Peace for the World

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

Friday, June 14, 2019

Chance of disorderly Brexit jumps; eventual free trade deal still likely - Reuters poll

FILE PHOTO: European Union and British flags flutter in front of a chancellery ahead of a visit of British Prime Minister Theresa May in Berlin, Germany, April 9, 2019. REUTERS/Hannibal Hanschke

Jonathan Cable-JUNE 14, 2019

LONDON (Reuters) - The likelihood Britain and the European Union part ways without a deal has jumped in the past month, according to economists in a Reuters poll, as most candidates jockeying to take over as prime minister appear to have adopted a hard line stance.

Three years on since Britons voted to leave the EU, there is still little clarity as to how, when or even if the two sides will draw a line under Britain’s four-decades of membership.

Theresa May, still holding the country’s top job but who has failed to get her Withdrawal Agreement ratified by Britain’s parliament, announced last month she was quitting and there are numerous contenders vying to replace her.

Boris Johnson, a former foreign minister and the bookmakers’ favourite to take over, kicked off his official leadership campaign on Wednesday with a pledge to lead Britain out of the EU on Oct. 31 no matter what happens.

Johnson has said he would be willing to leave the bloc without a deal, and the median forecast for the chance of a disorderly Brexit jumped to 25% in the June 11-14 Reuters poll from the 15% given in May.

“The possibility of a ‘no deal’ Brexit appears to have risen,” said Howard Archer at EY ITEM Club.
“Many of the contenders looking to replace May as leader of the Conservatives and prime minister have stressed that the UK must leave the EU on Oct. 31 – ‘deal’ or ‘no deal’.”

British lawmakers on Wednesday defeated an attempt led by the opposition Labour Party to try to block a no-deal Brexit.

While that no-deal Brexit chance has risen, the two sides will eventually settle on a free-trade deal - whether they need a transitional arrangement or not - according to a strong majority of economists. That is a view they have held since late 2016, when Reuters first started polling on the question.

The other compromise option was the second most likely outcome - Britain remaining a member of the European Economic Area, paying into the EU budget to maintain access to the EU’s single market.

Third and fourth spots went to the extreme options - cancelling Brexit or leaving the EU without any deal and being forced to operate under World Trade Organization rules.
 
Once again, these two were close but flipped in the latest poll, with no Brexit last and WTO rules in third spot.

Some regular respondents said they were reluctant to commit to a view as they did not feel confident about the outcome.

UP OR DOWN?

Britain’s economy dodged the recession that was expected to accompany the vote to leave, but contracted sharply in April and growth forecasts for this quarter were trimmed to 0.1% from the 0.2% given last month.

But the economy is still unlikely to go into recession - the median chance of one over the next 12 months was 25% and it was 30% for in the next two years - and GDP will expand 0.3-0.4% per quarter through to the end of 2020, forecasts unchanged from last month suggested.

Inflation, which the Bank of England targets at 2.0%, is expected to average 1.9% this year and around target next year.

BoE Deputy Governor Ben Broadbent added his voice on Tuesday to reminders from the central bank it still wants to raise interest rates, echoing comments from two of his fellow policymakers.

Medians in the latest poll predict no move from the Bank for over a year and it is then expected to add 25 basis points to borrowing costs and take the bank rate to 1.00%. That forecast is two quarters later than in last month’s poll.

None of the 69 economists polled expected any move from the Monetary Policy Committee when its latest policy decision is announced on June 20.

Financial markets are betting the BoE is more likely to cut rates than to raise them over the coming year yet when asked the probability the bank’s next move would be to cut, economists gave a median 35%.
However, some data suggests the economy is ripe for an increase and the median chance the next move would be a hike was 60%.
 
“With employment at an all-time high, unemployment at a 44-year low and wage growth pushing higher again, the MPC may seek to take the opportunity to push back against a market that now thinks the next move in rates will be downward,” said Elizabeth Martins at HSBC.

A hike, though, would be in the opposite direction to the BoE’s major peers. The chances of a Federal Reserve interest rate cut this year have dramatically increased in the past month while the European Central Bank has opened the door to more stimulus.

