmed themselves harassing passers-by in east London, claiming that they were enforcing Sharia law.

This behaviour was not tolerated by London’s police, as evidenced by the fact that five men were arrested and three ultimately jailed for offences relating to the “patrols”. The local mosque also condemned their actions.

Clearly, the scene of the attack shown in this video is not operating according to a strict interpretation of Islamic law.

The location is Berwick Street in Soho, a central London entertainment district with a large openly gay community. Homosexuality is generally not tolerated in societies where sharia law holds sway.

The Islamic Centre is next to a fancy-dress shop, and there is a very un-Islamic hot dog stand right next to where the assault takes place. The surrounding streets are home to numerous pubs and sex shops.

It is fair to say that the practice of Muslims praying in public places has its critics. Equally, the issue is less of a talking point in London than in Paris, where protests have led to bans on street prayers.
The verdict

This viral video is shockingly violent – but it doesn’t show what many people say it does.

There is no evidence that the man who threw the punch is connected to the worshippers at the Islamic Centre, so this simply is not a story about Muslims attacking people of other religions.

It is of course nonsense to say that “Sharia Law Zones” exist in the heart of London’s hard-drinking gay-friendly entertainment district Soho – or anywhere else in the capital.

The Maldivian Parliamentary Elections 2019, Where A Happy Result Can Be Predicted

By Panini Edirisinhe –APRIL 4, 2019

Panini Edirisinhe

The Parliamentary Elections in the Maldives on Saturday, the 6th April 2019 are likely to yield a result that will please not only the majority of Maldivians, but also most people in South Asia. All the hard work was done in the months leading up to the Presidential Elections on the 23rd of September 2018. What the Maldives Democratic Party have to now do is to reap the benefits, and pass the harvest on to the people of the Maldives. If Sri Lankans are alive to what is happening it may lead to the easing of the feeling of despondency that now hangs over our land, because that result was achieved by being as honest and transparent as is possible in this game of politics, and by playing fair.

Leading up to the September 2018 the task was to ensure that a free election was held.  In the seat of power was a non-entity who had turned into an amazingly ruthless and short-sighted dictator, Yameen Abdul Gayyoom. Ranged against him were the United Opposition, consisting of a number of disparate groups, which were bound to fall apart once the tyrant was defeated. They had all settled on just one candidate, so it was a two horse race, requiring no Second round of voting. It is not generally known, up to now, what a crucial part was played by two Sri Lankans, Rasika Peiris and Professor Ratnajeevan Hoole in ensuring an honest election.

That Yameen was unpopular was known to all keen observers but he had captured near absolute power of all independent institutions, including the elections authority, security forces, and both the judiciary and its watchdog body. He had been elected in 2013, defeating, Mohamed Nasheed, the man who had been the first democratically elected leader of the country in 2008. Nasheed had defeated Maumoon Abdul Gayoom who had manipulated his way to thirty years of rule as a dictator who had a rubber-stamp Majlis.

How I myself, have been personally following events in the Maldives for close upon sixty years is not something that need be gone in to, but let me state that I was in Male, full time, for three years, ending in December 1994, when I decided to return to Sri Lanka, owing to the changes here. It was about mid-1994 that I met Mohamed Nasheed, a prisoner, who had been allowed to come to his home in Male for medical treatment. Nasheed and I had a quite animated two hour chat in his home. It was a meeting that I cherished even then, because I realised even then that the earnest 27 year old was a remarkable man.  He, too, probably learnt a lot. He listens.  I had followed his career from Prisoner to President to Prisoner again, when I was informed by a Maldivian friend in August 2018 that “Anni” (that’s a nickname by which he is known to all) Nasheed and his candidate, Ibrahim (Ibu) Solih were having a meeting with Maldivian voters at the Berjaya Hotel, Mt Lavinia.  I rushed there;  he acknowledged some messages that I had sent him through his website, and he remembered our meeting in Male twenty-four years previously.

That brief meeting, at what was like a wedding reception, may represent the only time in my life when I made some contribution to the affairs of a State. The campaign was pressing ahead, although convinced that the election had already been rigged. I think that I effectively communicated my fervent belief to them. I said  that Professor Hoole was going to be unlike any other elections monitor if he was the guy being sent by us.

After that, the messages to Anni’s website continued, and I began educating the good Professor about these islands which he had never visited. Some months ago, the report that Rasika Peiris and Jeevan Hoole had presented came my way. To see it, click here.

Colombo Telegraph has had three articles recently, to which I contributed comments. To see them, see here, and here, and here.

Let me take you back to the story of how the Nasheed Presidency began.

