Ouster of McCarthy shows US division, 'demons dancing in riotous revelry'

When US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was ousted on Tuesday from his leadership post, he became the shortest serving speaker since 1875. A handful of far-right Republicans joined Democrats and stripped the California Republican of the speaker's gravel with a 216-to-210 vote, after McCarthy worked with Democrats to pass a short-term funding bill to avert a government shutdown.

The ouster appears sudden, but is not surprising. It is no secret that some far-right Republicans hold radical ideas and refuse to cooperate with the Democrats in any form. Moreover, McCarthy's post was fragile from the very beginning. Matt Gaetz, who was among the Republicans to force a successful vote to vacate the chair on the House floor, repeatedly voted against McCarthy's bid for speaker in January. McCarthy ultimately secured the gavel after 15 rounds of voting over four days. To win the job, McCarthy had to agree to rules that made it easier to challenge his leadership. 

Democrats also viewed him as untrustworthy. He broke a May agreement on spending with President Joe Biden. Despite the fact that McCarthy worked with the Democrats to pause the US shutdown, he did not win the support of a single Democrat in Tuesday's vote. Democrats still believe that the presence of McCarthy, who in September ordered an impeachment inquiry into Biden, would hinder the political agenda of the Biden administration. They also believe that ousting McCarthy would trigger chaos within the Republicans and stymie the Republicans' moves against the Democrats. All in all, McCarthy had already become a "lame duck" speaker.

Zhang Tengjun, deputy director of the Department for American Studies at the China Institute of International Studies, told the Global Times that the ouster of McCarthy shows that against the backdrop of intensified bipartisan struggles, loyalty to the party triumphs everything, from the two parties' ability to make compromises and reach consensuses in the interests of the American public.

"It does not matter if one is the House speaker or not; what matters is which party he or she belongs to. This shows the extent to which the Democratic Party and the Republican Party divide," Zhang noted, adding that the US politics is now entering an era of "a host of demons dancing in riotous revelry."

McCarthy's ouster has been covered extensively by the US media, adding to the frenzy. But actually, it is the very representation of the US' so-called democratic politics. What normal democratic politics means is that the functioning of politics will not be affected by the removal of any single politician. But obviously, the ousting of McCarthy has plunged the House into chaos. And McCarthy's fate reflects how cooperating with the other party impacts political fortunes.

Wei Zongyou, a professor from the Center for American Studies, Fudan University, told the Global Times that from a deeper perspective, democratic politics is not all about elections, but about mutual compromise and restraint. 

"If the two parties cannot make compromises and exercise restraint, but turn different political opinions into an excuse to crusade against the other side or launch a life-and-death struggle, it may lead to a deadlock or even a civil war, and the only consequence is that the foundation of democratic politics will be destroyed," said Wei.

US democracy is facing a severe test as the 2024 presidential election looms. The Republicans have to tackle the current chaos and address this most recent leadership crisis. Without a powerful House speaker to bridge the divergences among the Republicans, it will affect the overall election strategy of the Republican Party and its advancement of its political agendas. 

The Democrats, sitting in the House chamber to watch the farce from afar, could laugh at the Republicans and accuse them of not being able to govern the country and being the reason behind ongoing political gridlock. But they also need to be aware that if the Republicans refuse to cooperate in any issue, the Biden administration's political agenda may also suffer. A chaotic situation next year does not necessarily bode well for the Democratic Party, and the outcome of the 2024 election remains uncertain and unpredictable.

☝

McCarthy Is Ousted as Speaker, Leaving the House in Chaos

A handful of far-right Republicans broke with their party and voted to remove Kevin McCarthy from his leadership post. He said he would not run again.

The House voted on Tuesday to oust Representative Kevin McCarthy from the speakership, a move without precedent that left the chamber without a leader and plunged it into chaos.

After a far-right challenge to Mr. McCarthy’s leadership, eight G.O.P. hard-liners joined Democrats to strip the California Republican of the speaker’s gavel. The 216-to-210 vote reflected the deep polarization in Congress and raised questions about who, if anyone, could muster the support to govern an increasingly unruly House G.O.P. majority.

“The office of speaker of the House of the United States House of Representatives is hereby declared vacant,” Representative Steve Womack, Republican of Arkansas, a McCarthy ally who presided over the chamber during the vote, declared after banging the gavel to finalize the result.

Video TRANSCRIPT

McCarthy Ousted as House Speaker in Historic Vote

The House voted to remove Representative Kevin McCarthy of California from the House speakership.

On this vote, the yeas are 216, the nays are 210. The resolution is adopted. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The office of Speaker of the House of the United States House of Representatives is hereby declared vacant.