Modern technology and voice of women empower Amazon tribe to combat illegal poaching

-12 Jun 2019Chief Correspondent
They have traditional dances, bows and arrows, the songs and the warpaint.
But the Amazon Guajajara tribe also have cameras, mobiles, drones and GPS trackers.
The fight to confront illegal poachers and loggers in the Amazon is one which affects us all because the vast Amazonian forest is vital to global climate control.
In our second of two reports from Brazil, we travelled to the state of the Maranhao to the Caru Indigenous Reserve to discover how technology, public relations and the voice of women are empowering this indigenous tribe to protect our planet’s largest rainforest.

Why Israel wants Iran destroyed

Netanyahu stands on stage with Iran lied in giant letters projected on a screen behind him
Israeli interests are served by mutual US-Iranian antagonism.
 Amir CohenReuters

Greg Shupak -11 June 2019
Much worried commentary is being written these days about the possibility of a US-led war on Iran.
The truth, of course, is there is already a war on Iran. And it is one that very much serves Israeli interests.
The US government is prosecuting an economic war on Iran while intensifying its military posture against the country, increasing land, sea, and air positions on the basis of unsubstantiated claims that Iran might someday develop nuclear weapons, is the engine of violence in the Middle East, and is likely to initiate attacks against US “interests” or those of its proxies.
Such maneuvers must be understood in the context of the ways that Iran has functioned as an obstacle to US ruling class goals in the Middle East, a view shared by the Israeli ruling class for its own interests.
US and Israeli planners despise Iran principally because it is an independent regional power. It has a strong military and a foreign policy that includes providing material support for armed Palestinian resistance to Israel and for Hizballah’s defense of Lebanon from US-Israeli aggressions, including the joint invasion in 1982 and the US-backed Israeli assault in 2006.
Iran’s support was crucial to help Hizballah resist the US-backed Israeli occupation of the country.
Though in recent years Israel has come close to attacking Iran militarily and suggested in February that the US do so, it appears that for the moment Israel would prefer that the US not bomb or invade Iran because Hizballah would be able to inflict significant damage on Israel in response.
Instead Israel is hoping that Iran will be subjected to enough socioeconomic asphyxiation that its government will be overthrown or it will be subjected to even greater outside control than it was under the nuclear deal – a deal that Iran has abided by and from which the US pulled out last year.
Iran now says that, if sanctions continue to prevent it from profiting from its natural resources, it will also withdraw from the accord.

Weakening Iran

Weakening Iran, with a view toward regime change, has long been a major Israeli preoccupation, highlighted by such Israeli policies as assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists.
Iran hasn’t been close to having a nuclear bomb for 16 years and there’s evidence to suggest it never had anything resembling one.
Israel’s attacks on Syria are partly about Iran. The Syrian government has partnered with Iran in arming Palestinians and Hizballah. The Syrian Baath Party has its own history — however uneven — of confronting Israel militarily.
Israel, of course, also remains in occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights – whatever Donald Trump might say – and Israel has deepened its colonization there while arming anti-government groups and carrying out fatal bombings of Iranian and Hizballah targets in the country.
Furthermore, the threats against Iran need to be read against the backdrop of the anti-Iran alliance being forged between the US, Israel and several of the pro-US Middle Eastern dictatorships, notably Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
As Adam Entous of The New Yorker points out, the central ambition of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has been “to diminish the Palestinian cause as a focus of world attention and to form a coalition with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to combat Iran, which had long supported Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.”
The leaders of both the UAE and Saudi Arabia have said that they regard Iran as a problem. And both the Emirates and the Saudis are “working together behind the scenes with Mossad” – Israel’s spy agency – against Iran.
Because the measures being taken against Iran are linked to the Palestinian issue, these machinations must also be seen in the context of the “Ultimate Deal,” the proposal for resolving the Palestinian question being put forth by Trump and his son-and-law and adviser Jared Kushner. This “peace package” aims to both permanently extinguish Palestinian national aspirations and neutralize Iran.

