Tuesday, May 14, 2019

How Pro-Iran Hackers Spoofed FP and the News Media

Fake news articles and tweets sought to cast Saudi Arabia and other rivals of Tehran in a bad light.

British newspapers show U.S. Republican candidate and President-elect Donald Trump on their front pages the day after he was announced the winner in U.S. presidential elections on Nov. 9, 2016. DAN KITWOOD/GETTY IMAGES

BY ELIAS GROLL

| MAY 14, 2019, 5:27 PM
At first glance, the article appears to be a genuine contribution to this magazine, Foreign Policy.
Published in June 2017, it claims to report that former CIA Director Michael Hayden had criticized the expulsion of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas from Qatar under Saudi pressure, and that Hayden said the United States should not let an inexperienced princeling—Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman—upset security arrangements in the Middle East.

But that article was a forgery, an impersonation created by an Iran-linked disinformation network aimed at discrediting Tehran’s rivals in an information operation that began in 2016 and continues to this day. During that sprawling, groundbreaking operation, Iran-linked operatives created more than 100 fake articles across dozens of different domains, many of which impersonated legitimate news outlets, pushing made-up stories that attacked Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Iran, according to a report released Tuesday by Citizen Lab, a research organization.

To promote their articles, the operation even relied on fake Twitter personas who communicated with journalists and researchers online and sent links to the faked pages. Citizen Lab identified 11 such personas. One of them, “Mona A. Rahman,” was highly active on Twitter, described herself as a “political analyst & writer,” and appeared to be an anti-Saudi activist.

The fake Foreign Policy article and the dozens of others that impersonated real news sites no longer exist online. Their creators have scrubbed their fake news network from the web, and what remains can only be viewed on archived pages online, such as this one, displaying the fabricated Foreign Policy article. Visually, the site replicated ours, but the article is riddled with grammatical errors.

The disinformation network documented in Tuesday’s report represents a major advance in understanding how countries besides Russia, the focus of so much scrutiny in Washington for its meddling in the 2016 election, are using propaganda and disinformation to spread their preferred narratives online.

“If you put this operation together with all the other Iranian operations we’ve already seen, Iran emerges as at least as significant a disinformation player as Russia, and it doesn’t look like they’re going away,” said Ben Nimmo, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab who studies disinformation.

While “early Iranian operations were relatively crude, and used social media to steer users towards websites which regurgitated regime content,” he said, those operations are now growing increasingly sophisticated as the operatives behind them experiment with new methodologies for spreading pro-Iran messages.

The authors of Tuesday’s report caution that they cannot definitively attribute the campaign to hackers working on behalf of Iran and conclude “with moderate confidence that Iran or an Iran-aligned actor” is orchestrating the campaign. The identities of the individuals operating the network could not be identified, but the messages they spread online consistently lined up with Iranian interests and propaganda.

The pro-Iran campaign breaks new ground by using a tactic that Citizen Lab’s researchers are calling “ephemeral disinformation.” Its operators would create fake news pages and sites, post fake articles, and then delete the pages once the articles began to get pickup on social media. The tactic appears aimed at injecting false narratives into the information ecosystem and then deleting the underlying evidence of the fake news infrastructure behind the claim.

In a nod to this ephemeral online presence, Citizen Lab dubbed the campaign “Endless Mayfly,” in a reference to the insect with a 24-hour lifespan.

By appearing and then disappearing online, “Endless Mayfly’s operators appear to be banking on social media users’ short attention spans and our inclination to trust headlines associated with what appear to be credible sources, rather than dig deeper to verify facts from the ground up ourselves,” Citizen Lab director Ronald Deibert wrote in an analysis of the campaign.

In total, Citizen Lab identified some 72 fake news domains, which relied on a familiar tactic of cybercriminals to impersonate their targets: typosquatting. The four fake Foreign Policy articles created by Endless Mayfly resided on two intentionally misspelled domains: foreignpoilcy[.]com and foriegnpolicy[.]net. (The operators also used a technique known as punycode, which allows for the registration of international domain names, to create lookalike sites.)
The other fabricated Foreign Policy articles provide a snapshot of the campaign’s preferred messages, all of which tend to malign Saudi Arabia’s reputation: A claim that the U.S. president’s daughter Ivanka Trump found it unbelievable that women can’t drive in Saudi Arabia, a piece about the release of documents purportedly revealing Saudi Arabia’s support of the Islamic State, and a claim that Riyadh canceled an arms deal with Turkey because of the latter’s ties to Qatar.