Soon after, Mr. McCarthy told Republicans behind closed doors that he would not seek to reclaim the post, ending a tumultuous nine months as speaker. Republicans said they would leave Washington until next week, with no clear path to finding a new speaker of the House.

“I don’t regret standing up for choosing governance over grievance,” Mr. McCarthy said at a news conference after the meeting. “It is my responsibility. It is my job. I do not regret negotiating; our government is designed to find compromise.”

It was the culmination of bitter Republican divisions that have festered all year, and capped an epic power struggle between Mr. McCarthy and members of a far-right faction who tried to block his ascent to the speakership in January. They have tormented him ever since, trying to stymie his efforts to keep the nation from defaulting on its debt and ultimately rebelling over his decision over the weekend to turn to Democrats for help in keeping the government from shutting down.

Before the vote, a surreal Republican-against-Republican debate played out on the House floor. Members of the hard-right clutch of rebels disparaged their own speaker and verbally sparred with Mr. McCarthy’s defenders, who repeatedly accused the hard-liners of sowing chaos to raise their own political profiles. Democrats sat and watched silently.

“He put his political neck on the line, knowing this day was coming, to do the right thing,” said Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma and a McCarthy ally who sought unsuccessfully to kill the move to oust him.

“Think long and hard before you plunge us into chaos,” Mr. Cole implored the speaker’s detractors, “because that’s where we’re headed if we vacate the speakership.”

But Mr. McCarthy’s critics, led by Representative Matt Gaetz, the far-right Republican from Florida, savaged him for what they characterized as a failure to wring steeper spending cuts out of the Biden administration and a lack of leadership.

“Chaos is Speaker McCarthy,” Mr. Gaetz declared. “Chaos is somebody who we cannot trust with their word.”

Most of the eight Republicans who voted to remove McCarthy had antagonized him ever since he became speaker. Along with Mr. Gaetz, they were: Representatives Andy Biggs of Arizona, Ken Buck of Colorado, Tim Burchett of Tennessee, Eli Crane of Arizona, Bob Good of Virginia, Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Matt Rosendale of Montana.

Only a few of them rose on the House floor ahead of the vote to list their grievances against Mr. McCarthy, chief among them that he had relied on Democratic votes to push through two bills they opposed — one to prevent the nation from defaulting on its debt for the first time in history and another, over the weekend, to avert a government shutdown.

“The speaker fought through 15 votes in January to become speaker, but was only willing to fight through one failed C.R. before surrendering to the Democrats on Saturday,” Mr. Good said, referring to a measure known as a continuing resolution for a stopgap spending bill. “We need a speaker who will fight for something, anything besides just staying or becoming speaker.”

A tense scene played out on the floor as lawmakers voted to oust the speaker the same way they vote to elect one: rising one by one from their seats on the House floor in an alphabetical roll call by conducted by the clerk.

¶ Before the vote, a surreal Republican-against-Republican debate played out on the House floor. Members of the hard-right clutch of rebels disparaged their own speaker and verbally sparred with Mr. McCarthy’s defenders, who repeatedly accused the hard-liners of sowing chaos to raise their own political profiles. Democrats sat and watched silently.

In the end, Mr. McCarthy was doomed by just eight members of his own party and a united caucus of Democrats, all of whom voted to dethrone him.

The vote left the House paralyzed until a successor is chosen. That promised to tee up another potentially messy speaker election at a time when Congress has just over 40 days to avert another potential government shutdown.

House Republicans met on Tuesday night after the vote to discuss how to move forward. Discussions on the future of the conference were being led by Representative Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina. Mr. McCarthy had named Mr. McHenry first on a list of potential interim speakers in the event of a calamity or vacancy, but he does not have power to run the chamber — only to preside over the election of a new speaker.

There is no clear replacement for Mr. McCarthy, though some names reliably come up in conversations with Republicans, including Mr. McHenry and Mr. Cole as well as the No. 2 and No. 3 House Republicans, Representatives Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Tom Emmer of Minnesota.

“I think there’s plenty of people who can step up and do the job,” said Mr. Burchett, adding that he did not have anyone in mind.

But on Tuesday, Republicans were scattering to their districts around the country to regroup, with no clear strategy for how to move forward.

Mr. McCarthy did not answer questions from reporters after his ouster, striding quickly off the floor after receiving a barrage of handshakes and hugs from his allies. In the hours before the vote, Mr. McCarthy, an inveterate optimist who prides himself on never giving up, was characteristically sanguine, defending his decision to work with Democrats to avert a government shutdown, which precipitated the bid to remove him.

