அரசியல் பிரச்சாரத்தின் ஆதாரக் கோட்பாடு

========================================================================================================

அரசியல் பிரச்சாரத்தின் ஆதாரக் கோட்பாடு.

'' நீதி, மதம், அரசியல், சமுதாயம் சம்பந்தமான எல்லாவித சொல்லடுக்குகளுக்கும் பிரகடனங்களுக்கும் வாக்குறுதிகளுக்கும் பின்னே ஏதாவதொரு வர்க்கத்தின் நலன்கள் ஒழிந்து நிற்பதைக் கண்டுகொள்ள மக்கள் தெரிந்துகொள்ளாத வரையில் அரசியலில் அவர்கள் முட்டாள்தனமான ஏமாளிகளாகவும் தம்மைத் தாமே ஏமாற்றிக்கொள்வோராகவும் இருந்தனர், எப்போதும் இருப்பார்கள். பழைய ஏற்பாடு ஒவ்வொன்றும் எவ்வளவுதான் காட்டு மிராண்டித் தனமாகவும் அழுகிப் போனதாகவும் தோன்றிய போதிலும் ஏதாவது ஒரு ஆளும்வர்க்கத்தின் சக்தியைக் கொண்டு அது நிலைநிறுத்தப்பட்டு வருகிறது. சீர்திருத்தங்கள், அபிவிருத்திகள் ஆகியவற்றின் ஆதரவாளர்கள் இதை உணராத வரையில் பழைய அமைப்பு முறையின் பாதுகாவலர்கள் அவர்களை என்றென்றும் முட்டாளாக்கிக் கொண்டே இருப்பார்கள். இந்த வர்க்கங்களின் எதிர்ப்பைத் தகர்த்து ஒழிப்பதற்கு ஒரே ஒரு வழிதான் உண்டு. அது என்ன?

பழைமையைத் துடைத்தெறியவும் புதுமையைச் சிருக்ஷ்டிக்கவும் திறன் பெற்றவையும், சமுதாயத்தில் தாங்கள் வகிக்கும் ஸ்தானத்தின் காரணமாக அப்படிச் சிருக்ஷ்டித்துக் தீரவேண்டிய நிர்ப்பந்தத்திலிருக்கிறவையுமான சக்திகளை, நம்மைச் சூழ்ந்துள்ள இதே சமுதாயத்துக்குள்ளேயே நாம் கண்டுபிடித்து, அந்தச் சக்திகளுக்கு ஞானமூட்டிப் போராட்டத்துக்கு ஸ்தாபன ரீதியாகத் திரட்ட வேண்டும். இது ஒன்றேதான் வழி. ''

மாமேதை தோழர் லெனின்
===========================================================================================================================

Thursday, 28 May 2015

ரணில் மைத்திரி பாசிசம் வித்தியா அமைதி ஆர்ப்பாட்டத்துக்குத் தடை.

Court bans protests in Jaffna
May 23, 2015 07:46

Jaffna protest
The Jaffna Magistrate has issued a stay order banning all types of protests in the Jaffna town, the police media unit said.
The stay order was issued as a result of the violence which erupted in Jaffna this week during a protest against the alleged rape and murder of a girl in Jaffna.

The police had to use tear gas to disperse the protesters who had damaged public property and had also pelted stones at the Jaffna court building.

Police spokesman ASP Ruwan Gunasekera said that the ban on protests was issued after information was received that some groups were going to stage protests demanding the release of 130 people arrested over the Jaffna violence.