Given the ephemeral nature of the campaign, it is difficult to assess whether it succeeded or not, but it did notch notable victories. In 2017, hackers linked to the Endless Mayfly campaign created a site posing as the Swiss version of the Local, a European news site with outlets in several countries, and posted a fake article to their site claiming that six Arab countries had demanded that Qatar be blocked from hosting the 2022 World Cup.

Reuters and a handful of other international outlets picked up the article, and Reuters was subsequently forced to withdraw the story.

In another notable success for the campaign, French far-right sites picked up a fabricated report purporting to come from Le Soir, a French-language Belgian newspaper, claiming that Saudi Arabia was providing financing for Emmanuel Macron’s presidential campaign. Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, a member of Parliament for the far-right National Front party and the niece of party leader Marine Le Pen, even promoted the link on Twitter.

While some of the campaign’s faked news stories were easy to spot, others were more difficult and blended truth and fiction to create a more believable fake. A fabricated German government page claimed to relate a quote from Chancellor Angela Merkel that would have made major news if it were true: “Germany will be the first country which will prefer its interests and national security to Saudi Arabia’s bribes.” That quote was invented, but another on the same page, attributed to then-Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, was accurate.

By 2017, the faked pages were seeing only modest success, and the operation shifted its disinformation operations toward self-publishing platforms such as Medium and BuzzFeed Community.

After being published, many of these fraudulent articles were amplified by a republishing network, a large part of which was shut down in August 2018 when Facebook, Google, and Twitter said they had shut down a collection of sites working in concert to spread Iranian propaganda.

While that shutdown appears to have undermined the ability of the operation to spread its fake news pages, parts of the republishing network remains active, the Citizen Lab report found.

Despite public exposure and expulsion from several major technology platforms, researchers believe the disinformation operation remains alive and well.

“We continue to see new assets created to support this activity, suggesting that the actors responsible remain undeterred by public exposure or by platform’s shutdowns of their accounts,” said Lee Foster, an information operations analyst at the security firm FireEye. “They continue to seek to influence audiences within the U.S. and elsewhere on positions favorable to Iranian interests.”

Australian Federal Election 2019: More Of The Same Vs. Change?

By Siri Gamage –MAY 11, 2019

Dr. Siri Gamage

Australian Federal Election is to be held on the 18th May 2019. The campaigns by various parties are in full swing. Leaders’ debates have been conducted, advertising by various parties are ongoing, and pre-polling stations have been running for several weeks. The finer points of policy are being scrutinised by the media and contending party spokespeople. In addition to the Liberal- National coalition and the Australian Labour Party, there are minor parties such as the Greens, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, and Palmer United Party competing. Several independents are also competing in some marginal and some not so marginal (held by conservative) seats. In this election, over 150 parliamentarians are to be elected to the Federal Parliament along with a number of Senators from each State to the Australian Senate.

Being the two major parties represented in the parliament, the Liberal-National coalition and the Labour Party policies are being carefully scrutinised by the media. Leaders of the Liberal, National (minor party in the governing coalition) and Labour parties are zig zagging the country daily with policy and funding announcements for hospitals, sporting facilities, roads and the like. Their attention is focused mainly on marginal seats because in the last analysis such seats can make the difference in forming a government. Seats held by a party with a larger margin are not easily moved to the opposing side at the election unless there is a larger swing.

Liberal-National coalition that held power during the last six years faced some instability in the last term due to leadership changes in the Liberal party. Scott Morrison – who was elected by the liberal party few months back to replace Malcolm Turnbull – became the PM and currently campaigning on a platform of good economic management, funding for education, health and infrastructure, and tax relief for the people. The Labour party and others state that the coalition does not have a plan or vision for the future of this country. Some senior ministers are not contesting this time. Independent candidates are contesting several seats held by Liberal-national coalition MPs.