Making Palestine disappear

Reports suggest that the proposal involves the “enshrining of Israeli control of disputed territory” as well as denying Palestinian claims to sovereignty, the right of Palestinian refugees to return and offering Palestinians only non-contiguous territory.
The plan involves trying to bribe sectors of Palestinian society into accepting it with funds that the US is hoping will largely come from the US-allied governments in the region. And the UAE and Saudi Arabia, have been pressuring the Palestinian Authority into accepting the ludicrously unfair deal so that the Palestinian issue will disappear and the anti-Iran axis – bringing together the US, Israel and the Gulf states – can be fully consummated.
Another manifestation of this anti-Iran alliance is Israel’s support for the attack on Yemen by a coalition involving the US, Saudi Arabia, the UK, the UAE and Canada – a war that is ostensibly aimed at Iran’s purported Houthi allies and that has left the country suffering the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.
Israel has shared intelligence with members of the coalition. The UAE is understood to have bought military equipment from Israel. And Israeli-manufactured ordnance has been used in the attacks on Yemen.
These sales, alongside the obscene amounts transferred between the US and its Saudi and Israeli clients in weapons deals, underscore that the US-Gulf-Israeli aggression against Iran is not only about politics but also an economic system in which the ruling classes of each country enrich themselves at the expense of the Palestinians and other disenfranchised and exploited peoples.
The prospect of further lucrative ties to Israel no doubt helps explain why the undemocratic governments of the Gulf are racing to, as The Electronic Intifada’s Tamara Nassar puts it, sacrifice the Palestinians for a marriage with Israel — a ceremony at which the US is officiant.
The political and economic assault on Iran, as well as any military attack against it, should one materialize, is not only a war for Iran’s future. It is a war for the entire region.

Dr. Greg Shupak writes fiction and political analysis and teaches media studies and English at the University of Guelph-Humber. He is the author of The Wrong Story: Palestine, Israel, and the Media.

How do you balance employee privacy and network security?



By  | 14 June, 2019
PRACTICALLY all governments and industry regulators now demand that companies secure their enterprise networks to protect their systems and data.
In responses, companies are doing everything in their capacity to mitigate the risks and threats to their network by both external and internal forces.
External threats from cybercriminals could present distinctive markers and signatures that could be neutralized with robust cybersecurity measures.
However, dealing with internal threats – such as deliberate theft of data by employees and even mistakes that lead to a network breach – may not be as straightforward.
Some companies resort to close monitoring of their employee activities to thwart any attempts of a breach. But, it is not easy to figure out the extent of surveillance that their staff should be subjected to.
Most often, creating a robust network surveillance policy requires a delicate balance of reasonable efforts to prevent wrongdoings and negligence while also providing employees with sensible privacy.
Obviously, these measures should vary depending on industry requirements, but there are few things every leader should keep in mind in order to strike the right balance:

Monitoring employee emails and internet usage

While it could be a contentious issue, companies could and should monitor employee’s work emails and their activities with work applications that are on the enterprise network.
They could do that by deploying software that detects transmission of confidential data via company email servers or transfer of large data onto portable storage devices. Some security software could also be configured to detect suspicious activities within email conversations.
However, company email and activities on company applications are where an organization should draw the line.
Falling short of suspicions beyond a reasonable doubt, companies should not access and monitor employees personal email and social media accounts.
This is because employees also should be afforded reasonable privacy over their personal correspondence. To mitigate any concerns, organizations could impose a limitation on using the company network or devices to access personal applications.
Similarly, phone calls made using company telephones could be monitored as well as video surveillance during working hours, preferably with the consent of the employee.

Establishing clear policies

Given how tricky it is to maintain a delicate balance of securing the network and ensuring privacy to the employees, one of the best things companies could do is establish clear policies from the outset.
These policies should lay out clear guidelines to explain how an employee should treat company network and devices, and emphasize that should the staff choose to use them for personal use, they could be subject to surveillance as well.
Some companies do allow access to work applications on employees’ personal devices. In such cases, the employees should ensure that their devices are fitted will all the necessary security feature to protect against any compromise.
In conclusion, it is clear that affording privacy while in the digital era could be very complex, but it will only get more complicated in the coming years, given the rise of bring-your-own-device policies.
And with regulations requiring companies to protect their data as well as individual privacy, it is especially crucial for enterprises to strike the right balance without compromising too much of either.

Christchurch Mosque Shootings: Accused Gunman Pleads Not Guilty

The 28-year-old Australian national entered not guilty pleas during a short appearance at the High Court at Christchurch this morning

NZ Herald-2019-06-14
 
Brenton Tarrant has today denied being the Christchurch mosque terror attacker and will stand trial in May next year.
 
The 28-year-old Australian national entered not guilty pleas during a short appearance at the High Court at Christchurch this morning.
 