By 2008, the world had its eyes trained on the Maldives for those elections that were forced on the then seventy year old Maumoon. He was then internationally known more as Gayoom – but using that family name now causes confusion with his half-brother Yameen. The system by then in place was one which specified a 50% majority, with dates announced early for two rounds of voting. Achieving that election had been owing to the work of  Mohamed Nasheed, then forty one years of age. By the time elections came round there were six candidates, each with Vice-Presidential running mate. Maumoon easily won that round obtaining 40% of the total 177,802  valid votes. Yes, the electorate is a small one. The turn out had been as high as 85.38%. Please note here the man who was fourth: Qasim Ibrahim, the man who is reputedly the richest man in the country, but trusted by none.

The four candidates who were eliminated threw their combined weight behind Nasheed, and he won the second round with 54.21% of the vote, which saw a slightly higher turn-out than in the first.   The Maldives had a freely elected President for the first time, with Dr Mohammed Waheed Hassan Manik (referred to as Dr Waheed) as Vice-President.

Read More

The Improbable Rise of Huawei

How did a private Chinese firm come to dominate the world’s most important emerging technology?

BY KEITH JOHNSON, ELIAS GROLL-APRIL 3, 2019, 1:00 PM

A decade ago, in 2009, the Swedish phone giant Teliasonera set out to build one of the world’s first fourth-generation wireless networks in some of Scandinavia’s most important—and technologically savviest—cities. For Oslo, Norway, Teliasonera made an audacious and unexpected choice of who would build it: Huawei, a Chinese company with little presence outside China and some other developing markets.

The Improbable Rise of Huaw... by on Scribd

Who Should Get to Adopt Native American Children?

Decades ago, Congress passed a law intended to keep native kids from being placed outside their tribes. Now, its future is in doubt.

Jered, a member of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, with his son at his house on the Fond du Lac Reservation in Minnesota.

Story by Lia Kvatum-APRIL 3, 2019

Sally Tarnowski is a state district court judge in Duluth, Minn. She presides over Courtroom 3 on the fourth floor of the St. Louis County Courthouse, an imposing building offering views of Lake Superior. The Anishinaabe, on whose ancestral lands Duluth sits, call the lake Gitchi-Gami — Great Sea. Today, the courtroom has an unusual set-up. The judge is not up at the dais. Instead, she is at a table along with a team of social workers, lawyers and guardians ad litem, as well as the parties being represented. Small bags of tobacco, traditional Anishinaabe medicine, are in abalone shells nearby, free for people to take. In the middle of the table are some sage and sweetgrass — also Anishinaabe medicines, for purification and healing.

Better plan for solar ener... by on Scribd

Identifying separated migrant families may take two years, US government says

• Trump administration outlines plan in response to lawsuit
• Thousands of children were taken from their parents at border

Reuters-Sat 6 Apr 2019 

In this photo from 25 June 2018, a mother migrating from Honduras holds her one-year-old child as she surrenders to US border patrol agents after illegally crossing the border in Texas. Photograph: David J Phillip/AP

It could take the US government up to two years to identify potentially thousands of children who were separated from their parents by the authorities at the southern border, the government said in a court filing.

The filing late on Friday outlined for the first time the Trump administration’s plan for identifying which family members might have been separated by assessing thousands of records using data analysis, statistical science and manual review.

Last month, a federal judge in San Diego expanded the number of migrant families the government may be required to reunite as part of a class-action lawsuit brought last year by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The Office of Inspector General at the US Department of Health and Human Services said earlier this year it had identified many more children in addition to the 2,737 initially included in the suit. The US district court judge Dana Sabraw had already ordered those children be reunited with their parents.

“Defendants estimate that identifying all possible children … would take at least 12 months, and possibly up to 24 months,” the government wrote in Friday’s filing.

It added that the time frame would be affected by the efficacy of its predictive statistical model, the manpower it can dedicate to the manual review and any follow-up meetings required.

In a statement on Saturday, the ACLU lead attorney for the case, Lee Gelernt, said the group strongly opposed the government’s proposed plan and accused it of not treating the separations with the necessary urgency.

“The government was able to quickly gather resources to tear these children away from their families and now they need to gather the resources to fix the damage,” Gelernt said.

Donald Trump’s administration implemented a “zero-tolerance” policy to criminally prosecute and jail all illegal border crossers, even those traveling with their children, leading to a wave of separations last year.

The policy sparked outrage when it became public, and the backlash led Trump to sign an executive order reversing course on 20 June 2018.

Rwanda: Genocide Survivor On Writing Her Story

If I don’t write now, the children of my children will be challenged by genocide denial because there will not be enough information kept. So this is also the aim of my book

Celine Uwineza

5 Apr 2019

“There’s a quote by Sue Monk Kidd that says “Stories have to be told or they die, and when they die, we can’t remember who we are or why we’re here,” starts Celine Uwineza, a survivor of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, when asked about the essence of her new and upcoming book, “Untamed”.