The Labour party is campaigning on a ‘Fair Go’ for lower and middle classes plus the more vulnerable in the community. Its Tax plan includes removing concessions available to investors in the housing market, share market, Super and what it calls the Top End of Town. It is planning to raise over A$ 150 billion over 10 years through these measures and re-allocate money for wage increases for early childhood workers, dental relief for pensioners, relief for cancer patients, and so on. Most importantly, Labour has set a target of 45% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions while proposing to increase the uptake of renewable energy through concrete policy and funding initiatives. Coalition’s plan is to meet Paris target of 27% by 2030. Thus, the electoral contest is being fashioned along a contradiction between classes, i.e. those who are well to do and those who are not so well to do including the young. In fact, the Labour is saying the current tax system is stacked against those in the latter category.

It is known that in Australia, after one party or coalition holds power for two terms, winning a third term is not that easy. In the recent history, this has happened rarely. In this sense, the chances of Liberal-National party coalition are slim. However, the coalition is hoping to get through the line with a new leader who has campaigned without a hiccup thus far. The major problem for the coalition though is its lack of future oriented policies and a vision for the country. Relying on good economic management alone is not going to bring the bacon home when the Labour is accusing that the economy has not been good for many Australians, especially in the lower and middle classes. Conversely, the coalition has mounted a scare campaign to alert voters to the fact Labour cannot be believed on anything they say and taxes will be higher under their government.

The issues facing the people are not necessarily similar across the country. Cost of living pressures including higher energy prices, slow wages growth, etc. are affecting many in the country. Farmers in the rural and remote areas face unique problems due to shortages of water, drought, and the like. Many are questioning the merits of the existing economic model, in particular whether the free market, neoliberal economic policies and programs are benefiting them? There is an emerging view that the new and globalised economy is making some rich, particularly those in the corporate and mining sectors including the banks. Some politicians are being seen as unnecessarily close to such corporate and mining sector interests rather than the average punters.

More and more young people and others are convinced that the government has to do more to address climate change. Women’s representation in the parliament is another issue. How to generate money for the government by way of taxes and how to allocate this money, where and when are key questions being addressed by all major parties. When governments do not address the key issues and concerns of people including service provision, it is inevitable that the party or parties in power are thrown out at the elections.

A widening gulf: US provides scant evidence to back up Iran threat claims

Experts have expressed scepticism at how valid some of Washington's most recent allegations really are

A. Michel, an Emirati oil tanker, was one of the boats UAE officials say was sabotaged earlier this week (Reuters)

By Jacob Powell- 14 May 2019

As tensions between the US and Iran have ratcheted up in recent weeks, Trump administration officials have levied a growing list of accusations at Tehran.

That includes the allegation that Iran is preparing to attack US troops stationed in the region; that Iran has connections to al-Qaeda, and that Iran committed acts of sabotage on oil tankers in the Gulf.

The evidence to back up these allegations is scant, however, and some experts have expressed scepticism at how valid some of Washington's claims really are.

Others have raised concerns about whether the Trump administration is trying to go to war with Iran based on unproven allegations, a scenario that harkens back to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Here, MEE examines recent US accusations against Iran - who said what, and based on what evidence - and whether they hold any water.

Allegation: Iran planning to attack US forces

Last week, unidentified US officials claimed that an Iranian official gave the greenlight to attack American troops stationed in the region.

Citing three US officials, NBC News reported on 9 May that Iran may launch an attack from a dhow, a small, wooden sailing vessel commonly used by fishermen in Gulf countries.

The officials also said Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Yemen could be behind an attack on US forces in the region, the US news outlet said.

NBC News did not divulge their sources' identities, or their affiliations within the US government, but said only that the US officials were "familiar with the intelligence".

The identity of the Iranian official was also not mentioned in NBC News's report.

File photo of Iranian dhow (AFP/File photo) — US officials said Iran may launch attacks from a dhow, a wooden fishing vessel popular in the Gulf (AFP/File photo)

One of the US officials also said Iran could try to launch missiles from the dhows, NBC News said, a claim that experts expressed doubt almost immediately.

"Launching ballistic missiles from ships is not an easy task, and like most missile-related activities, doing so requires extensive testing," said Fabian Hinz, a researcher at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, a US-based think tank, on 9 May.