“If you throw a speaker out that has 99 percent of their conference, that kept government open and paid the troops, I think we’re in a really bad place for how we’re going to run Congress,” he said on Tuesday morning. In a closed-door meeting underneath the Capitol, he told Republicans he had no regrets about his speakership, and was interrupted several times by raucous standing ovations.

In the days leading up to the vote, Democrats had wrestled with whether to help Mr. McCarthy survive, or at least to stay out of the effort to oust him.

But their disdain for Mr. McCarthy ultimately overrode any political will they had to save him, and in a closed-door meeting on Tuesday morning, Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the minority leader, instructed fellow Democrats not to do so, citing Republicans’ “unwillingness to break from MAGA extremism.”

That meeting, which was billed as a listening session and strategy meeting to determine how Democrats would vote on Mr. Gaetz’s motion to remove Mr. McCarthy, quickly became an airing of grievances against the speaker.

The litany piled up: his vote to overturn the 2020 presidential election results after pro-Trump rioters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; his decision to renege on the debt limit deal he had brokered with President Biden in the summer to appease the rebels; his friendly relationship with former President Donald J. Trump; and his decision to open an impeachment inquiry into Mr. Biden without evidence of wrongdoing.

“We’re not voting in any way that would help Speaker McCarthy,” Representative Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington, said ahead of the vote. “Nobody trusts Kevin McCarthy, and why should they?”

The irony was that Mr. McCarthy had made those moves to placate the far-right flank of his party that ultimately ousted him.

“Speaker McCarthy has repeatedly chosen to weaken the institution by bending to extremists rather than collaborating across the aisle,” said Representative Derek Kilmer, Democrat of Washington. “He has inherited the chaos he has sown.”

Reporting was contributed by Luke Broadwater, Carl Hulse, Kayla Guo, Karoun Demirjian, Annie Karni and Robert Jimison.

☝

Working People, IMF and Regime of Repression

 

Working People, IMF and Regime of Repression

Daily Mirror lk 2 October 2023 

Sri Lanka’s economy is now on autopilot. The Government – emasculated of making any economic policies – is merely following the IMF and the World Bank. Sri Lanka’s Finance Ministry may as well sit in Washington, or all the same it can be in Colombo following what is printed in the IMF agreement of March 2023 and the World Bank Country Partnership Framework released in June 2023. Indeed, a close reading of both these documents makes it clear there is no role for the Government in economic policymaking in Sri Lanka, and the only role left is to use brute repression to discipline the citizenry into the straight jacket of austerity.  

The IMF has set benchmarks for budget making, new laws including for public finance management and banking, revisions to taxes, lifting of import restrictions etc. The World Bank’s four-year framework pushes many laws for liberalization during the first 18 months, and privatization during the remaining 30 months. The Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa regime is complementing these regressive legislations on the economic front, with a range of repressive laws to attack dissent and protests, including the Bureau of Rehabilitation Act, Anti-Terrorism Act, Online Safety Bill and the Broadcasting Authority Bill.  

As we approach the national budget season, the citizenry is kept on the defensive with the bombardment of such laws and brutal attacks on protests, by a parliament and president who are illegitimate and will not stand the test of elections. The ruling regime does not have a social base of support, and is merely relying on the repressive apparatuses of the state; the military whose “war hero” President Gotabaya Rajapaksa fled the country last year is now in desperate need of a patron. The other source of backing for this discredited regime are powerful international actors who find it expedient to carry through their neoliberal and geopolitical interests. There will be no relief to the people nor stimulus to the economy, and only be the further strengthening of the repressive arms of the state, in the upcoming budget.   

What about all the reports of the tremendous suffering of the working people? I discuss below one prominent instance of the ridiculous explanations given by those setting the economic agenda for the country.  

Lies or ignorance

At the end of the IMF Staff visit last week, the IMF Resident Representative in Sri Lanka, Ms Sarwat Jahan, had the following to say during the press briefing:  

“On the question regarding the situation of the poor, I have been in Sri Lanka now for almost a year and I’ve witnessed how the economic crisis have impacted all Sri Lankans, especially the poor and the vulnerable. … How the IMF programme can help? Well, we can help through multiple ways. First is when there is economic stabilization in the economy that means that it’s good for all Sri Lankans, including the poor and the vulnerable, because this means that inflation will go down, as it has been during the first six months of the programme. And therefore this helps the poor, as we know, because inflation is the worst form of tax.  

It also helps through reduced interest rates, and we have seen interest rates also coming down. And then the programme that the IMF has designed, the tax that is in place, is actually quite progressive. So the poor and the vulnerable are excluded from it. Only those who are able to pay, do pay. But in addition to this, the one point that I would like to highlight is the IMF programme places a lot of importance on social spending. In fact, this is one of the core pillars of the programme. Under the programme for 2023, we had discussed with the authorities to have a spending floor on four major cash transfers, which would be about Rs. 187,000,000,000 or equivalent to 0.6% of GDP.”  