Tata Motors net profit down 56 pct as Jaguar Land Rover Chinese sales drop

~~~~~~~~ REUTERS Business News | Tue May 26, 2015 

Tata Motors net profit down 56 pct as Jaguar Land Rover Chinese sales drop
MUMBAI/NEW DELHI | BY ZEBA SIDDIQUI AND ADITI SHAH

Tata Motors logos are pictured outside their flagship showroom in Mumbai May 28, 2013. REUTERS/Vivek Prakash/Files
Tata Motors Ltd (TAMO.NS), India's biggest automaker by revenue, reported a surprise 56 percent drop in quarterly net profit on Tuesday, hit by cooling demand for its sleek Jaguar saloons and sporty Range Rovers in the key Chinese market.

The company said it expected mixed economic conditions in China, the world's largest auto market, and other emerging economies to weigh on EBITDA margins for the fiscal year that started on April 1 compared with a year ago.

Jaguar Land Rover's sales in China, which had propped up group earnings in recent years, fell by a fifth to 23,526 vehicles, versus a 36 percent increase in the year-ago quarter.

Ralf Speth, JLR chief executive, noted the auto industry in China as a whole is struggling but was optimistic on the group's potential to grow given its low market share and strong product range.

Car sales as a whole in China grew 3.9 percent in the January to March quarter against the 7 percent growth projected for 2015 by the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM) industry body. [ID:nB9N0WZ00K]

Tata Motors posted consolidated net profit of 17.17 billion rupees ($268.3 million) for the fiscal fourth quarter to March 31, falling short of average analyst expectations of 40.95 billion, according to data compiled by Thomson Reuters.

Consolidated net sales rose 4 percent to 672.98 billion rupees.

Profit at the JLR unit fell by a third to 302 million pounds ($465.3 million), even as the operating margin rose 200 basis points to 17.4 percent due to a more profitable product mix.

The slowdown in China has forced automakers such as General Motors (GM.N) and Ford Motor Co (F.N) to cut prices, but Speth said the company had not so far followed suit.

In February, JLR started selling its locally made Range Rover Evoque in China, expected to ramp up volumes. JLR will also focus on expanding sales of its Jaguar XE, nicknamed the "baby Jag" because of its compact size and price.

JLR suffered a loss of 220 million pounds on commodity hedges and a revaluation of foreign currency debt, said Bharat Gianani, senior research analyst at Angel Broking. The brokerage's "buy" rating on the stock is under review, he said.

The loss at Tata Motor's India business widened to 11.64 billion rupees from 8.17 billion due to high depreciation and amortisation costs.

The group said it would not pay a dividend this year.

($1 = 64.0000 Indian rupees)  ($1 = 0.6490 pounds)

(Editing by Sumeet Chatterjee and David Holmes)

French Immigration Film ‘Dheepan’ Nabs Top Honors At Cannes Film Festival

French Immigration Film ‘Dheepan’ Nabs Top Honors At Cannes Film Festival
By Ismat Sarah Mangla @ismat i.mangla@ibtimes.com on May 24 2015 4:01 PM EDT

“Dheepan,” a French film about Sri Lankan refugees working for a new life in France, claimed the Palm d’Or -- the top honor at the Cannes Film Festival -- Sunday night. “Dheepan,” which was selected from 19 films in the competition, was an unexpected choice, and its announcement was greeted with a mix of boos and applause, Variety reported.

Dheepan:Directed by filmmaker Jacques Audiard, Actors with Jacques Audiard
Directed by filmmaker Jacques Audiard, the movie follows the story of a former Sri Lankan civil war fighter who assembles a fake family and seeks a new life in Paris. Audiard took the runner-up prize at Cannes five years ago for his film “A Prophet.”

தீபன் - நடிகர் அன்ரனி
The jury was led by directors Joel and Ethan Coen, who praised the film. “This isn’t a jury of film critics. This is a jury of artists looking at the work,” Joel Coen said. Ethan Coen added, “We all thought it was a beautiful movie.”

அரியணையில் மீண்டும் ``அம்மா``, கழக எதிர்ப்புச் சுவரொட்டி!


Wednesday, 27 May 2015

உலகமறுபங்கீட்டில் சீனத் தென் திசைக் கடல் பிராந்தியம்



சீனத் தென் திசைக் கடல் பிராந்தியத்தை மேற்காணும் வரைபடம் விளக்குவதோடு அக்கடல் பிராந்தியத்தின் மீது கடலோர நாடுகள் கடலுரிமை பாராட்டும் கடல்ப் பகுதிகளும் குறிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது,சீனா உரிமை கோரும் பகுதி ஏறத்தாழ , அண்டை நாடுகளைப் பொறுத்தவரையில் சீனத் தென் திசைக் கடல் பிராந்தியத்தை முற்று முழுதாக தனது ஏகாதிபத்திய நலனுக்கு அடிமைப்படுத்தும் ஆக்கிரமிப்பு திட்டமாகும்!

அமெரிக்காவைப் பொறுத்தவரையில் ரசிய சமூக ஏகாதிபத்தியத்தின் வீழ்ச்சிக்குப் பிந்திய உலக மேலாதிக்க முனைப்புக்கு சீனா வைக்கும் பொறியாகும்!
Page 2


Sunday, 17 May 2015

முள்ளிவாய்க்கால் வீரகாவியம் ஆண்டு 6

முள்ளிவாய்க்கால் 2015


புதிய ஈழப் பிரகடனம்

ஈழத்தீவக மாணவச் சுடர் வித்தியாவுக்கு காணிக்கை.



Thursday, 14 May 2015

மோடி ஆட்சியின் இந்திய குழந்தை உழைப்புச் சட்டத் திருத்தம்


Cabinet clears changes to Child Labour Act, those under 14 can work in family businesses
Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times, New Delhi| Updated: May 13, 2015 20:59 IST

The Union Cabinet cleared amendments to the child labour law on Wednesday to allow children below the age of 14 to work in select 'non-hazardous' family enterprises.

The government earlier said it was planning to take the step to encourage learning at home as it led to entrepreneurship. It, however, said the children would be allowed to work only if their education wasn't being hampered.

According to a report published by Hindustan Times on April 8, a draft provision in the Child Labour Prohibition Act said the prohibition on child labour would not apply if they were helping the family in fields, forests and home-based work after school hours or during vacations, or while attending technical institutions.

The new norm would also apply to the entertainment industry and sports except the circus, a proposal by the labour ministry said. In addition, children between 14 and 18 years would not be allowed to work in hazardous industries.

"We don't want to redraw the social fabric of Indian society where children learn by participating in work with family elders. We, instead, want to encourage learning WORK AT HOME as it leads to entrepreneurship," a government official said.

The changes in the labour law also provide for stricter punishment for employers for violation. While there is no penalty provision for parents for the first offence, the employer would be liable for punishment even for the first violation.

In case of parents, the repeat offenders may be penalised with a monetary fine up to Rs 10,000. In case of first offence, the penalty for employers has been increased up to two and half times from the existing up to Rs 20 thousand to up to Rs 50,000 now.

Cabinet clears changes to Child Labour Act, those under 14 can work

Cabinet clears changes to Child Labour Act, those under 14 can work in family businesses

Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times, New Delhi| Updated: May 13, 2015

The Union Cabinet cleared amendments to the child labour law on Wednesday to allow children below the age of 14 to work in select 'non-hazardous' family enterprises.

The government earlier said it was planning to take the step to encourage learning at home as it led to entrepreneurship. It, however, said the children would be allowed to work only if their education wasn't being hampered.

According to a report published by Hindustan Times on April 8, a draft provision in the Child Labour Prohibition Act said the prohibition on child labour would not apply if they were helping the family in fields, forests and home-based work after school hours or during vacations, or while attending technical institutions.

The new norm would also apply to the entertainment industry and sports except the circus, a proposal by the labour ministry said. In addition, children between 14 and 18 years would not be allowed to work in hazardous industries.

"We don't want to redraw the social fabric of Indian society where children learn by participating in work with family elders. We, instead, want to encourage learning WORK AT HOME as it leads to entrepreneurship," a government official said.

The changes in the labour law also provide for stricter punishment for employers for violation. While there is no penalty provision for parents for the first offence, the employer would be liable for punishment even for the first violation.

In case of parents, the repeat offenders may be penalised with a monetary fine up to Rs 10,000. In case of first offence, the penalty for employers has been increased up to two and half times from the existing up to Rs 20 thousand to up to Rs 50,000 now.

 In case of a second or subsequent offence of employing any child or adolescent in contravention of the law, the minimum imprisonment would be one year which may extend to three years.

Earlier, the penalty for second or subsequent offence of employing any child in contravention of the law was imprisonment for a minimum term of six months which may extend to two years.

Family businesses have been given a wide definition and cover any JOB, profession, or business performed primarily by family members. This will especially help poor families where children help in family subsistence, officials said.

Child right activists, however, have opposed the move, saying the proposal could be used to deny education to the girl child, whose school drop-out rate is almost double than that of boys, and can hamper the government's bid to provide elementary education to all children below 14 years.

India has seen a sharp drop in the number of child labourers in the last decade, down to 4.3 million from 12.6 million, according to census data. Child rights activists, however, dispute the numbers, saying the decline is due to under-reporting because of fear of prosecution but officials CREDITING the improvement to increased school enrolment.

A large number of child labourers continue to work in several industries such as fireworks, matchboxes, footwear and carpet making, where children are in high demand owing to their nimble fingers, necessary for intricate designs. Activists say children are often preferred because they can be forced to work long hours with poor pay.

The original child labour law banned the employment of children below 14 in only 18 hazardous industries but the UPA government in 2012 proposed to extend the ban to all industries.

They also introduced a new category of adolescents -- 14 to 18 years -- who were banned from hazardous industries but allowed to work in other sectors.

The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Bill, 2012, introduced in the Rajya Sabha, recommended a complete ban on child labour until they finish elementary education, guaranteed
under the Right To Education Act.

The amendments were welcomed by activists but were seen by many as an "inspector raj" that gave labour department officials a permit to harass small businesses and farmers.

The changes were re-examined by the new government due to apprehensions of misuse and fears that they could upset the social fabric of the country.

These were also the reasons given by the labour ministry while rejecting a parliamentary committee recommendation that barred children from helping parents in domestic chores, saying the ban could be reframed to prohibit employment in all occupations.

The ministry also rejected a proposal to make elementary education a must for employment of adolescents in non-hazardous industries, pointing out that a separate law existed to guarantee education.

Labour minister Bandaru Dattatreya announced said in April that the government would introduce amendments to the Child Labour Prohibition Act in the ongoing winter session of Parliament.

PM Shri Narendra Modi speech at the launch of the ''Make In India'' initiative.

PM Shri Narendra Modi speech at the launch of the ''Make In India'' initiative.




PM Narendra Modi Agressive Speech Land Bill | CVR News

PM Narendra Modi Agressive Speech Land Bill | CVR News

Chinese president meets Indian PM


Chinese president meets Indian PM
(Xinhua)    17:18, May 14, 2015

XI'AN, May 14  -- Chinese President Xi Jinping met with visiting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Xi'an, capital city of Shaanxi Province and Xi's hometown, on Thursday afternoon.

"This is the first time I have treated a foreign leader in my hometown and I hope you have a happy stay," Xi said at the start of the meeting.

Xi welcomed Modi and thanked him for the warm reception he received on his India visit in September, when the Indian PM accompanied him to visit his home state of Gujarat.
"That left me with a deep and good impression," Xi said.

In September, Xi and Modi "reached an important consensus on promoting the bilateral strategic partnership of cooperation and forging a closer partnership of development," according to the president.

Both sides have maintained frequent high-level contact and engagement, promoted cooperation in priority areas including construction of railways and industrial parks, strengthened exchanges, controlled border areas, Xi said.

China-India relations are experiencing stable development and facing broad prospects, he added, predicting that Modi's visit will strengthen the partnership.

Xi called on the two countries to look at their ties from a long-term perspective, strengthen coordination on global and regional affairs, and "steer the international order to develop in a fairer direction".

The two countries could strengthen communication on the Belt and Road Initiative, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and Modi's "Act East" policy, find areas of common interest, and hone a mode of cooperation with reciprocal benefit, Xi said.

He said the two countries should seek common ground in their respective development strategies to jointly promote the region's economic integration and contribute to global economic growth.

He called for more bilateral cooperation in areas including railways, industrial parks, urbanization and training, pledging to encourage Chinese companies to invest in India.

The president also expressed hope that the two countries can trust each other more and control their disputes to avoid weakening bilateral ties.

Xi also called on the two countries to strengthen exchanges between media, think tanks and young people to promote mutual understanding.

Calling China a great neighbor, Modi said India was ready to communicate and cooperate more closely with China, increase cultural exchanges and properly handle disputes.

He also voiced hope for more bilateral trade and closer cooperation with China within the AIIB.
He said he believed the AIIB will play an important role in regional economic and social development, and that India welcomes China to increase investment.

With regard to South Asia, Xi stressed that China has close relationships in the area and supports the region to maintain friendly ties. China is ready to strengthen reciprocal cooperation with all South Asian nations and promote the region's peace, stability and prosperity, he said.

Modi echoed Xi, saying India attaches high importance to communication in South Asia. India is ready to cooperate with China concerning the Belt and Road Initiative to promote the region's development and prosperity, he said.

This three-day tour is Modi's first China visit. Premier Li Keqiang and top legislator Zhang Dejiang will also meet him in Beijing on Friday.

CCTV shows India’s map without Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh

China has been laying territorial claim over Arunachal Pradesh and parts of Jammu and Kashmir but India has been strongly resisting it.
 CCTV shows India’s map without Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh
 New Delhi, Publish Date: May 14 2015 10:54PM | Updated Date: May 14 2015 10:54PM

CCTV shows India’s map without Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh

A controversy was kicked up Thursday with China’s state-owned television CCTV showing India’s map without Jammu and Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh while reporting on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit.

The map was displayed during a bulletin when Modi was in Xi’an city where he held talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in his hometown.

China has been laying territorial claim over Arunachal Pradesh and parts of Jammu and Kashmir but India has been strongly resisting it.

The unresolved boundary issue has been a sticking point in the relations between the two major Asian countries and both are making efforts to settle it through Special Representatives’ talks. The Special Representatives have held 18 rounds of discussions so far.

Modi in China 2015

China says the border dispute is confined only to 2,000 kms mostly in Arunachal Pradesh whereas India asserts that the dispute covered the western side of the border spanning to about 4,000 kms, especially the Aksai Chin area ceded to China by Pakistan.

Taking strong objection to depiction of the Indian map wrongly, Congress questioned the Prime Minister whether he would raise the issue strongly with the Chinese leadership.

“Official Chinese media is showing maps depicting Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin as Chinese territory and the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir out of India’s boundary,” Congress spokesman Randeep Singh Surjewala said and asked, “Will the Prime Minister take up the issue strongly and as a first priority with the Chinese leadership?”

Modi in China 2015
He said the party has several fundamental which need to be addressed by the government “on priority.”

Surjewala said that in 2013, the UPA government had announced the formation of the Mountain Strike Corps (MSC), a 90,000 strong Army battalion specifically to prevent intrusion by Chinese troops, at a cost of Rs 64,478 cr.

“However just three weeks ahead of the PM’s visit to China, the Defence Ministry has reduced the sanctioned strength of this battalion by 50 per cent. The official reason given was a severe FUND shortage,” he claimed.

News Source : Greater Kashmir

Saudi Arabia Promises to Match Iran in Nuclear Capability