Hinz said he hadn't seen missiles launched from Iranian vessels in the past, making it "highly unlikely" that Iran developed that capability without the knowledge of, or a rebuke from, Western governments.

He said, however, that Iran has a prior history of smuggling small weapons, such as AK47s, to places like Yemen on dhows.

Allegation: Iran could attack through its proxies

On 5 May, White House National Security Adviser John Bolton issued a short statement claiming "a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings" had prompted the US to send an aircraft carrier to the Gulf as a precaution.

A day later, on 6 May, the New York Times reported that three US officials "cited new intelligence that Iran or its proxies were preparing to attack American troops in Iraq and Syria".

'Thousands could die': Are US and Iran headed for war?

The newspaper did not provide additional details about that "new intelligence", nor did it divulge the identities of the three US officials, who were quoted anonymously.

It was also unclear if those three US officials are the same ones NBC News quoted in its 9 May report.

On Tuesday, the New York Timesreported on an "American intelligence analysis" that collected data in late April through communication intercepts and imagery, which the newspaper said "indicated that Iran was building up its proxy forces' readiness to fight".

The newspaper did not say who carried out the analysis, however, nor did it provide additional details about the scope of the intelligence or what it contained.

Meanwhile, a top UK military official on Tuesday threw shade at US claims that Iranian-backed militias posed an increased threat.

Major General Christopher Ghika, a top commander in the US-led coalition fighting the Islamic State (IS) group in Iraq and Syria, said he's seen no worrying signs from the Popular Mobilisation Forces, an umbrella group of Shia militas loosely tied to Iran.

"We've seen no change in the posture or the laydown of the PMF," said Ghika, as reported by The Guardian.

"I think it's important to say that many of them are compliant and we have seen no change in that posture since the recent exchange between the United States and Iran. And we hope and expect that that will continue," Ghika added.

Allegation: Iran sabotaged oil tankers

The United Arab Emirates first reported that four oil tankers were damaged in a "sabotage attack" off its Gulf coast on Sunday; two of the vessels were owned by Saudi Arabia, one was Norwegian, and the fourth was Emirati.

The UAE's foreign ministry said the company that owns the Norwegian ship reported that it was hit "by an unknown object on the waterline", damaging its hull.

The UAE has launched an investigation into the incident.

On Monday, however, CBS News reported that unidentified US officials said an initial investigation revealed that Iran or Iranian-backed groups used explosives to sabotage the tankers.

CBS News did not say how many US officials it spoke to, nor did it say what their affiliations are. It also did not publish any direct quotes from the officials in its report.

'What happened exactly, how bad were explosions and fire, if there were any, and what definition 'act of sabotage' means, how much true is indeed, the whole story, is so far anyone's guess'

- FleetMon, sea expert group, to BBC News

The US news outlet's report also did not provide any concrete evidence to back up the officials' claim that Iran or Iranian-backed groups were behind the incident.

Meanwhile, maritime experts have raised questions about the scope of the attack, with some expressing bewilderment that more information about the nature of the damage has not been released.

"Saudi reticence to report the incident accurately within their own media channels and the current failure to provide imagery evidence of the attack raises important questions as to the nature of the attack," said maritime security company Dryad Global, as cited by BBC News.

FleetMon, another sea expert group, similarly told the BBC that the incident, combined with the little public information provided so far, has led to more questions than answers.

"What happened exactly, how bad were explosions and fire, if there were any, and what definition 'act of sabotage' means, how much true is indeed, the whole story, is so far anyone's guess," the company said.

Allegation: Iran is cozy with al-Qaeda

In mid-April, a few weeks before the recent escalation between Washington and Tehran, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused Iran of holding secret talks with the militant group al-Qaeda.

"There is no doubt there is a connection between the Islamic Republic of Iran and al-Qaeda. Period, full stop," Pompeo said on 10 April in a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"The factual question with respect to Iran's connections to al-Qaeda is very real. They have hosted al-Qaeda, they have permitted al-Qaeda to transit their country," he added, as reported by AFP.

But the senior US official provided scant evidence to back up his claims - and in fact, signs point in the opposite direction.