 
Wearing a grey sweatshirt and straining to hear discussions, he was not in the courtroom but instead appeared via audio visual link from Paremoremo Prison in Auckland.
 
The courtroom was filled with victims – survivors and family members of the 51 killed during the March 15 attack at two Christchurch mosques – with many more watching from two overflow rooms inside the courthouse via audio visual link.
 
They reacted with gasps when the not guilty pleas were entered.
 
A trial date of May 4 was confirmed by Justice Cameron Mander. Crown believes the trial could last around six weeks. Defence counsel Shane Tait believes it could take up to three months.
 
The accused was remanded in custody to a case review hearing on August 16 at 9.15am.
 
Christchurch Crown Solicitor Mark Zarifeh formally laid another murder charge, two additional attempted murder charges, and a charge under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.
 
The accused gunman now faces a total of 51 murder charges and 40 attempted murder charges - along with the terrorism charge.
 
Justice Cameron Mander said the court had received two health assessors' reports that were ordered at the last court hearing under section 38 of the Mental Health Act to determine whether the defendant was mentally fit or impaired and whether he was mentally able to enter pleas to the charges.
 
The judge confirmed today: "No issues arise regarding the defendant's fitness to plead, to instruct council and to stand trial. Therefore a fitness hearing is not required."
 
Suppression also lifted today on the names of the attempted murder victims, the judge confirmed. The Crown confirmed that, after inquiries, they did not seek a continuation of the suppression order.
 
However, three victims under the age of 18 have statutory suppression.
 
Suppression also lifted on the name of the 51st person to die from the attacks – Turkish national Zekeriah Tuyan who passed away at Christchurch Hospital.
 
Several family members and survivors of the mosque shooting came to court this morning. There was reserved seating for 80 in the public gallery, while others elsewhere in the courthouse dialled in via audio visual link-up.
 
Before the hearing, Abdul Aziz, widely hailed as a hero for confronting the gunman and chasing him away from Linwood Islamic Centre where seven people were killed, wanted to see the accused in court.
 
"I just want to see his stupid face," he said. "We are getting there slowly. But it will take time. Days like today bring it all back."
 
Once again there was a large domestic and international media presence for the alleged gunman's third appearance.
 
TV cameras and photographers were lined up outside the Christchurch Justice Precinct which houses the High Court courtroom.
 
Media were ushered inside by security and moved to a briefing room before 22 journalists were taken into the courtroom where the hearing started at 9.15am. There was an overflow of journalists who watched proceedings via audio visual link from another room inside the courthouse.
 
EARLIER:
 
The man accused of killing 51 people at two Christchurch mosques has today pleaded not guilty to all charges.
 
Brenton Tarrant appeared via video link from prison shortly after 9am.
 
He is charged with murdering 51 worshippers and the attempted murder of 41others at two mosques in Christchurch on March 15.
 
One man, widely hailed as a hero for confronting the alleged gunman and chasing him away from Linwood Islamic Centre where seven people were killed, said he wanted to see the accused in court today.
 
"We are getting there slowly. But it will take time. Days like today bring it all back."
 
Once again there has been a large domestic and international media presence for the alleged gunman's third appearance.
 
TV cameras and photographers have been lined up outside the Christchurch Justice Precinct, which houses the High Court.
 
Media were ushered inside by security and moved to a briefing room before 22 journalists will be taken into the courtroom where the hearing started at 9.15am.
 
There is an overflow of journalists who watched proceedings via audio visual link from another room inside the courthouse.
 
Several family members and survivors of the mosque shooting have also came to court this morning. There has been reserved seating for 80 in the public gallery, while others elsewhere in the courthouse were dialling in via audio visual link-up.
 
As well as entering pleas today, the gunman was expected to face more charges.
 
Four cultural advisers, including two who are legally trained, are at court today to help explain to the victims – who speak 10-15 languages between them all – what happens in court today.
 
There has been a heavy security presence, with armed police outside court and security and police inside the building.
 
The court was also likely to hear the results of psychiatric reports around his fitness to enter a plea.
 
Last Thursday a previous suppression order banning publication of his face was lifted.
The order had been made at a previous appearance on March 16.
 
The Herald reported earlier this month that the Crown was likely to formalise the laying of another murder charge, two additional attempted murder charges, and a charge under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.
 