~~~~~~~  MIDDLE EAST

Saudi Arabia Promises to Match Iran in Nuclear Capability
By DAVID E. SANGERMAY 13, 2015

WASHINGTON — When President Obama began making the case for a deal with Iran that would delay its ability to assemble an atomic weapon, his first argument was that a nuclear-armed Iran would set off a “free-for-all” of proliferation in the Arab world. “It is almost certain that other players in the region would feel it necessary to get their own nuclear weapons,” he said in 2012.

Now, as he gathered Arab leaders over dinner at the White HOUSE on Wednesday  and prepared to meet with them at Camp David on Thursday, he faced a perverse consequence:

Saudi Arabia and many of the smaller Arab states are now vowing to match whatever nuclear enrichment capability Iran is permitted to retain.

“We can’t sit back and be nowhere as Iran is allowed to retain much of its capability and amass its research,” one of the Arab leaders preparing to meet Mr. Obama said on Monday, declining to be named until he made his case directly to the president. Prince Turki bin Faisal, the 70-year-old former Saudi intelligence chief, has been touring the world with the same message.

“Whatever the Iranians have, we will have, too,” he said at a recent conference in Seoul, South Korea.

For a president who came to office vowing to move toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, the Iran deal has presented a new dilemma. If the agreement is sealed successfully next month — still far from guaranteed — Mr. Obama will be able to claim to have bought another decade, maybe longer, before Iran can credibly threaten to have a nuclear weapon.

But by leaving 5,000 centrifuges and a growing research and development program in place — the features of the proposed deal that Israel and the Arab states oppose virulently — Mr. Obama is essentially recognizing Iran’s right to continue enrichment of uranium, one of the two pathways to a nuclear weapon. Leaders of the Sunni Arab states are arguing that if Iran goes down that road, Washington cannot credibly argue they should not follow down the same one, even if their technological abilities are years behind Iran’s.

“With or without a deal, there will be pressure for nuclear proliferation in the Middle East,” said Gary Samore, Mr. Obama’s top nuclear adviser during the first term and now the executive director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. “The question is one of capabilities. How would the Saudis do this without help from the outside?”

In fact, the Arab states may find it is not as easy as it sounds. The members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a loose affiliation of nations that make the crucial components for nuclear energy and, by extension, weapons projects, have a long list of components they will not ship to the Middle East. For the Saudis, and other Arab states, that leaves only North Korea and Pakistan, two countries that appear to have mastered nuclear enrichment, as possible sources.

It is doubtful that any of the American allies being hosted by Mr. Obama this week would turn to North Korea, although it supplied Syria with the components of a nuclear reactor that Israel destroyed in 2007.

Pakistan is another story. The Saudis have a natural if unacknowledged claim on the technology: They FINANCED much of the work done by A.Q. Khan, a Pakistani nuclear scientist who ended up peddling his nuclear wares abroad. It is widely presumed that Pakistan would provide Saudi Arabia with the technology, if not a weapon itself.

The Arab leader interviewed on Monday said that countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council, all to be represented at the Camp David meeting, had discussed a collective program of their own — couched, as Iran’s is, as a peaceful effort to develop nuclear energy. The United Arab Emirates signed a deal with the United States several years ago to build nuclear power plants, but it is prohibited under that plan from enriching its own uranium.

Over the last decade, the Saudi government has FINANCED nuclear research projects but there is no evidence that it has ever tried to build or buy facilities of the kind Iran has assembled to master the fuel cycle, the independent production of the makings of a weapon.

Still, the Saudis have given the subject of nuclear armament more than passing thought. In the 1980s they bought a type of Chinese missile, called a DF-3, that could be used effectively only to deliver a nuclear weapon because the missiles were too large and inaccurate for any other purpose. American officials, led by Robert M. Gates, then the director of the C.I.A., protested. There is no evidence the Saudis ever obtained warheads to fit atop the missiles.

Mr. Obama met with Saudi princes in the Oval Office on Wednesday — Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — who will most likely

moderate their criticisms of his administration while talking directly to the president. Mr. Obama is expected to OFFER them and the other Arab states some security assurances,

although not as explicit or legally binding as the kind that protect American treaty allies, from NATO to Japan to South Korea.

But Mr. Obama will have a difficult time overcoming the deep suspicions that the Saudis, and other Arab leaders, harbor about the Iran deal. Several of them have said that the critical

problem with the tentative agreements, as described by the White HOUSE and Secretary of State John Kerry, is that they assure nothing on a permanent basis.

Prince Turki, while in Seoul, went further. “He did go behind the backs of the traditional allies of the U.S. to strike the deal,” he said of Mr. Obama during a presentation to the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, a South Korean research organization.

Although “the small print of the deal is still unknown,” he added, it “opens the door to nuclear proliferation, not closes it, as was the initial intention.”

Prince Turki argued that the United States was making a “pivot to Iran” that was ill advised, and that the United States failed to learn from North Korea’s violations of its nuclear deals.

“We were America’s best friend in the Arab world for 50 years,” he said, using the past tense.

Source:NYTimes


Monday, 11 May 2015

Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu

Govt. faces financial crisis; can’t even pay salaries - CBK

Govt. faces financial crisis; can’t even pay salaries - CBK

Former president Chandrika Kumaratunge said today that the present government was facing a serious FINANCIAL crisis and was even unable to pay public servants their salaries.

Addressing a meeting organised by the Sri Lanka Development Officers’ Union in Colombo yesterday, she said the government was facing difficulties due to the depleted FINANCES of the Treasury.

She said the crisis had been caused by the lack of transparency in the projects carried out by the previous government.

She said the payment of state sector salaries was difficult because of the lack of FUNDS. “The government is not able to pay state sector salaries to everyone. It’s hard to expand the sector, and some of the employees have no work,” she said.

She said those opposed to Yahapalanaya (good governance) had begun a counterrevolution against the new government.

- See more at: http://www.dailymirror.lk/71849/govt-faces-financial-crisis-can-t-even-pay-salaries-cbk#sthash.Uj0uG19H.dpuf

Hambantota was an uncleared area : Fonseka

Fonseka says govt caught sharks, but wants it to go after whales now
May 10, 2015, 10:32 pm

By Chandrasiri Jasenthuliyana, Ambalangoda Corr

After another two months’ time, ten per cent of the office time of incumbent President Maithripala Sirisena would be over but people of the country had received only one per cent of the benefits promised to them under the good governance regime, 
Leader of the Democratic Party Field Marshall Sarath Fonseka said on Saturday.