Nelly Lahoud, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and author of a book on al-Qaeda and Iran, said that she did not find any evidence of an alliance.

That was even after combing through declassified al-Qaeda files obtained from the US mission that killed Osama bin Laden, Lahoud said.

'In none of these documents did I find references pointing to collaboration between al-Qaeda and Iran to carry out terrorism'

- Nelly Lahoud, New America Foundation

"In none of these documents did I find references pointing to collaboration between al-Qaeda and Iran to carry out terrorism," she said in an Atlantic Council blog post in September 2018.

Instead, Lahoud said she found evidence of anger between the two.

"Explicit hostile references to Iran are consistent throughout, displaying the mistrust of bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders towards Iranian authorities," she said.

In fact, an al-Qaeda linked group claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in February that killed 27 Iran Revolutionary Guards on the border with Pakistan.

The attack targeted a bus carrying IRGC members in Sistan-Baluchestan province, IRNA news agency said at the time.

Before Trump’s purge at DHS, top officials challenged plan for mass family arrests

Former Homeland Security chief Kirstjen Nielsen and Immigration and Customs Enforcement deputy Ronald Vitiello were ousted shortly after they challenged a secret White House plan to arrest and deport thousands of parents and children. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

By Nick Miroff and

Josh Dawsey-May 13 at 8:11 PM

In the weeks before they were ousted last month, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and top immigration enforcement official Ronald Vitiello challenged a secret White House plan to arrest thousands of parents and children in a blitz operation against migrants in 10 major U.S. cities.

According to seven current and former Department of Homeland Security officials, the administration wanted to target the crush of families that had crossed the U.S.-Mexico border after the president’s failed “zero tolerance” prosecution push in early 2018. The ultimate purpose, the officials said, was a show of force to send the message that the United States was going to get tough by swiftly moving to detain and deport recent immigrants — including families with children.

The sprawling operation included an effort to fast-track immigration court cases, allowing the government to obtain deportation orders against those who did not show for their hearings — officials said 90 percent of those targeted were found deportable in their absence. The subsequent arrests would have required coordinated raids against parents with children in their homes and neighborhoods.

[From the border, more frustrating immigration numbers for Trump]

But Vitiello and Nielsen halted it, concerned about a lack of preparation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, the risk of public outrage and worries that it would divert resources from the border.

Senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller and ICE Deputy Director Matthew Albence were especially supportive of the plan, officials said, eager to execute dramatic, highly visible mass arrests that they argued would help deter the soaring influx of families.

The arrests were planned for New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and the other largest U.S. destinations for Central American migrants. Though some of the cities are considered “sanctuary” jurisdictions with police departments that do not cooperate with ICE, the plan did not single out those locations, officials said.

ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations branch had an initial target list of 2,500 adults and children, but the plan, which remains under consideration, was viewed as a first step toward arresting as many as 10,000 migrants. The vast majority of families who have crossed the border in the past 18 months seeking asylum remain in the country, awaiting a court date or in defiance of deportation orders.

[U.S. asylum screeners to take more confrontational approach as Trump aims to turn more migrants away at border]

DHS officials said the objections Vitiello and Nielsen raised regarding the targeted “at large” arrests were mostly operational and logistical and not as a result of ethical concerns about arresting families an immigration judge had ordered to be deported.

“There was concern that it was being hastily put together, would be ineffective and might actually backfire by misdirecting resources away from critical border emergency response operations,” said one DHS official, who, like others, described the plan on the condition of anonymity.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was a loyal soldier for President Trump and often repeated his falsehoods, but it wasn’t enough to save her job. (Video: JM Rieger/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Nielsen and others also worried that a massive effort to deport parents and children would detract from the Trump administration’s stated goal of going after “criminal aliens.”

“The proposal was nowhere near ready for prime time,” the official said, which is why DHS senior leaders blocked the White House. “They wanted 10 cities, thousands of targets.”

Officials at ICE and DHS declined to comment, and Vitiello and Nielsen did not respond to requests for comment. Miller declined to comment through a White House spokesman.

But administration officials who described the plan said Vitiello and Nielsen’s pushback was a factor in President Trump’s decision to oust both officials — particularly Vitiello.