💬 The IMF could be blatantly lying or inherently ignorant about Sri Lanka’s political economy.

I quote the IMF Representative at length because it betrays either the lies or the ignorance of those making economic policies for Sri Lanka. I unpack below the false logic and assertions of the IMF.  

First, Ms. Jahan claims inflation has come down because of the IMF programme during its first six months. Inflation rose in the first place because of the one-time price hikes due to the massive devaluation of the rupee – on the recommendation of the IMF – and the rise in global commodity prices due to the war in Ukraine between February and August last year. Since inflation is calculated year on year, or known as the base effect, it has declined to single digits by September this year. In fact, I have written in this very column, about this dynamic of inflation, in November last year and March this year, claiming it will come down to very low levels after September. The key point is that the cost of living has not come down, as wages did not rise during the last 18 months, with real wages now between 40% and 50% lower than before the crisis. Indeed, the year-on-year inflation reduction has little impact on working people’s purchasing capacity.  

Second, she claims that interest rates have reduced with the IMF programme. Rather, it is on the recommendation of the IMF and claiming to fight inflation that the Central Bank policy rate was raised drastically from 6% to 16.5% in the year leading to the agreement, resulting in the tremendous economic shock causing the collapse of many businesses and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. The worst thing to do during an economic depression is to raise interest rates, but that is what the IMF wanted done to ensure its deflationary stabilization programme. The IMF pushes such policies for its free market agenda, claiming it is needed for competitive exports and to attract foreign investments for developing countries in the long-term. However, if an economy continues to collapse, such long-term possibilities are meaningless, and it is certainly no consolation for people suffering from the crisis. Furthermore, the damage is done, and once the economy is on a downward spiral reducing interest rates alone will do little to stimulate growth of jobs.  

Third, a significant proportion of the tax revenue in the country continues to come from the regressive VAT which was increased back to 15%, and has a disproportionate impact on working people whose incomes are largely spent on consumption goods. While the IMF is rushing to implement various policies, on the issue of redistributive wealth taxes, it is lukewarm, and only considering it in 2025. In this context, the attack on working people’s retirement funds with domestic debt restructuring, is one of the most regressive austerity cuts to date in this country, amounting to almost a 47% reduction of their savings over sixteen years.  

Finally, the IMF programme and its austerity measures came with much talk of social protection to the vulnerable, and it is the same discredited platitude that is repeated again. The meagre 0.6% of GDP allocated for social protection in 2023 and in future years, was already allocated for the same programmes in 2022 and was around 0.4% in the previous seven years, though went up to about 1% with the onset of the Covid crisis. With the economic depression where poverty levels have doubled to over a quarter of the population and those considered multi-dimensionally vulnerable over a half of the population, should there not be a much higher allocation for social protection?The claims that better targeting through a newly named programme will somehow improve the situation of the poor has been clearly rejected by the overwhelming protests against the new ‘Aswesuma’ programme.   

The IMF could be blatantly lying or inherently ignorant about Sri Lanka’s political economy. It has not studied or does not care about the history of universal social welfare in this country since Independence. The IMF’s ideological commitment to austerity and targeted social protection are not going to change. It is high time to reject such targeted social protection policies and formulate universal social welfare measures drawing on our own experience of free education, free healthcare and universal food subsidies.   

The Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa regime is fully complicit in this attack on working people. Confronting the IMF and changing the political economic trajectory in the country has to begin with struggles against the repression of the ruling regime. 

☝  

Sri Lanka: Proposed anti-terror bill labelled tyrannical, undemocratic

Anti-Terrorism Bill Version 2.0: Still Worse Than the PTA

Ermiza Tegal 09/23/2023

On September 15, the government published an Anti-Terrorism Bill, referred to as the ATA. The Bill is presented as a revision of an earlier version that was gazetted in March 2023, when it received widespread public criticism, including from local and international human rights groups. An analysis of the revised Bill reveals that although minor changes have been made, the ATA continues to be an unprecedented expansion of executive power, both in form and in its potential for the repression of citizens. It also constitutes a usurping of the judiciary’s authority to safeguard citizens’ fundamental rights. A law of this nature, if passed, will significantly alter the balance of power within the social contract that Sri Lankan citizens have with those who govern. Passage of this law will give those in power the means to rule by fear, crush dissent and suppress political opposition. This is especially dangerous at time in Sri Lanka’s history when cumulative crises have led to deep mistrust between citizens and the state.  Enactment of the ATA will take this country down a path towards further conflict between its people and those who govern.