Addressing a meeting of DP regional leaders at the Ambalangoda Town Hall auditorium Field Marshall Fonseka said that the government had come to power, promising action against fraudsters who had plundered the public institutions and embezzled people’s MONEY. The good governance administration had been able to cast a net to capture the sharks of corruption. "But, it is yet to throw a net to catch the whales of corruption. The government should start fighting corruption from the very top. Then only it can catch the whales of corruption."

Field Marshal Fonseka thanked his party men who had helped effect a regime change and to ensure the victory of Maithripala Sirisena at the January 08 presidential election. "This government is run by the President and Prime Minister that we appointed. We let them rule the country for 100 days without any criticism. The forthcoming general election will be a crucial and decisive one for our party men.

"We cannot forget the damage and destruction caused by the former regime. Hambantota was an uncleared area then. We planned eight rallies in that district during the last presidential election. But, the then ruler did not permit us to build a single stage there. But we did not cancel our plans to meet the people. We took mobile stages there and set them on the roof of vehicles and addressed the masses. We showed the people the plight we were in and called upon them to use their votes wisely. Even under suppression we polled more than 10,000 votes in Hambontota. Our party is only three years old, but people have welcomed us and our policies," the Field Marshal said.
He said when they joined the campaign to help the then Presidential candidate Maithripala Sirisena they had 700,000 votes. They were certain that number now had increased up to more one million. "We hope to CONTEST all districts in the forthcoming general election and it is our target to get at least one member elected from our party to Parliament from each district.

Most probably we will be able to get two members elected from districts such as Colombo and Kalutara," he said.

"Mahinda Rajapaksa would still have been the President and Gotabhaya Defence Secretary they had acted according to the wishes of the public. They also fought with the wrong person.

When they incarcerated me, I had time. I used to run two kilometres a day. So, I was healthier and more vigorous when I came out of the prison. We are respecters of policies and we are not ready to betray our policies and go before the powers that be on bended knees. There were many OFFERS to me but I took none and kept my backbone straight. I will do the same in the future," the Field Marshal said.

இலங்கை மத்திய வங்கி ஆளுநருக்கு எதிராக நம்பிக்கையில்லாப் பிரேரணை!

அரங்கேறும் பக்ச பாசிஸ்டுக்களின் ஆட்சிக் கவிழ்ப்பு எதிர்ப்பு- `பாராளமன்றச் சதி! ENB

Eighty eight MPs sign no confidence motion against CB Governor
Ministers, state ministers and deputy ministers among them
May 10, 2015, 10:33 pm
By Saman Indrajith

Three cabinet ministers, three state ministers and three deputy ministers are among the 88 members who have signed a no confidence motion against Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran.

They are Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena (Cabinet Minister of Parliamentary Affairs), Reginald Cooray (Cabinet Minister of Aviation Services), Piyasena Gamage (Cabinet Minister of Skills Development and Vocational Training), Dilan Perera (State minister of Housing and Samurdhi), Jeevan Kumaratunga (State Minister of Labour), C.B.Ratnayake (State Minister of Public Administration and Democratic governance), Jagath Pushapakumara (Deputy Minister of Plantations), Lakshaman Seneviratne (Deputy Minister of Disaster Management) and Shantha Bandara (Deputy Minister of Mass Media).

The no confidence motion now included in the Parliamentary Order Book according to the Addendum to the Order Book No 14 released yesterday has seven charges against Governor
Mahendran.

 It says: "After Arjuna Mahendran, who is a Singaporean citizen and a closest acquaintance of the Prime Minister, was appointed as the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka in the latter part of January 2015, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka has sharply deteriorated within the short time in which he has held office and this has brought the whole country to disrepute and caused a FINANCIALloss as well.

"Arjuna Mahendran has intentionally caused a huge loss to the government and the whole economy by awarding in an absolutely corrupt manner the 30-year Treasury bonds issued on 27th February 2015 by the Public Debt Department of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka to Perpetual Treasuries, which is the primary dealer firm that belongs to his son-in-law; in that transaction, by increasing the interest rate of the country unnecessarily and artificially to benefit the firm of his son-in-law he had paved the way to earn undue profit of Rs. 200 crores for that firm and therefore only during the period of last 6 weeks the Government of Sri Lanka experienced an interest loss of about Rs. 4,500 crores which is the biggest interest loss in the Sri Lankan history, apart from that the overall interest rate in the whole FINANCIAL system was increased due to the fraudulent act of Mr Arjuna Mahendran and the whole population in the country loses the benefits enjoyed when the inflation rate of the country was maintained at a mid-single digit for more than 6 years and owing to that, the other primary role of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, maintaining stability of the price is in great peril today.

"Owing to the artificially manipulated interest rate caused by the action of Arjuna Mahendran, the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka on 27th February 2015 all other interest rates were affected and therefore compared to the interest rates of the previous day the interest rates increased by nearly 30% and this increase in the interest rates resulted in businessmen, rent payers, house builders and all others who obtain LOANS suffering and as a result of a great number of citizens having to pay high interest rates, there is an imminent danger of increasing the amount of bad debts in banks and non-banking institutions and thereby posing the other major function of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka to maintain the stability of financial system is at stake as at today.

"Colombo STOCK MARKET has rapidly collapsed through the loss of confidence in the Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka which continues to grow day by day, as a result of the actions pointed out above and through that, it has been estimated that market capitalization of Sri Lankan Companies has already declined by a value more than Rs. 2,000 crores within the last 100 days alone.

"Arjuna Mahendran, the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka has displayed through his practice that he is not fit to hold the said onerous, prestigious Office in view of the aforementioned facts; he has made efforts to fulfil certain political objectives and other personal objectives of the United National Party, his actions, orders and conduct have caused a severe damage, loss and discredit to the Government of Sri Lanka and the national economy; that this Parliament is of the opinion that Arjuna Mahendran, should be dismissed from the Office of the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka forthwith."

ரணிலுக்கெதிராக நம்பிக்கையில்லாப் பிரேரணை!

No Confidence Motion against Ranil Prompted by Bond issue

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is party to the biggest FINANCIAL fraud in Sri Lanka's post independence history and a No Confidence Motion against him must be in order, 
said Western Provincial Councillor and leader of the Pivithuru Hela Urumaya (PHU) Udaya Gammanpila to Ceylon Today, yesterday (10).Ceylontoday, 2015-05-11 02:03:00

No Confidence Motion against Ranil Prompted by Bond issue

BY SHAAHIDAH RIZA

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is party to the biggest FINANCIAL fraud in Sri Lanka's post independence history and a No Confidence Motion against him must be in order, said Western Provincial Councillor and leader of the Pivithuru Hela Urumaya (PHU) Udaya Gammanpila to Ceylon Today, yesterday (10).

He made these comments with regard to Central Bank Governor, Arjuna Mahendran who is allegedly involved in the controversial treasury bonds issue, which caused a loss of Rs 45 billion according to Gammanpila.

The leader of the National Freedom Front (NFF) and Parliamentarian, Wimal Weerawansa also expressed the same concern at the Kurunegala rally last Friday (8). He said,

 "The true opposition hopes to submit a No Confidence Motion against the Prime Minister during the course of the week.This will lead to a quick dissolution of Parliament, thus it is prudent to prepare for general elections."

Although most MPs have not yet voiced their support for the No Confidence Motion against the Prime Minister, Gammanpila stated that he is confident of garnering support. He said,

"The opposition MPs made a request to remove the Central Bank Governor and 114 signatures were obtained to see this through. However, the Prime Minister did not heed the request.

Instead he appointed a committee made up of his colleagues who cleared Mahendran. He did not appoint a proper Parliamentary Select Committee to investigate it. I have confidence that those 114 MPs will support this move. In addition, there are also ministers who voiced their concerns about the Mahendran case, including the Cabinet Spokesperson and Health Minister, Rajitha Senaratne."

Meanwhile Deputy Minister of INVESTMENT Promotions, Eran Wickramaratne said that the government will present the report to Parliament and the opposition can read it and call for a
Parliamentary Committee on the issue.

"I think there should be a discussion on the matter and I think this should be investigated in a transparent manner," he said.