About 500 Central American migrants tried to cross the border at the Rio Bravo in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, on Thursday and turn themselves in to U.S. authorities. (David Peinado/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

The president has been livid about the number of unauthorized border-crossers being released into the U.S. interior, and he has repeatedly urged his aides to take the “toughest” approach possible.

Melissa Mark-Viverito, president of the Latino Victory Project and a former New York City Council speaker, said the goal of the policies appears to be to change migrant behavior, but she noted that it is not working.

“The level of depravity in terms of this administration has no bounds. It’s just insane,” Mark-Viverito said. “It’s inhumane. There is no sense of the understanding what the implications are for the greater society. There is no consideration that these families are making positive economic contributions to these cities. It is about fearmongering to the nth degree.”

Vitiello, a 30-year veteran of the Border Patrol, had been on track to be the Trump administration’s first confirmed ICE director when his nomination was abruptly rescinded on April 5 without explanation. Trump told reporters the next morning that he had opted to go in a “tougher direction,” without elaborating.

Nielsen was forced out two days later, faulted by the president for the unchecked rise in border crossings.

[Border Patrol stations in South Texas are so overcrowded that U.S. is using aircraft to relocate migrants for processing]

Miller has told the president that some members of his administration don’t have his best interests at heart, and that they are too worried about their own reputations to carry out his agenda effectively, according to current and former administration officials.

The president’s supporters also have been urging him to wield a firm hand.

Speaking on “Fox and Friends” on Thursday, Vitiello’s predecessor at ICE, Tom Homan, said the agency should “do operationally what Congress has failed to do legislatively.”

“ICE needs to do a nationwide operation,” Homan said. “Look for family units and single adults who had their day in court or didn’t show up in court and [were] ordered removed by a federal judge,” he said. “If those orders don’t mean anything, if those orders aren’t executed, there is no integrity to our system.”

Vitiello had narrowly survived a confirmation vote to advance his nomination earlier this year, and some at ICE warned that a controversial raid rounding up children would probably sink his candidacy. They wanted to wait until his confirmation before executing the plan, arguing that it was more important for the agency to have a Senate-confirmed leader.

But the idea for the plan was conceived in September, current and formal officials said, and the pressure to carry it out continued to build as the president’s anger grew.

The Department of Justice had developed a “rocket docket” that prioritized the immigration cases of newly arrived families, allowing the government to secure deportation orders as soon as possible — jumping over an immigration court backlog that is nearing 900,000 cases.

DHS and White House aides had several high-level meetings about the proposal, officials said.

By January, Justice officials had obtained deportation rulings for 2,500 parents and children in 10 locations whose names were added to a target list for ICE.

Though Albence, a Miller ally who replaced Vitiello as acting director at ICE, was eager to execute the plan, current and former officials said, Vitiello urged caution and insisted that Nielsen should be consulted first. Her staff had concerns about how agents would handle families with children who are U.S. citizens and a lack of bed space to keep the families in detention, among other things.

Vitiello urged ICE agents to conduct more surveillance work, in particular to ensure that children would not be separated from their families in the blitz — such as in instances when a child might be at school or at a friend’s house when their parents were taken away.

Their objections reflected a deeper concern that the White House was pushing a shock-and-awe operation designed for show, but lacking in deliberative planning and research.

Vitiello“didn’t think it was a good idea,” said one DHS official with knowledge of the discussions.
“Both he and Nielsen instinctively thought it was bad policy and that the proposal was less than half-baked,” the official said.

Another DHS official who supported the plan rejected claims that it wasn’t fully developed, describing it as the product of nearly a year of planning. The government tried to contact the families for deportation hearings via certified mail, but most did not show up, officials said.

U.S. authorities detained more than 109,000 migrants in April, and families and children accounted for nearly 60 percent, the highest share ever.

The number of Central Americans coming across the Rio Grande jumped again during the past week, with Border Patrol agents taking more than 5,000 into custody on several days, leaving holding cells and overflow tent sites dangerously cramped, according to DHS officials.

China hits back in trade war by raising tariffs on US goods

Siobhan Kennedy-13 May 2019Business Editor

China has hit back against the US as the trade war between the world’s largest economies escalates.