Undemocratic law making process

The government responded to the criticism of its March 2023 Bill with assurances that the proposed legislation would be reviewed, and invited stakeholders to share their concerns. Regrettably, the September 2023 Bill was published by gazette with the same lack of transparency, accountability or democratic ethos that was seen in the production of its predecessor. There was no white paper issued on the context and justification for the law nor was there any process by which a draft Bill was publicized for meaningful feedback before being gazetted. The government provided no information relating to the gaps in the current Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) or the gaps, if any, in the overall legal framework in Sri Lanka on terrorism; lessons learnt on what worked and what did not under the PTA, nor was there any information about the nature of the threats Sri Lanka faces and/or is anticipating.  Instead, the government simply gazetted the Bill, which is the preliminary step taken before it is presented in parliament to be enacted.

Abuse and harm under the PTA

There is ample evidence of routine horrific torture and prolonged detention experienced by Tamil citizens under the PTA during the decades of war. The law also enabled the victimization of Sinhala citizens during the period of terror in the late 1980s. After the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, the PTA was also used to arbitrarily arrest and detain hundreds of Muslims. The state has neither acknowledged nor compensated the citizens affected by misuse of the PTA for either the torture perpetrated or the profound impacts on their lives caused by years or decades of arbitrary detention, even when they are eventually discharged or exonerated. Of the thousands directly affected, only a very few detainees have had access to the Supreme Court to challenge their arbitrary arrests and detentions by way of fundamental rights applications. In recent years, the high profile PTA cases of lawyer Hejaaz Hizbullah and student union activist Wasantha Mudalige have alerted the public to how easily the PTA can be misused by government to target political opponents and citizen protestors. Just over a week ago, the Sri Lanka police used the PTA to detain and question alleged “underworld figure” Sanjeewa Kumara, demonstrating how easily ordinary criminal law is bypassed by the police when broad anti-terror powers are available for misuse. The evidence offered in decades of research reports, repeated campaigns against the PTA a represents only the tip of an iceberg of extreme injustice and harm that has been caused to countless victims by the PTA.

No improvement on the PTA

The new proposed ATA still presents a significantly greater threat to citizens and governance than the PTA it seeks to replace. When compared with the PTA, both the March and September 2023 versions of the ATA are demonstrably much worse laws. Amongst the many egregious problems with the PTA, the only issues that have been addressed in the Anti-Terrorism Bills are the removal of the admissibility of confessions to the police and fixing of shorter periods of detention (although still without meaningful judicial oversight). These few positive reforms are long overdue. However, the more authoritarian scheme and new repressive provisions introduced in the 2023 Anti-Terrorism Bills offset these improvements.

The 2003 Bills also allow for some ordinary procedural safeguards that ought to be afforded to all criminal suspects and not exclusively to terror suspects. These procedural safeguards are the right to an attorney, female persons to be search by female officers, oversight of conditions in detention by a magistrate and informing the Human Rights Commission of a person’s detention. However, the same critique made of the March 2023 Bill continues to be true for the September 2023 version – that these “concessions” ring hollow in light of the fact the judiciary is prevented from reviewing detention orders and overseeing the many new broad executive powers vested with the president introduced under the ATA and the police is enabled to remove persons from fiscal custody into police custody. Even the concession on a right to an attorney is abridged in the September 2023 Bill by qualification that access to an attorney will be “subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made under this Act or as provided for in other written law.”

Definition of terrorism still fails to meet recommended international standards

The definition of terrorism and the related offences continues to be overly broad and vague in the September 2023 Bill. International standards recommend that the definition of terrorism in anti-terror legislation meets a threshold of three separate conditions: 1) involving an identified “trigger offence” found in 10 of the international anti-terrorism conventions in force and 2) be perpetrated with the intention to cause death, serious bodily injury, or taking hostages and 3) be for the purpose of invoking a state of terror, intimidating a population or compelling a government or international organization.

The March 2023 Bill failed to adopt the cumulative intention requirement (2) and (3) above. This failure remains in the September 2023 Bill, in which the intention component in the definition of terrorism only deviates from the March 2023 version in the removal of the following: (a) “unlawfully preventing any such government from functioning;” (Cl. 3(2)(c)) and (b) “advocate national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence,” (at Cl. 3(2)(e)).