Sunday, 10 May 2015

Saudi Arabia Says King Won’t Attend Meetings in U.S.

MIDDLE EAST

Saudi Arabia Says King Won’t Attend Meetings in U.S.
By HELENE COOPER MAY 10, 2015


President Obama speaking about the
 Iran nuclear agreement at the White House last month.
CREDIT Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

 WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia announced on Sunday that its new monarch, King Salman, would not be attending meetings at the White House with President Obama or a summit gathering at Camp David this week, in an apparent signal of its continued displeasure with the administration over United States relations with Iran, its rising regional adversary.

As recently as Friday, the White House said that King Salman would be coming to RESUME consultations on a wide range of regional and bilateral issues,” according to Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman.

But on Sunday, the state-run Saudi Press Agency said that the king would instead send Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Saudi interior minister, and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the defense minister. The agency said the summit meeting would overlap with a five-day cease-fire in Yemen that is scheduled to start on Tuesday to allow for the delivery of humanitarian aid.

Arab officials said they viewed the king’s failure to attend the meeting as a sign of disappointment with what the White House was willing to OFFER at the summit meeting as reassurance that the United States would back its Arab allies against a rising Iran.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, 
the Saudi interior minister.

King Salman is expected to call Mr. Obama on Monday to talk about his last-minute decision not to attend the summit meeting, a senior administration official said on Sunday.

The official said that when the king met Secretary of State John Kerry in Riyadh last week, he indicated that he was looking forward to coming to the meeting. But on Friday night, after the White House put out a statement saying Mr. Obama would be meeting with King Salman in Washington, administration officials received a call from the Saudi foreign minister that the king would not be coming after all.

There was “no expression of disappointment” from the Saudis, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. “If one wants to snub you, they let you know it in different ways,” the official said.

Jon Alterman, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said King Salman’s absence was both a blessing and a snub. “It holds within it a hidden opportunity,” he said, “because senior U.S. officials will have an unusual opportunity to take the measure of Mohammed bin Salman, the very young Saudi defense minister and deputy crown prince, with whom few have any experience.”

But, Mr. Alterman added: “For the White House though, it sends an unmistakable signal when a close partner essentially says he has better things to do than go to Camp David with the president, just a few days after the White House announced he’d have a private meeting before everything got underway.”

Mr. Kerry met on Friday in Paris with his counterparts from the Arab nations that were invited to the summit meeting — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman — to discuss what they were expecting from the summit meeting, and to signal what the United States was prepared to OFFER at Camp David.

But administration officials said that the Arab officials had pressed for a defense treaty with the United States pledging to defend them if they came under external attack. But that was always going to be difficult, as such treaties — similar to what the United States has with Japan — must be ratified by Congress.

Instead Mr. Obama is prepared to OFFER a presidential statement, one administration official said, which is not as binding and which future presidents may not have to honor.

The Arab nations are also angry, officials and experts said, about comments Mr. Obama recently made in an interview with The New York Times, in which he said allies like Saudi Arabia should be worried about internal threats — “populations that, in some cases, are alienated, youth that are underemployed, an ideology that is destructive and nihilistic, and in some cases, just a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for grievances.”

At a time when American officials were supposed to be reassuring those same countries that the United States would support them, the comments were viewed by officials in the gulf as poorly timed, foreign policy experts said.

The Arab countries would also like to buy more weapons from the United States, but that also faces a big obstacle — maintaining Israel’s military edge. The United States has long put restrictions on the types of weapons that American defense firms can sell to Arab nations, in an effort to ensure that Israel keeps a military advantage against its traditional adversaries in the region.

That is why, for instance, the administration has not allowed Lockheed Martin to sell the F-35 fighter jet, considered to be the jewel of America’s future arsenal, to Arab countries. The plane, the world’s most expensive weapons project, has stealth capabilities and has been approved for sale to Israel.

In Paris on Friday, Mr. Kerry said that the United States and its Arab allies, which constitute the Gulf Cooperation Council, were “fleshing out a series of new commitments that will create between the U.S. and G.C.C. a new security understanding, a new set of security initiatives that will take us beyond anything that we have had before.”

The king is the latest top Arab official who will not be attending the summit meeting for delegations from members of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

The United Arab Emirates is also sending its crown prince to the meetings, the officials said. The Emirati president, Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan, was never expected to attend because of health reasons, American and Arab officials said. Sultan Qaboos bin Said of Oman also will not be attending because of health reasons, officials said.

Yousef Al Otaiba, the United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States, declined to say exactly what his government was pushing for from the United States when he spoke at a conference in Washington on Thursday.

“The last thing I want to say is ‘here’s what we need,’ ” he said at a panel discussion sponsored by the Atlantic Council in Washington. “That’s not the right approach. The approach is, let’s come here, let’s figure out what the problems are, how we can work together to address our needs.”

King Salman’s decision to skip the summit meeting does not mean that the Saudis are giving up on the United States — they do not have many other options, said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “As upset as the Saudis are, they don’t really have a viable alternative strategic partnership in Moscow or Beijing,” Mr. Sadjadpour said.

But, he added, “there’s a growing perception at the White House that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are friends but not allies, while the U.S. and Iran are allies but not friends.”

Ben Hubbard contributed reporting from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Peter Baker from Washington.

A version of this article appears in print on May 11, 2015, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Saudi King Plans to Skip Meetings in Washington. 

Saturday, 9 May 2015

After Victory, Cameron Faces a Divided Kingdom

After Victory, Cameron Faces a Divided Kingdom

David Cameron's Conservatives swept to a surprising victory in the UK's general elections. But his country's role in the world is likely to diminish in coming years, writes CFR's James M. Lindsay.
==============
The Conservative Party’s Surprising Victory Doesn’t Herald a Bolder Britain
by James M. Lindsay
May 8, 2015

The Conservative Party’s surprising victory yesterday has rendered obsolete the orgy of pre-election handwringing about the ineffectiveness of Britain’s impending minority government. But it hasn’t rendered obsolete growing concerns about Britain’s retreat from the world stage. INDEED, it may just intensify them.

David Cameron now has a second term as prime minister and a majority government for the first time. But the vote wasn’t a resounding endorsement of the Tories. They won 37 percent of the vote, just two percentage points above what the polls predicted. And Cameron’s majority is slim. He will be devoting a lot of time to holding it together.

Cameron also hasn’t seemed inclined thus far to assert Britain’s global influence. Aside from Libya, he has preferred to let Berlin, Paris, or Washington lead on most issues. His overseas efforts have focused heavily on promoting Britain’s commercial interests.

That choice might reflect the demand of combating the Great Recession or the political need to chart a different path from Tony Blair, whose aggressive support for U.S. foreign policy angered many Britons. But even if Cameron now opts to be assertive, at least two issues will make that hard to do.

The first is the success Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish National Party had yesterday. The SNP won fifty-six of Scotland’s fifty-nine parliamentary seats, and in doing so revived the idea of an independent Scotland thought dead after the No vote won last September’s referendum. Even if the SNP fails to secure another referendum, it will push to devolve more power to Scotland. That will fuel Welsh and English nationalism, encouraging Britons to turn inward.

The second issue is Cameron’s pledge to hold a referendum in 2017 on Britain’s membership in the European Union. The UK Independent Party (UKIP) won 13 percent of yesterday’s vote, so he faces continued pressure to secure a “better deal” for Britain in the EU. What that better deal is remains unknown. What is clear is that Germany, the dominant force in the EU, has little interest in granting London concessions.

Even if Cameron asserts his inner CHURCHILL, blunts Scottish nationalism, and derails the euroskeptics, larger, long-term trends are diminishing Britain’s capacity to influence on world events. Consider:

Britain now has had the world’s ninth largest economy. It is likely to fall out of the top ten in the coming years.

In 1990, Britain spent 3.8 percent of its GDP on defense. Today, it spends less than 2 percent. In absolute terms, defense spending has fallen 14 percent since 2010 after accounting for inflation.
British troop levels have shrunk 19 percent since 2007, and they’re set to shrink another 8 percent by 2020. Even steeper cuts could be on the way. If they materialize, the British army would be the smallest it has been since it lost to the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord.
In 1996, the British Navy had thirty-six warships—destroyers and frigates. Today, it has eighteen. Britain is building two new aircraft carriers. The first is scheduled to be completed in 2017, three years before Her Majesty’s Navy acquires the planes that will fly off its decks.