 

During the first week of the 25th commemoration of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, the 35-year-old will be launching her book that chronicles her survival of the genocide, her healing journey from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and her path to entrepreneurship and hope for a bright future. It is also about raising awareness to the various mental and emotional health challenges people go through, and to show them there is light at the end of the tunnel.

 

“The reason I need to publish my book and share my story is because I have the responsibility to contribute to the non-violent world by sharing what violence does. My goal is to highlight the importance of memory preservation as a tool to fight against genocide ideology and violence. The book is also an opportunity to recognize Rwandans’ journey of healing, resilience and courage”

 

She shares another quote by Elie Wiesel: “We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented,” and adds;

 

“Although our past has been traumatic and horrible its part of our story and it didn’t end there. If we don’t respect the Kwibuka concept, other people will tell our stories and will deny the genocide and this will come back to hurt us.”

 

Healing through writing

 

Untamed” is a tale about Uwineza’s life as a 10-year-old, who during the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, saw her mother being shot in the leg, and together with her family seek refuge in convent in Kicukiro.

 

Her life took a drastic change three days later when she witnessed the Interahamwe kill her mother and her three siblings, while she narrowly survived death, later on she reunited with her brother and father. The book also shares her healing journey, decades later after the genocide, from PTSD.

 

She describes her state of mind during the three months period of the genocide as traumatic, lost, confused and lonely.

 

However, right after the genocide, she had to go back to school and together with her surviving family, had to start life afresh. Even amidst trauma they carried hope and never had the luxury to mourn their lost loved ones.

 

Fast forward, she immediately got a job and rose up the ranks of her career in Human Resource, but with her life getting together, whenever she returned home, she would come to reality with her 10 year old self-the sad, and sorrowful that carried lots of questions.

 

“As I grew up, the conflict of the woman today and the 10 year old at that time was always happening to me and I developed a lot of unhealthy patterns, when it came to my emotions and attitude towards life. There was the Celine who was a successful professional but there was also the 10-year-old who wanted to grieve and pose for a moment and say all these things that she wanted to say,” she shares.

 

With the desire to do humanitarian work and help young people, she was excited when she got a job at Agohozo-Shalom Youth Village as director of Human Resource, but through taking care of the younger people, she unknowingly reached out to herself.

 

At the age of 32, her 10 year old self eventually got a platform to live and be heard. However in the middle of the process, her father got very sick, and even though he recovered, his illness was the main contributor to her healing process.

 

“A lot of grief that was undealt with burst out because I thought he was going to die and I couldn’t cope with that. It was a red flag because I had developed many symptoms of PTSD like losing sleep, crying for no reason, losing interest in my hobbies, and whenever I slept I had nightmares.

 

A booming career and happily married, life was supposed to be enjoyable at that time. That was when it hit me and I was obliged to go and take care of the 10- year- old me. I however didn’t realise that until my auntie looked at me and said “My girl, it was about time you took care of yourself,” she narrates.

 

It was then that her aunt took her to Neuro-psychiatric Hospital of Ndera for treatment. As part of her two- year therapy she began writing her story and everything she could remember.

 

“The two years helped me to discover myself, to really cry and let go of my family. During my therapy class, I started to realize that most people need this. I started to think about my brother who was not in the country at the time, my aunts and friends. I discovered that it’s not only genocide survivors but everybody needs to be aware of this mental health issue. It came to me more as a calling to write this book,” she says.

 

Her book

 

She immediately took a counselling class and learnt about the triggers and how one can help themselves. As she began to share her story on healing with different people, she received very many messages of encouragement, another inspiration to continue to write and reach the wider audience.

 

She has written her book in English because she wants to contribute to create awareness about mental health for people even outside Rwanda. She however is translating the book in Kinyarwanda and will be released in July. The English version will also be available in print and as an e-book on Amazon stores worldwide.

 

For her, as a country moving from survival mode to development mode, “we would do a greater job moving along internally, healing our trauma, having a platform to talk about great things but also difficult things and also share knowledge because mental health is not widely known in this country.”

 

Besides the book, Uwineza together with her brother and father have documented memories of their family members that were killed during the genocide and shared it on YouTube titled “Our family story #kwibuka.”

 

“The trauma and the efforts to forget what happened in the past, had begun to erase all the good memories of my family. I discovered, during my therapy session, that soon I would have children and they would ask about their grandma and aunts and so my goal is that they don’t have an identity crisis. By narrating and recording our memories with my family, I will not only be able to recall but will also share with my descendants and encourage other families to do the same.

 

I always fought with the fear of putting my life out there but I always encouraged myself that the memoir will help someone else.

 

Also, if I don’t write now, the children of my children will be challenged by genocide denial because there will not be enough information kept. So this is also the aim of my book,” she says.

 

Uwineza is also partnering with a group of Rwandans to build a wellness center that will focus on creating awareness on mental health and serve as a holistic rehab center for the community.

 

Courtesy: The New Times, Rwanda