Donald Trump had warned China not to retaliate after he doubled tariffs on Chinese goods worth $200 billion on Friday.

US-produced meat, fruit juice and beer are among items now likely to jump in price for Chinese consumers.

How Bangladesh has kept Islamic radicals in check

Bangladesh marks the 15th anniversary of the anti-terrorist Rapid Action Battalion

Muslim-majority Bangladesh was born out of an explicitly secular and linguistic movement spearheaded by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. But it did not take long for the new born to show that it was “Islamic” as well as “Bengali”.

14 May 2019

This was due to the failure of Bangladesh’s post-independence secular rulers to live up to their promises. With the failure of Mujib’s secular government, political Islam became the rallying point for the disgruntled.

Subsequently, unpopular military rulers seeking legitimacy strengthened political Islam by reviving and nurturing it. Pakistan also played a role in instigating and sustaining political Islam to get back Bangladesh which it lost in 1971.

Over time, political Islam became increasingly radical and terroristic. Successive governments in Dhaka were formally “secular” but were bending over backwards to carry Islamist forces with them, giving them legitimacy in the process. And whenever the State asserted its modern secular character, Islamist radicals would unleash terrorism to make the government mend its ways.

The Islamists saw abjuring Islam in favour of a “Bengali” ethno-linguistic identity as a mark of subservience to India which had been seeking a greater political and economic role in a country which it helped found by sending in its military in December 1971.

Over time, Islamism mixed with nationalism proved to be a potent political mix which governments found hard to fight.

Between January 2005 and December 2017, about 746 persons had fallen prey to Islamist terror and State counter-terror operations. According to a study, 91% of these ghastly incidents had taken place since 2013 when Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League was trying to put Bangladesh back on its original secular track.

In 1977, before Hasina came to power, the constitution replaced secularism by “absolute trust and faith in almighty Allah”. Military ruler Ziaur Rahman’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) fostered the notion that Bangladesh is Islamic. Between 1976 and 1979, Zia legalized religious political parties and allowed Islamists, who had worked with the Pakistani Army during the liberation war, to participate in government.

The Bangladesh Jamaat-e- Islami (BJeI), banned by Mujib, was able to publicly rejoin Bangladeshi politics in 1979. Gen. H.M. Ershad, the country’s second military dictator, made Islam Bangladesh’s state religion. He even gave cabinet positions to two BJeI “war criminals”.

The world was unaware that a whole generation of Bangladeshis had grown up with no love for Pakistan or the Islamic movement prior to the formation of Pakistan in 1947

In 1990, democracy returned to Bangladesh. But it did not augur well for secularism. The BNP led by Gen. Zia’s widow, Begum Khaleda Zia, continued to cultivate and accommodate Islamic radicals. But this was vehemently opposed by the Awami League now led by Sheikh Mujib’s daughter Sheikh Hasina Wazed.

While the “Battle of the Begums” raged, Bangladeshi militants returning from the “Jihad” in Afghanistan added fuel to the fire. They teamed up with the al-Qaeda Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO). RSO came to Bangladesh along with the 200,000 persecuted Rohingyas from Myanmar. Pakistan’s ISI, waiting in the wings, tied up with BJeI to turn Bangladesh into a launching pad to stage attacks in neighbouring India.

BJeI and its student wing, Islami Chhatra Shibir (ICS), the Jagrato Muslim Janata Bangladesh (JMJB) and Jamatul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) attacked Hindus, Ahmadiyas and Awami League workers.

The JMJB and JMB merged under the leadership of Sheikh Abdur Rahman and Siddiqur Rahman, known as “Bangla Bhai” (Bengali Brothers). The Bangla Bhai became popular for providing instant justice. Mainstream politicians cultivated the “Bangla Bhai” and ran protection rackets with them till the BNP government led by Prime Minister Begum Zia felt the need to control them. The Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) was set up to fight the menace.