Britain does have a UN Security Council veto. But that confers powers more symbolic than real. Likewise, London’s importance as a global financial center makes Britain a leading force in international finance. But that might inhibit rather than embolden British diplomacy. The Cameron government lobbied hard to ensure that sanctions against Russia wouldn’t send rubles flowing out of the City of London, or, as some wags prefer to call it, “London-grad.”

Of course, a Britain with modest global ambitions may be the best choice for Britons themselves. The British economy might benefit from elevating British commercial and trade interests over wider foreign policy interests.

But anyone looking for a Britain that has “a grander role, a grander ambition, a place beyond the ordinary” will likely be disappointed by the new Cameron government. That’s especially true for the United States, which has long treated British support for its policies as axiomatic.

This is not to say the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom will disappear. It won’t. Common history and a shared tongue count for a lot. But on an increasing number of issues, London and Washington will be happier talking about the past than the future.

Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions.

Wednesday, 6 May 2015

ஐரோப்பாவில் பாசிசம்: இணைய சுதந்திரம் மீது பிரான்ஸ் அரசு பாய்ச்சல்!



நியூயோர்க் ரைம்ஸ் பத்திரிகையின் ஆளும் வர்க்க தாராளவாத ஜனநாயகப் பார்வையில்:

EUROPE | NEWS ANALYSIS
Familiar Swing to Security Over Privacy After Attacks in France
By ALISSA J. RUBIN and DAVID E. SANGER MAY 6, 2015

PARIS — For two years after the revelations by Edward J. Snowden, Europe was awash in talk about American excesses in mass surveillance, objecting to how the National Security Agency swept up emails and phone conversations — even of political leaders like Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany — in an American electronic net that seemed to envelop the Continent.

But the past few months have helped clarify what much of Europe really objected to: the American involvement in that surveillance, not the net itself. Worried ABOUT ISLAMIC extremists in its midst, Britain passed even more sweeping surveillance laws last summer. And in the wake of terrorist attacks in Paris in January, the French have begun what has become almost a rite of passage for Western nations since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, voting through the lower house of Parliament on Tuesday vastly expanded government powers to protect, and spy on, its own citizens.

In Europe the impulse for government protection, even at the expense of civil liberties, is hardly new. Britain’s surveillance cameras on every major city block are well known. FRANCE has conducted similarly intensive surveillance for years, but without explicit legal authorization. “The French government is saying, in essence, ‘We do it anyway, so we might as well be able to use it for evidence in court,’ ” said Frédérick Douzet, a cybersecurity expert and professor at the University of Paris 8.

However, some of the measures authorized in the pending legislation would be new — at least as far as anyone knows — including the use of new technology to conduct analysis of bulk metadata, experts said.

The reality, however, is that it is unlikely that any of the proposed new measures would have prevented the January attacks at Charlie Hebdo, a satirical newspaper, said some experts in
Paris. And while counterterrorism was the justification as the National Assembly greatly enhanced the spying powers of the nation’s intelligence services, Ms. Douzet and others point out that the law allows broad surveillance in other areas as well.

But there was a near absence of public attention and debate around the measures — or around whether France needs the kinds of checks and balances on surveillance that the United States has imposed. INDEED, the news barely made the front pages of newspapers here on Wednesday, even though in the run-up to the vote, some news media had extensively highlighted the potential abuses of the far-reaching legislation.

“This is the tradition of a country that used to see itself as a great power — so we do whatever it takes,” said Dominique Moïsi, the co-founder of the French Institute for International

At the same time, Congress is inching in the other direction. By the END OF JUNE, the government may get out of the business of bulk collection of telephone metadata — though under legislation and a proposal by President Obama, that collection would simply move to telecommunications companies.

In fact, after more than a decade of massive government surveillance — the extent of which was not fully known until the leaks from Mr. Snowden — the N.S.A. now finds itself having to justify its programs, to the White House and the American people.

But the outrage in Europe about the Snowden disclosures was largely centered on the intrusion of the American surveillance system on European soil — sometimes with the help, witting or unwitting, of American companies. “The common vocabulary among the Europeans is that Europe is privacy friendly, and the United States tolerates a Stasi-like N.S.A. and vicious data collectors, like Google and Facebook,” said Benjamin Wittes, the co-author of “The FUTURE of Violence.” “It’s nonsense. They object to the American part.”

The exception may be Germany, where the current uproar is about what the B.N.D., Germany’s intelligence service, may have done in partnership with the United States. But when it comes to social media, European sensibilities are beginning to change. Even those countries that PRIZE discretion are facing the reality that there is a new era of global communication that compromises privacy, and that little on the Internet can be kept secret. That, perhaps, is making it easier for citizens to accept government snooping.

In FRANCE, opposition to the bill gained little traction even though critics argued that the proposed legislation would allow French intelligence services to collect and monitor bulk communications, read texts and email and tap cellphones with little judicial oversight. The opponents included many Internet companies, civil liberties supporters and some left-leaning members of the French Parliament, as well as some judges and lawyers.

But they won little political support: Western Europe lacks the strand of antigovernment sentiment seen in Libertarians or the Tea Party in the United States. And while there is some legislative branch oversight, it rarely delves deeply into government proposals and programs.

So just as the Sept. 11 attacks led President Bush and Congress to grant far-reaching powers to American intelligence agencies, deadly attacks in FRANCE and elsewhere in Europe and fear about the thousands of extremists in Syria and Iraq with European passports are allowing intelligence and security services to obtain powers that previously eluded them.

France, with the largest Muslim population in Europe, has seen more of its citizens go to fight in the Middle East than any other European country. Similarly, the hundreds of British citizens who went to Syria in recent years prompted the government last summer to approve surveillance measures forcing telecommunication companies to retain data for a year. (In the United States, the norm is even longer.)

Now human rights and civil liberties advocates say their worry is not only how France might use the new law, but how other countries will seize on the precedent.

“My fear is that France is setting an example here, and it encourages a race for the bottom on a global level,” said Cynthia Wong, a lawyer and senior Internet researcher for Human Rights Watch. “If France does it, why wouldn’t every other government do the same thing?”

Even so, some analysts and opponents of the new measures said they would not necessarily have prevented Chérif and Saïd Kouachi from massacring 12 people at Charlie Hebdo. Nor would the added measures probably have headed off Amedy Coulibaly from taking hostages days later at a kosher grocery store, killing four of them as well as a police officer, they said.

“The Kouachi brothers and Coulibaly were already targeted by the intelligence services,” said Pierre-Olivier Sur, the head of the Paris bar association, who opposes the new measures.

The authorities, others note, already have more information and suspects than they can possibly track with the current levels of resources and FUNDING, neither of which are augmented by the proposed legislation.

“The law would not have added anything,” Mr. Sur said.

Alissa J. Rubin reported from Paris, and David E. Sanger from Washington.

Monday, 4 May 2015

Kerry in Nairobi on Issues Affecting Kenya, Region

TEXTS & TRANSCRIPTS
Translated:
English
Kerry in Nairobi on Issues Affecting Kenya, Region

04 May 2015
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesperson
May 4, 2015

REMARKS
Secretary of State John Kerry
Press Availability

Nairobi, Kenya

SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon, everybody. I’m delighted to be here in Nairobi, and I appreciate enormously the very generous welcome beginning with yesterday and my visit to
the Nairobi National Park, which was wonderful. And I want to thank President Kenyatta and the cabinet and Cabinet Secretary Mohamed for not just their generous welcome, but also for their partnership on some of the toughest challenges that we face today internationally. There’s an African proverb to the effect that rain does not fall on one roof alone, and it’s with the reality of our SHARED interests in mind that I come to Nairobi today to consult with the president and with the foreign minister about the many concerns that we share about our two countries in advance of President Obama’s visit in July.

There can be no question that our meetings here today were timely. Events in Kenya and the broader region present us with a broad array of tests. The threat posed by violent extremism is regrettably foremost among them. Last month’s brazen murder of at least 147 students and teachers in Garissa was a heartbreaking reminder of terrorism’s cost. On behalf of President Obama and the American people, I join in expressing our deepest condolences to all of the families and to the friends of the victims in Garissa and to all those affected in previous attacks – in Mandera, Wajir, Kenya’s coast, including Mombasa, out – Nairobi’s Westgate Mall, and elsewhere. And I will say to you that these tragedies may cause momentary turmoil, even chaos, and they bring, obviously, enormous grief to families. But in the end, instead of dividing us they bring us closer together, and they will never SHAKE our commitment to human decency, to dignity, and to peace.