The March 2023 Bill failed to identify terrorism-specific trigger offences. Similarly, the September 2023 Bill continues to define ordinary criminal offences of murder, grievous hurt, causing damage and interference as trigger offences, which fails the internationally recommended guidelines for ensuring a high threshold for what is recognized as terrorism. Additionally, the spate of poorly defined related offences such as “encouragement of terrorism”, “dissemination of terrorist publications”, “training for terrorism” and failing to obey lawful orders (the Bill provides for a wide range of lawful orders) creates an unwieldy and opaque law that is highly susceptible to abuse and criminalization of legitimate civic activities such as dissent or protest.  In contrast with the earlier version of the Bill, the September 2023 Bill does include offences under the Suppression of Terrorism Financing Act as a terrorism-specific trigger offence, while it removes obstruction of essential services and being a member of an unlawful assembly for the commission of terrorism as offences.

Given the track record of Sri Lankan governments misusing broad anti-terrorism powers to arrest, detain and prosecute political opponents, journalists, citizens from minority communities and citizen protestors to suppress dissent and democratic rights, there is nothing in the new iteration of the proposed ATA that addresses or mitigates its potential for abuse.

Broad executive powers target democratic rights of citizens

The assignment of broad powers to Senior Superintendents of Police’s (SSP) (Clause 60) and the continued powers of administrative (non-judicial) detention orders (Clause 31) remain in the September version. The same is true for the broad, vague and judicially unsupervised powers assigned to the office of the President allowing for the proscription of organizations and movements, designation of prohibited places, declaration of curfews and securing of restriction orders. Such powers are not found in the PTA. They are an unprecedented expansion and normalization of extraordinary executive power. It is important to note that the expansion of executive powers ex facie targets rights of expression, assembly and association, such as were exercised during the overwhelmingly non-violent mass citizen protests of last year. As such, an SSP is empowered to seek orders for preventing public from entering an area, leaving an area, travelling on a road, transporting anything or person, and orders to suspend public transport, remove a vehicle or object, prevent congregations, prevent meetings, rallies and processions and prevent any specified activity. Under both the March and September 2023 Anti-Terrorism Bills, the failure to comply with such an order issued by an SSP’s would constitute a terrorist offence, even if an activity would itself otherwise be lawful.

💬In recent years, the high profile PTA cases of lawyer Hejaaz Hizbullah and student union activist Wasantha Mudalige have alerted the public to how easily the PTA can be misused by government to target political opponents and citizen protestors.

The fiction of meaningful legal redress  

The administrative body to appeal against detention orders which is present in the PTA and March 2023 Bill has been removed in the September 2023 version. The Bill gives the express impression that persons aggrieved may challenge any violation of their rights before the Supreme Court. It is important to note that the fundamental rights jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is not an easily accessible remedy for most ordinary citizens. Applicants need to abide by a very restrictive time bar to petition the court (ordinarily just 30 days from the date of the violation), qualify in terms of standing (only the victim or her attorney can invoke the jurisdiction), afford the often prohibitive costs involved, and access the Supreme Court which is only located in Colombo. These conditions are a significant barrier to accessing legal redress for many citizens, especially those who are poor, marginalized, in detention or subject to threats of violence or reprisals. The experience with challenges to detention under PTA has shown that the legal process may take many years to secure the release of persons wrongly detained, with no compensation or restitution when they are finally discharged.

There is limited judicial review afforded in the September 2023 Bill to magistrates over whether a suspect may be discharged, and this does not apply to persons held under a detention order. Even this concession to judicial oversight must be understood in the context of lessons learnt and historically observed disadvantage that judiciaries are placed in when national security imperatives are invoked. In Sri Lanka, there is demonstrably weak jurisprudence on judges exercising powers of oversight to restrain or overturn executive decisions related to allegations of terrorism.

Conclusion

The Bill of March 2023 constituted a formidable tool with which a sitting government could crush dissent, citizen protests, political opposition and unleash disproportionate state responses to acts of civil disobedience. This potency remains unchanged in the Bill of September 2023. If enacted, the ATA would be a law that grants unprecedented further powers to the executive branch of government to act outside of the normal legal system to harass, detain and punish citizens who agitate against government action and policies. It would also enable gross abuses of human rights, as demonstrated by over four decades of the PTA. The Bill gazetted in September 2023 continues to fail to meet two key demands from the domestic and international critics of Sri Lanka’s anti-terror laws: (1) to stop resorting to extraordinary executive powers which are highly susceptible to abuse, and (2) to refrain from casting ordinary criminal offences as acts of terrorism.

The new version of Anti-Terror Bill represents a direct threat to the civil and human rights of Sri Lankan citizens and to democratic governance in this country. In very many ways, the proposed ATA is an even more dangerous and flawed law than the draconian PTA that it seeks to replace. While the repeal of the PTA cannot be delayed, replacing it with the ATA cannot be the solution.