In August 2005, the JMB set off 459 bombs simultaneously in 63 of Bangladesh’s 64 districts to push the country into adopting Sharia law. The Harkat-ul-Jihad-al Islami Bangladesh (HuJI-B), founded in 1992, issued death threats against the feminist authoress Taslima Nasreen, who had to flee from Bangladesh. It tried to assassinate Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

The Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) staged many attacks in Bangladesh. Many Bangladeshis resident in the UK went to Syria to fight alongside the Islamic State (IS). Adept at using sophisticated communication technologies, the IS influenced well educated and well-heeled young Bangladeshi Muslims.

The killers of 18 foreigners and two Bangladeshis in the up-market Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka on July 1, 2016, were well-heeled students from Dhaka’s private North-South University.

In 2009, despite the wide berth given by the predecessor BNP regime to Islamic radicals, Sheikh Hasina set up a War Crimes Tribunal to try persons who had committed war crimes during the liberation struggles as auxiliaries of the Pakistani army. There had been a mass student movement since 2007 seeking the trial of war criminals.

But the Jamaat-e-Islami, the main target of the trials, and human rights groups cried foul saying that the procedures did not accord with international norms. Apart from Pakistan which passed many resolutions against the trials, Malaysian leader Mahathir Mohammad and Turkish leader Erdogan appealed for clemency. But Sheikh Hasina was undeterred. The trials continued and many were sent to the gallows.

Hasina was adept at resisting foreign pressure. When the US put tremendous pressure to get Bangladesh to let an island be used as a US base, she put her foot down.

Hasina was undeterred even by the country-wide mayhem unleashed by the Jamaat because she had the support of Bangladeshi youth, including youth from the private universities. In 2013, the broad-based Shahbad movement backed her to the hilt, demanded capital punishment and a ban on the Jamaat.

Explaining this a Bangladeshi commentator said: “The world was unaware that a whole generation of Bangladeshis had grown up with no love for Pakistan or the Islamic movement prior to the formation of Pakistan in 1947. These were young students and professionals born after 1971. Hasina was cued into this generation.”

An independent minded person, Hasina resisted the temptation to go along with the Western view that the Holey Artisan Bakery attack was the handiwork of the international lslamic State and not a local group. She sensed that attempts were being made to link up the massacre with the IS so that the Western agencies could enter the investigation process and infiltrate the Bangladeshi security set up. She therefore doggedly held on to the view that the massacre was a local job.

She refused to yield to pressure from the Bangladesh elite to release some of the suspects saying that law enforcement machinery could not be fettered.

To get the ramifications of the network which carried out the July 1, 2016 attack, and to avoid harassment of the public, Hasina appealed to families to inform the police of any missing persons or anyone moving about suspiciously in their neighbourhood. This unearthed information about more than 200 persons, which helped crack the case.

Hasina knew that people were tired of terrorism and governments which tolerated and fostered radicalism and helped radicalism metamorphose into terrorism. Therefore her appeal for “Help to Help You” had the desired effect. People came out with useful information.

The Prime Minister tackled the drug menace in the same way. She knew drug traffickers were terrorizing locals and forcing them to tolerate their nefarious activities. That was why, despite the international cry over extra-judicial killings, there was no local resistance or disapproval of the strong arm methods she used.

Political commentators predicted that Hasina and her Awami League would lose the last elections because of “human rights violations” under her rule since 2009. But she won handsomely. The opposition BNP was in disarray and did not contest and the Jammat had gone into hiding as it had lost its base.

Hasina knew that people were tired of terrorism and governments which tolerated and fostered radicalism and helped radicalism metamorphose into terrorism

However, Hasina is not oblivious to the fact that Bangladesh is an Islamic country and the hold of religion is strong in the rural areas. Therefore she has come to an understanding with Hefazat-e-Islam which runs thousands of Qawmi Madrasahs.

The Hefazatis preferred to the Jamaat because unlike the Jamaat, the Hefazat was not against the struggle for freedom from Pakistan.

Hasina yielded to the Hefazat’s demand for recognition of their certificates for government jobs. She removed from the Supreme Court, a statue of justice showing a lady in a sari holding the scales of justice, which the Hefazat said was un-Islamic. She did not allow writer Tasleem Nasreen to come back to Bangladesh as she had ridiculed Islam. She criticized secular bloggers for going overboard in their posts.

Hasina has mastered the art of balancing secularism and Islam and has curbed radicalism and terrorism with a mixture of guile and firmness.