As I discussed with Kenya’s leaders today, we know that defeating terrorism requires a long-term effort. It requires a comprehensive strategy. Border security, law enforcement actions are a big part of the equation. But the even larger imperative is to persuade and prevent people, particularly young people, from joining such groups as al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, and Daesh.

Otherwise, no matter how many terrorists we bring to justice, these groups will simply replenish their ranks and we will not be safer.

That effort must have the support of religious authorities, educators, and citizens who will discredit hateful doctrines and help people to build stronger and more resilient communities. The success of this strategy depends on building trust between the authorities and local communities, and that includes members of Kenya’s Muslim community who were among the first to march against the terrorists in Garissa. And it also includes Somali refugees in Kenya, who are here after all because they fled from and despise al-Shabaab.

America has learned in our own fight against terrorism that we have to be true to democratic values, not just because it’s right, but also because it’s the only sure path to security over the long term. So I am glad that today President Kenyatta reinforced his agreement with us that human rights and the rule of law have to be respected in the counterterrorism efforts, and that security officials should partner with civil society organizations, especially with those with deep roots in the communities that are scarred by terrorism. The more united and proud of its institutions that a country is, the stronger it is going to be in fighting back against the threats of terror. And that is why my government will continue to provide assistance to Kenya’s civil society and promote the democratic principles embodied in the country’s 2010 constitution.

Kenya also needs international assistance and international solidarity on another matter – that is the challenge of hosting hundreds of thousands of refugees who have fled to this country for protection from persecution, fear, and war. I know that represents a burden to the people here. I know people here are feeling that burden, particularly after an event like Garissa. It’s unavoidable. It’s completely understandable. But on the other hand, Kenya can be extraordinarily proud of the fact that it stands out as a country that has welcomed people from their terror in other countries, and that Kenya stands as a partner in the effort to bring to justice those who perpetrate that kind of terror.

Earlier today, I had a chance to meet with a few of the refugees, and I also spoke to students at Dadaab, the largest of Kenya’s refugee camps. I spoke to them through an internet connection to their classroom. I have to tell you, it was really very moving, quite extraordinary to talk to a young man who had spent 19 years in a camp, who would love to go home, who would love to be somewhere else, who would love to have a JOB, love to complete his university education. I talked to one young woman who told me she had been in the camp for years. I asked how long; she said, “I was born here.” And now she’s finishing high school.

What an extraordinary thing that these kids are actually able to get at least that far in their education, and every single one of them would love to be able to have a job, and every single one of them would prefer that that job could be at home, in peace. And that is why it is so imperative that all of us work together in order to bring peace to South Sudan, to Somalia. And Kenya should be proud of the effort that it is making together with the international community to help make such a difference, particularly in Somalia. I was very inspired by these kids’ drive, passion to learn. One young woman told me she’s studying chemistry and biology. And I asked her what she wants to be; she said she wants to BE A DOCTOR. I’ll bet she’s never been in a hospital, but she still wants to be a doctor.

So we have an enormous challenge, all of us. This is not just a challenge for Kenya, believe me. This is a challenge for the global community. And all of us need to work together in order to guarantee that people don’t live in a refugee camp from the date of birth until the end of high school, but rather that they can go home. That’s our obligation. Refugee camps are supposed to be temporary, not supposed to become permanent cities in another nation. And we all have an obligation to do better in order to provide a better alternative to these young people.

I’m pleased to announce that the United States has just provided an additional 45 million to the UN high commissioner for refugees for the operations here in Kenya. And we are proud of the fact that we’re perhaps the largest donor in the world in terms of the refugee effort at this moment, with 3.8 billion alone going to the refugees from Syria and that conflict. And this year, a significant – about $100 million coming in additional aid for the fight against terrorism here in Kenya alone. This FUNDING is part of our effort to maintain our longstanding commitment and Kenya’s longstanding commitment to be able to provide haven to refugees. What this money will mean is better schools, it means access to health clinics, it means safer housing and clean water to drink, and it will benefit not only refugees but also particularly the Kenyan communities who graciously act as hosts.

Another of Kenya’s neighbors, South Sudan, was also the topic of our discussions today. We all know of that country’s great promise. I had the privilege of working on the Comprehensive Peace Agreement’s application, of TRAVELING there, meeting with President Kiir, of being there during the election and being there for the referendum and celebrating the independence that came afterwards. And we all know of that country’s extraordinary promise during that period of time. We saw firsthand the dedication and the courage and the resilience of its people. But let me be clear – that promise is now at grave risk of being squandered because of civil violence, because of more than 2 million people who have been displaced from their homes. With each day, the ranks of the hungry and the malnourished grow. And none of this had to happen, but it did happen because the country’s leaders failed to act on behalf of the best interests of their people and their nation.

This is not happening, except for the absence of the leadership necessary to bring it to a close. For more than a year, regional leaders, the United States and others have been urging South Sudan’s leaders to live up to their commitments to silence the guns and establish a transitional government that can set their country on a path towards peace and prosperity. Unfortunately,

South Sudan’s leaders, both those officially in office and those CONTESTING those who are in office, have not yet chosen to make the compromises needed for peace. And it is that absence of compromise and absence of leadership that is leading to this extraordinary challenge to the region.

It is increasingly clear that justice and accountability, as well as reconciliation, are essential to peace. And to complement our existing funding for local reconciliation efforts, the United States is committing an additional $5 million to support South Sudanese and international efforts to create a credible, impartial, and effective justice mechanism, such as a hybrid court, in order to hold perpetrators of violence to account. The FUNDS will also support efforts to build the capacity of civil society to document human rights violations. And I call on other international donors to join us in committing funds to these critical justice and reconciliation efforts.

The choices that South Sudan’s leaders will make ultimately will determine whether the country continues on the path of conflict or restores the hope which its citizens so richly deserve.

For the sake of all the people of South Sudan, we hope the choice will be made for peace.

In closing, I want to once again thank the government of and the people of Kenya for their wonderful hospitality during my brief stay here. I know President Obama is very much looking forward to coming in a short time. I want to OFFER, if I may, my personal congratulations to Kenya’s Caroline Rotich for her extraordinary victory in last month’s Boston Marathon. As all of you know, the Boston Marathon has taken on a very special meaning over these last two years, and it has always been – before an act of violence shattered its peacefulness, it had always been one of the great marathons of the world, as it is today. I know how proud Kenya is to have such a world-class long distance runner, and we are delighted to honor her.

With that, let me say thank you to all of you, and I’m delighted to take a few questions. Marie.

MS HARF: The first question is from Brad Klapper of the Associated Press.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

SECRETARY KERRY: I saw you being handed questions, so I still trust this is one question.

MS HARF: I saw that too, Brad.

QUESTION: Since you said “a few questions,” if you’ll indulge me.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, a few – one from you and one from somebody else, and that’s a few.

QUESTION: A question in three parts. On Kenya specifically, did you discuss the Dadaab complex? Did you demand that it stay open? And do you have any reactions to comments by the deputy prime minister on homosexuals in his country that he made recently?

Since you’re in Africa, can you comment briefly on the continued protests and violence in nearby Burundi? And on a – on what is unfortunately a similar topic, the protests that we saw yesterday of Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: So I did discuss the Dadaab camp with President Kenyatta, but I didn’t have to demand anything, because the president couldn’t have been more forthcoming that this is an enormous challenge for the country, as I mentioned; that the people of Kenya are concerned about the numbers of refugees that they are currently hosting. And I think anybody has to understand that’s a burden on the country and I think he was reflecting and has reflected the challenge that it presents to the country.

But he also made it clear that Kenya has a great tradition of hosting refugees, and that the key is to accelerate efforts to have a plan in place for the ability of the people in not just Dadaab but in all of the refugee camps to be able to return home in an orderly and voluntary manner with dignity and with safety. That’s his goal; that’s our goal. And I am confident that the camp at Dadaab will remain open while we work through how people will be able to go home by doing a better job of finishing our task in Somalia, in South Sudan. And that is the mission.

So I think what the pressures of the refugee situation are doing is reminding everybody of the need to accelerate efforts to solve the underlying fundamental problems so people can go back to their homes in peace. I leave here with a much greater awareness of the challenge, with a much more immediate sense of the urgency of resolving it, and with a much greater commitment to try to work with our international partners in order to get the job done and be able to put those kids in places where they can actually get JOBS and go to work rebuilding their own country and relieve the burden from the people of Kenya.