Lawyers protest against the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) law in Colombo.
Credit: Ishara S. Kodikara / AFP

Anti-Terror and Online Safety Bills to Parliament on Today (03-10-23)

 

Written by Staff Writer  COLOMBO (News 1st)  03 Oct, 2023 | 7:45 AM

The  Anti-Terrorism Bill and Online Safety Bill will be tabled in Parliament today when the session convenes under the chairmanship of Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena at 09:30 am on Tuesday (03).

The amended Anti-Terrorism Bill was published via gazette on the September 15 by order of the Minister of Justice, Prison Affairs and Constitutional Reforms.

In the meantime, the Sri Lankan government is preparing to introduce new laws that would make it an offense to communicate false information online using the Online Safety Bill.

The draft bill was gazetted by the Minister of Public Security, and details offenses that are carried out via online methods.

The second readings of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill and Elections (Special Provisions) Bill will also be taken up for debate on Tuesday (03).

☝ 

HRCSL's dire warning against the proposed 'Online Safety Bill'

 

TM 02 Oct 2023 | BY Lahiru Doloswala

HRCSL's dire warning against the proposed 'Online Safety Bill'

In a letter penned by Chairman of the the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) former Supreme Court Judge Lakshman Tikiri Bandara Dehideniya, the Government has been urged to exercise caution in its approach to the proposed Online Safety Bill (OSB). The letter, addressed to Minister of Public Security Tiran Alles, emphasises the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights while addressing the challenges posed by online spaces. 

The HRCSL’s recommendations touch on critical aspects of the bill, including the misapplication of existing laws, concerns over political independence, and the need for clear criteria in classifying online accounts. One of the most striking points in the letter is the acknowledgement of the significance of making online spaces safer for Sri Lankans. While the objective is laudable, the HRCSL underscores the challenges faced by law enforcement authorities in interpreting and applying current criminal laws to online activities. 

The misapplication of section 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act, No. 56 of 2007, is cited as a prime example, raising doubts about its effectiveness in addressing online incitement to violence and the potential for stifling free speech. Despite previous notifications to authorities regarding this issue, the misapplication of the ICCPR Act continues, as evidenced by a recent High Court case.  These concerns have led the HRCSL to propose a reconsideration of the timing of the OSB. 

The HRCSL argues that strengthening the institutional capacity of law enforcement authorities should precede the introduction of new legislation, highlighting the risk of jeopardising freedom of speech and expression without such reforms. The HRCSL has also presented a series of general observations and recommendations aimed at ensuring that the OSB aligns with the fundamental rights chapter of the constitution. These include refraining from criminalising statements deemed merely "distressing," ensuring the political independence of the proposed Online Safety Commission (OSC), and revising procedures to afford individuals an opportunity to be heard.

Additionally, the letter notes the need for clear criteria in classifying 'inauthentic online accounts' while preserving online user freedoms and cautions against vesting police powers in private actors assisting investigations. HRCSL plans to engage with relevant stakeholders to further refine its observations and recommendations on the proposed OSB.  In doing so, the HRCSL aims to strike a balance between online safety and the protection of fundamental rights in Sri Lanka's evolving digital landscape.

இணையவழி பாதுகாப்பு சட்டமூலத்தை மீளாய்வு செய்யுமாறு இலங்கை மனித உரிமைகள் ஆணைக்குழு வலியுறுத்து

TM 03 October 2023

வர்த்தமானியில் அண்மையில் வெளியிடப்பட்ட இணையவழி பாதுகாப்பு சட்டமூலத்தை மீளாய்வு செய்யுமாறு வலியுறுத்தியுள்ள, இலங்கை மனித உரிமைகள் ஆணைக்குழு, அதற்காக ஏழு பரிந்துரைகளை அரசாங்கத்திடம் முன்வைத்துள்ளது.

பொது மக்கள் பாதுகாப்பு அமைச்சர் டிரான் அலஸுக்கு அனுப்பியுள்ள கடிதத்தில், அந்த ஆணைக்குழு இதனைத் தெரிவித்துள்ளது.

இலங்கை அரசியலமைப்பின் அடிப்படை உரிமைகள் அத்தியாயத்துடன் இணங்குவதை உறுதிப்படுத்தும் வகையில் குறித்த சட்டமூலத்தை மீளாய்வு செய்வதற்கு, பொது அவதானிப்புகள் மற்றும் பரிந்துரைகள் பரிசீலனைக்காக முன்வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளதாக இலங்கை மனித உரிமைகள் ஆணைக்குழு அந்த கடிதத்தில் தெரிவித்துள்ளது.