That will mean the accused gunman will face a total of 51 murder charges and 41 attempted murder charges - along with the terrorism charge.
 
He is being represented by his Auckland-based defence lawyers Shane Tait and Jonathan Hudson.
 
Applications from media to film or take photography for the hearing have previously been declined.
 
At the defendant's second court hearing in the High Court at Christchurch on April 5, mental health reports were ordered to explore whether he is mentally fit to enter pleas to the charges.
 
His defence team asked for mental health experts to assess the accused under section 38 of the Mental Health Act.
 
Justice Cameron Mander ordered two health assessors' reports and stressed that the move was "normal procedure" and an "entirely ordinary and regular step" to be taken at this stage of the judicial process.
 
Nothing should be read into the ordering of the reports, he added.
 
Around 50 family members and survivors of the Al Noor Masjid and Linwood Islamic Centre came to court last time to witness proceedings.
 
Fifty-one people died after the dual attacks on the Christchurch mosques.

How to Take Care of an Ex-Spy

Former intelligence officers need compassion —or they can turn sour.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) logo is displayed in the lobby of CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia, on August 14, 2008.The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) logo is displayed in the lobby of CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia, on August 14, 2008. SAUL LOEB/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

No photo description available.BY  
There’s been a surge of Americans caught spying for foreign countries of late. On March 15, former Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) case officer Ron Hansen pleaded guilty to attempted transmission of national defense information to China. On February 13, Monica Witt was indicted in absentia for spying on behalf of Iran. On June 8, 2018, former CIA officer and DIA intelligence officer Kevin Mallory was convicted of selling classified documents to China. And on May 8, 2018, former CIA case officer Jerry Chun Shing Lee was indicted for conspiring to provide national defense information to China after he left the CIA.

You may be wondering what the U.S. government is doing about this. Over the past decade, unauthorized disclosures have incited questions about the U.S. government’s ability to protect classified information, sensitive equipment, and specialized tradecraft—to the extent that even The Onion has weighed in.
Many unauthorized disclosures, including severely damaging ones such as from Edward Snowden, have come from current employees with ready access to sensitive information. However, as the cases this year show, an equally susceptible population—former U.S. government employees—has faced increased scrutiny for unauthorized disclosures in the course of employment by foreign countries and outright espionage. What’s more, cases that are actually brought to indictment and trial may only represent a fraction of the whole. No government can entirely protect against treason, but the United States could be doing far more to both serve former employees and protect against their defection to its foes.

Espionage by former employees appears to have increased in frequency throughout recent years. In all these cases, former employees’ lasting knowledge, skills, and relationships were just as damaging and valuable to a foreign government as those of their currently serving counterparts, even though they no longer possessed regular access to classified information. Although Hansen had left the DIA before initiating his relationship with Chinese intelligence services, he maintained relationships with his former co-workers to collect national defense information.

Witt was no longer employed by the U.S. government when she defected to Iran, but her knowledge of the identities of U.S. double agents and tradecraft were assessed to cause severe damage to national security. Mallory had kept documents about a DIA operational proposal that exposed an ongoing operation, tactics, and tradecraft. And Lee had apparently taken notes on the true names and phone numbers of assets and covert CIA employees, notes from asset meetings, meeting locations, and more in his notebook before he left the CIA.

To identify potential solutions, the U.S. government should look to the motives behind espionage. These run the gamut from ideology to ego, but one of the most critical is money, which is involved in almost every case, sometimes exacerbated by mental distress. HansenWittMallory, and Lee were all in dire financial straits when they decided to spy. Witt’s trajectory was more tragic. She was reportedly homeless, isolated from friends and family, in severe emotional distress, frustrated about her former bosses’ perceived incompetence and traumatized by the scenes she had witnessed, and adrift in her life after service at the same time her ideological loyalty shifted away from the United States toward Iran. As troubling as these challenges may seem, the U.S. government can act to reduce their frequency and likelihood in the future by concentrating not just on security restrictions, but on better support for its former employees.

The existing system of statutory deterrents against unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information and aggressive enforcement of those laws is probably enough to deter potential spies who can be deterred. Stricter laws and more aggressive prosecutions are not the answer.