With respect to the comments, I just heard about this before I came in here. I haven’t read the comments. I don’t know what was or wasn’t actually said, so I’m not going to comment with specificity, except to say that the United States believes that all people are created equal, that all people have rights. That includes people of every faith, every gender, every choice of partner. No matter who you love or who you are in your life, you have all the rights of every other human being. And that is our position in the United States, and we will never, ever waver from that position.

With respect to Burundi, we are deeply concerned about President Nkurunziza’s decision, which flies directly in the face of the constitution of his country. And the violence that is expressing, the concern of his own citizens about that choice should be listened to and avoided as we go forward in these days. It’s my understanding an African Union delegation will go there soon to meet with him to try to underscore the importance of adhering to the constitution of the country, and it’s our hope in the United States that ultimately that is what will happen and that the people of Burundi will be given the choice that their constitution promises them.

With respect to what has happened in Israel – again, I have only been able to catch a glimpse on television, and I know that there are – the events grew out of an incident between a police officer and an Ethiopian Jewish member of the military there. I don’t know all the facts. I assume and believe that it will be thoroughly under investigation. I know the prime minister was planning today to have meetings at the highest level with police, with military, with the individual officer and others. I am confident that Israeli leadership will want to work this through in a way that honors the goals and aspirations and traditions and values of the people of Israel, and I think we need to give them the space to be able to do that.

MS HARF: Great. Our final question is from Geoffrey Mosoku of the Standard Group. Wait for the microphone, please.

QUESTION: Secretary, my question goes to the terrorism attacks in Kenya. Obviously, most Kenyans feel --

SECRETARY KERRY: Hold it a little closer, if you will.

QUESTION: I’m saying most Kenyans feel that Kenya’s been isolated in the war against terror. The president of Kenya has spoken to that effect, saying that whenever there are attacks in

Kenya, we see travel advisories, we see most Western countries fleeing, which is in contrast to what we saw in France when there was an attack on the (inaudible). So I just want to know

what is the level of the U.S. assistance towards Kenya in the global war against terror, especially on the al-Shabaab, Kenya’s operation in Somalia. What is the kind of intervention that the

U.S. Government is putting in place?

Today you met the opposition leaders as well. Probably if you can appraise us on the specific issues that you discussed with them.

And then on – still on Somalia, of course there’s a debate whether Kenya should withdraw its troops from Somalia – the KDF. What’s the position of America?

SECRETARY KERRY: On what? On --

QUESTION: On Somalia – about Kenya’s troops in Somalia, the KDF. Those who are saying --

SECRETARY KERRY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- it’s time our troops come back home. What is the position of America?

And final, will you tell us what makes you love Kenya? (Laughter.)

SECRETARY KERRY: President Obama makes me love Kenya. No, I’m joking. (Laughter.) I love Kenya because I have known Kenya for years and years and years. When I was in the

Senate – I’m going to answer your last question first, obviously. I’m jumping at it. I asked Iain Douglas Hamilton to come to the Senate and testify, which he did, to talk about the plight of the elephants and the challenge of conservation. And years ago, I knew and met Richard Leakey and knew of his work here and many other people’s work, and of course through the years we have admired greatly what Kenya has done to set an example for all of Africa with the Kenyan Wildlife Service, which is quite extraordinary in its quality and capacity, but it goes way beyond that.

Kenya is a country of extraordinary promise. It’s really one of the leaders of all of Africa. It is now in this second republic, struggling for democracy again and full-throated participation of all of its citizens. There’s an enormous amount happening here. There are more than 100 U.S. companies that are engaged in business and hopeful of building jobs for the FUTURE.

There’s great education opportunity, great passion for the role that Kenya plays as a leader in so many different ways. I actually have a cousin who has lived here for 22 years who works at the United Nations environment program who has married a Kenyan and has family here. And so this is a place that I’ve heard a lot about through the years and members of my family have traveled to, and I’ve finally been able to do that and I’m very happy for that fact.

With respect to the – I’m going to go backwards. With respect to the opposition, we had a very broad conversation. They came very prepared. They had a presentation that they made to me about the concerns. One of them was about troops and where they are and what’s happening with terrorism. They talked about other social needs, structural needs in the country, and the constitution – the need for it to be fully implemented and so forth. And it was a very constructive conversation and I appreciated the opportunity to be able to hear from many different voices in Kenya. Tomorrow morning I’ll meet with members of civil society; have an opportunity to be able to learn even more. So it’s a healthy exchange and I don’t think any leader of another country should come and only talk to the government in place. I think you need to talk to many different voices and listen carefully, and that’s what I’ve been doing.

With respect to – I think your next – was the troops? Let me just say that Kenya – I know this is always hard. We have troops in Afghanistan. We now have some troops back in Iraq who are helping to train and advise with respect to the challenge of Daesh. And Americans have lived for a long time with the cost of exercising global leadership and being involved in helping to bring peace to places, and to bring democracy and opportunity for people. It’s a privilege, even as it is also a burden.

Kenya is playing that role, this dramatic and important role of leadership in Somalia and in South Sudan. And we believe it is absolutely critical for Africa to be front and center in the solutions to challenges in Africa. The last thing Africans would want are Americans or British or other countries who have had long histories in other countries being the leaders of this. It’s not appropriate. So we’re part of the team, and Kenya is a leader in that team. And the role that Kenya is playing internally in Somalia is critical to the FUTURE of Somalia. Somalia is making progress. Al-Shabaab is being beaten back and pushed back. The political system is coming alive again.

And I would respectfully submit to Kenyans that Kenya will be safer if Somalia is more stable. Kenya will be safer if South Sudan can resolve its problems. Kenya will be safer if there aren’t more refugees pouring across a border because those communities can’t pull themselves together. So I think Kenyans should be proud, and obviously, they want an end to it. We all want an end to it. And one of the things I think we need that I’ve learned out of this trip is that AMISOM needs a little boost, needs a little more input, and we need to find the ways to make certain that we have all the assets necessary to be able to accomplish the mission. And I’m very, very hopeful. But I do hope that Kenyans will be patient.

What I think was articulated to me today is we need the exit strategy, and the exit strategy needs to be a success. And we need a clearer sense of how that success is going to come, not just have an endless, open-ended engagement or conflict where people have a right to ask when is this going to end. So we have a JOB as leaders to try to set out that roadmap, and that’s something we’re going to work on harder in the next few days.

QUESTION: The issue of FUNDING to Kenya?

SECRETARY KERRY: What did I leave out?

QUESTION: The issue about FUNDING in Kenya dealing (inaudible)?

MS HARF: Terrorism (inaudible).

SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, I’m sorry. Sure. Look, Kenya is a key partner, as I just said, in the fight against terrorism, and cooperation between our governments is very, very strong. I think – I don't know what the period of years is, but I think we’ve put in some $645 million in an effort to assist over these last years with Kenya directly, and this year alone, I believe it’s more than $100 million, and I just announced additional FUNDING – 45 million plus the 5 million – so we are deeply engaged in trying to help Kenya to be able to push back and deal with terrorism. We’re working on border, border security. We’re working on intelligence sharing. We’re working together in terms of law enforcement and capacity building.

So we have an enormous set – a wide range, really – of security cooperative efforts. We provide equipment, we provide essential training to certain key Kenyan military and law enforcement units. We also assist with counterterrorism investigations, with countering violent extremism. There will be a countering violent extremism summit here in the next weeks that will bring people from all over to talk about how we not just push back against the ACTIVE terrorists, but how do we deplete the pool of future terrorists? How do we make certain we’re not taking some people off the field while replacements keep coming along?

That’s part of the challenge – dealing with foreign fighters, dealing with FINANCE, dealing with delegitimizing those who claim religious support for something that has no basis in religion
whatsoever. So those are the things that we are cooperating on, even as we also emphasize the importance of not losing your commitment to human rights and your commitment to standards even as you pursue your efforts against terrorists. And we are working on rule of law, we’re working in support of your justice system. I met today with your chief justice who is doing an extraordinary job of helping to move the judiciary forward. We admire enormously what he’s up to.

So I think the breadth of our engagement is really quite extraordinary, and all of it has come about through consultations directly with the government. There’s nothing we’re doing that isn’t invited and nothing we’re doing that isn’t cooperative. And we hope that it can make a difference as we go forward.

Thank you all very, very much. Good to be with you. Thank you.

Read more: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2015/05/20150504315124.html#ixzz3ZDIcWStN