Moreover, monitoring former government employees is also impractical. Physical surveillance of former employees and contractors is authorized by Executive Order 12333, but the costs are prohibitive. More restrictive electronic and physical monitoring systems or de facto “gag orders” that go beyond the current system of lifetime nondisclosure agreements and classified-information indoctrination agreements are also cost-prohibitive, and possibly illegal. Beyond the obvious issues of implementation, free speech, and constitutionality, such restrictions would deter talent from working for the government in the first place.

The same is true of de facto bans on national-security employees working in fields such as security or private intelligence work, which might tempt them to use or disclose classified knowledge and tradecraft. In a free society, potential recruits expect to have the freedom to leave government service. This is particularly important in highly technical fields such as cybersecurity, which offer attractive opportunities at private-sector technology companies (and in which former U.S. intelligence employees reportedly hired by the United Arab Emirates had worked).

However, restrictions on working for foreign governments, though limiting in a globalized 21st-century world, could be considered for former U.S. government employees—especially civilians and contractors—with access to and/or experience with the most sensitive and destructive weapons, such as offensive cyberattack tools. There is precedent law for expanding such restrictions, which are currently applied only to retired military members (who must obtain approval by the Department of State), “high-level” U.S. government employees, political appointees, and, most recently, Department of Energy scientists.
Yet a more promising alternative would be to create a support system for former national-security employees who fall on hard times or have difficulties that could one day lead to inappropriate disclosures, or worse, espionage.Such a support scheme could also double as a formal or informal monitoring system that in turn could allow the government to be proactive about offering further resources, though this would raise privacy issues that would require employees to accept such limitations on future civil liberties.
Some national-security employees, such as military veterans, already have access to psychological support services through the Department of Veterans Affairs. Military veterans also benefit from informal social networks focused on helping them transition into civilian life. However, intelligence officers, and particularly contractors, do not have such institutionalized support systems in place. Potential financial assistance would alleviate some of the most significant challenges motivating former intelligence officers to sell secrets to foreign governments.

To get a better sense of what such a support program might look like, the U.S. government can look to the CIA’s resettlement program. The CIA is authorized by law to resettle up to 100 foreign nationals in the U.S. each year. These are typically defectors and spies who must be exfiltrated due to immense personal danger related to their intelligence value. They are forced to leave their homes, their culture, their savings, their careers, their identities, and sometimes their families behind—experiences that are extreme relative to the average U.S. government national-security employee.

However, some U.S. government employees face similar lifestyle challenges of secrecy and duality without the same risk of being hunted as traitors by foreign governments or non-state terrorist groups. Like the defectors and spies they recruit, many former intelligence case officers and special operations have a strong sense of self-importance and ego. And they also face jarring changes in lifestyle when they transition from fulfilling, prestigious, and respected spy and hero roles to retirement or seemingly lesser jobs in obscurity.

Resettled defectors benefit from limited but generally sufficient financial support, psychiatrists, and contacts with intelligence officials who offer counsel with defectors’ best interests in mind. Such support also allows intelligence officials to evaluate their state of mind and mental health. Of course, the number of former national-security employees is staggering relative to the number of resettled agents and defectors, thus carrying an immense price tag if such a program were even partially implemented. But is that price tag greater than the costs, such as the loss of dozens of CIA assets in China, inflicted by betrayal?
 

Oxfam failed horribly on abuse. But I pledge to deliver radical change

There must be no more shameful mistakes. That’s why we’re placing new emphasis on safeguarding
Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah is chief executive of Oxfam GB
‘Oxfam has been the subject of two incredibly difficult and important reports that identify serious failings in how we acted in the past.’ Photograph: Ian Francis/Alamy Stock Photo

Fri 14 Jun 2019 

This week Oxfam has been the subject of two incredibly difficult and important reports that identify serious failings in how we acted in the past: failings that were unacceptable and showed how far below our values we could fall. Yet these reports also include lessons that provide the path we must follow as we set out on a journey of what I hope will be transformative change.

The Charity Commission’s report has left no doubt that what happened in Haiti in 2011 was shameful. The report by an independent commission into Oxfam’s global safeguarding practices and working culture again makes for sobering reading. It criticises our culture, with examples of sexism, racism and colonial behaviour. It also identifies major challenges, notably abuse in refugee camps where we and other organisations work.

For these failings, we are deeply sorry and I personally apologise to everyone who has suffered.

These two reports represent a crossroads for Oxfam, for the humanitarian sector and for the communities we serve. We work in some of the world’s highest-risk contexts, from conflict zones to places where people are struggling to survive environmental disasters. These can be places where the rule of law has broken down, and where violence and sexual violence may have become institutionalised. Those providing support, whether local people or those who arrive as part of the aid effort, can find themselves in positions of extraordinary trust and power. Our shame is that we did not do enough to prevent that power from being abused.

It is now beyond dispute that there has been long-term underinvestment in safeguarding in emergency situations. The safety of those we serve must be central to all our work. Funds for safeguarding are just as essential as funding for emergency food, shelters, medical supplies or hygiene kits.

Oxfam accepts the findings and recommendations of both commissions in full and we are working with them to ensure we deliver our commitments swiftly.

Since February 2018, Oxfam GB has intensified efforts to support people safely: for example tripling our safeguarding investment; requiring all staff to complete an online safeguarding course; and strengthening our disciplinary procedures so that investigations continue if those accused resign, and any misconduct is clearly flagged in references. When I became chief executive of Oxfam GB in January, one of my first acts was to appoint our first ever director of safeguarding.

Yet these actions, while crucial, are just the beginning. They must be allied to radical changes that are meaningful on a daily basis. At its heart, this is about power. It’s about redefining the relationships we have with each other, with the partners we work with and, most importantly, with the communities we serve.

Oxfam’s work has a positive impact on the lives of millions of the world’s most vulnerable people every year. But we need to be humble and recognise that how we work is going to be just as important as what we do.

We cannot allow our institutional culture to reflect the inequalities and abuses of power that, as an organisation, we spend so much time and effort trying to eradicate. Our determination to save the lives of those hit by earthquakes, famine or war cannot excuse damaging the lives of others. As an organisation that campaigns for the rights of women, we must always hold ourselves to the standards we expect of others.

We cannot promise to eliminate abuse – no organisation can – but I do pledge that Oxfam will do all it can to minimise risk and to tackle it whenever it occurs. We are on a journey and it will take time, but we know that good intentions and half-measures will be inadequate. I wouldn’t have joined Oxfam if I wasn’t convinced that it was committed to learning from past mistakes. Since I arrived I have been struck by the determination of staff to put this right.

In many ways, our world has never needed agencies such as Oxfam more than it does today. But, like any organisation that relies on the generosity of our supporters and donors, we do not have an automatic right to exist. We need to prove ourselves worth supporting; we need to earn and keep the trust of both those who support us and those we seek to serve.

Most of all, we need to live up to the values that inspired our founders 76 years ago and generations since: to tackle poverty, save lives, and change unjust policies wherever they occur.

Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah is the chief executive of Oxfam GB

China snubbed Trudeau request for talks about detained Canadians


@ascorrespondent-June 12 at 9:33 PM
CHINA ignored Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s personal request for dialogue to end a spiralling diplomatic row, his office revealed Wednesday.
Trudeau requested the call in January with Premier Li Keqiang so he could “personally advocate” for the immediate release of two Canadians detained a month earlier and for clemency in the case of another Canadian who would later be sentenced to death for drug trafficking, his spokeswoman Chantal Gagnon said in a statement.
“Our appeal for clemency (in the drug case) was also made directly to senior Chinese officials,” she added.
The disclosure comes amid growing domestic calls for Trudeau to step up pressure on China to release the two Canadians, whom his government has said were arbitrarily detained.
Former diplomat Michael Kovrig and businessman Michael Spavor were detained after the December 1 arrest of a top Huawei executive, Meng Wanzhou, in Vancouver on a US warrant.
China has said it suspects Kovrig, who works for the International Crisis Group think tank, of espionage and alleged that Spavor provided him with intelligence.
But Trudeau retorted that the pair “had been detained for political reasons.”
Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said last month she also sought a meeting with her Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, to no avail.
The detentions have thrown relations between Ottawa and Beijing into crisis.
China has also blocked Canadian agricultural shipments worth billions of dollars.
In response, Ottawa has rallied a dozen countries to its side, including Britain, France, Germany and the United States, as well as the European Union, NATO and the G7.
Meng is living in a Vancouver mansion on bail awaiting an extradition hearing scheduled to start in early 2020. ©Agence France-Presse

The kidnapped Yazidi children who don’t want to be rescued from ISIS