குறித்த கடிதத்தில், அப்பாவி மக்கள் குற்றவாளிகளாக்கப்படும் சம்பவங்கள் தவிர்க்கப்பட வேண்டும், அவ்வாறு பாதிக்கப்படுபவர்கள் சாதாரண நீதிமன்றங்களின் ஊடாக நட்டஈட்டை பெறுவதற்கான வழிகள் ஏற்படுத்தப்பட வேண்டும் என பரிந்துரைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

அத்துடன், மனித உரிமை மீறல்கள் தொடர்பான பொலிஸாரின் விசாரணைகளுக்கு உதவும் நோக்கில், நியமிக்கப்படும் நிபுணர்களுக்கு பொலிஸ் அதிகாரம் வழங்கப்படுதல் தவிர்க்கப்படல் வேண்டும் உள்ளிட்ட 7 பரிந்துரைகள் முன்வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.

ஆசிய இணையக் கூட்டணி கவலை.

இதேவேளை, உலகின் மிகப் பெரிய சமூக ஊடகங்கள் மற்றும் தொழில்நுட்ப நிறுவனங்களின் கூட்டமைப்பான ஆசிய இணையக் கூட்டணி, இலங்கையின் இணையவழி பாதுகாப்பு சட்டமூலம் தொடர்பில் கவலை வெளியிட்டுள்ளது.

ஆசிய இணையக் கூட்டணி என்பது முன்னணி இணையம் மற்றும் தொழில்நுட்ப நிறுவனங்களை உள்ளடக்கிய ஒரு கூட்டமைப்பாகும்.

இதில் Google, Meta, Amazon, Apple, Booking.com, Expedia Group, LinkedIn, Spotify,Yahoo ஆகிய நிறுவனங்கள் உறுப்பினர்களாக அடங்குகின்றனர்.

இந்தச் சட்டமூலமானது கருத்து வேறுபாடுகளையும், இலங்கையர்களின் கருத்துக்களை வெளிப்படுத்தும் உரிமைகளையும் நசுக்குவதற்கு ஒரு கொடூரமான கட்டமைப்பை வழங்குவதாக ஆசிய இணையக் கூட்டமைப்பின் முகாமைத்துவப் பணிப்பாளர் ஜெஃப் பெயின் (Jeff Paine) அந்த அறிக்கையில் தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.

இலங்கை அரசாங்கம் எந்தவொரு பங்குதாரர்களின் ஆலோசனையையும் மேற்கொள்ளாமல் இணையவழி பாதுகாப்பு சட்டமூலத்தை முன்னெடுத்து செல்கின்றமை குறித்து கவலையடைவதாகவும் அவர் குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளார்.

தமது உறுப்பினர்களின் சேவைகளை பயன்படுத்தும் பயனர்களின் பாதுகாப்பை தாம் மிகவும் தீவிரமாக எடுத்துக்கொள்வதாகவும், அதற்கான முயற்சிகள் சட்டத்தின் மூலம் முடக்கிவிடக் கூடாது எனவும் அந்த அமைப்பு கோரியுள்ளது.

இலங்கை அரசாங்கம் நியாயமானதாகவும், சர்வதேச தரங்களுக்கு இணங்கவும் தொழில்துறையில் உள்ள அனைத்து பங்குதாரர்களுடனும் இணைந்து பணியாற்ற வேண்டும்.

இலங்கையின் டிஜிட்டல் பொருளாதாரத்தின் வளர்ச்சியை ஆதரிக்கும் விதிமுறைகளை உருவாக்க நடவடிக்கை எடுக்க வேண்டுமெனவும் ஆசிய இணைய கூட்டமைப்பு வலியுறுத்தியுள்ளது.

Trump’s Fraud Trial Starts With Attacks on Attorney General and Judge

Donald J. Trump appeared in court as lawyers for New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, painted him as a fraudster. His lawyers said she was out to get the former president.

A judge could impose an array of punishments on Donald J. Trump, including a $250 million penalty and a prohibition on operating a business in New York.Credit...Jefferson Siegel for The New York Times

By Ben Protess, Jonah E. Bromwich and Kate Christobek Oct. 2, 2023

The trials of Donald J. Trump began Monday in a New York courtroom, where the former president arrived to fight the first of several government actions — a civil fraud case that imperils his company and threatens his image as a master of the business world.

The trial’s opening day brought Mr. Trump face-to-face with one of his longest-running antagonists: the attorney general of New York, Letitia James, who filed the case against him, his adult sons and their family business. If her office proves its case, the judge overseeing the trial could impose an array of punishments on Mr. Trump, including a $250 million penalty.

Outside the courtroom, Mr. Trump fired a fusillade of personal attacks on Ms. James and the judge, Arthur F. Engoron. He called the judge “rogue” and Ms. James “a terrible person,” even suggesting that they were criminals.

Inside, Mr. Trump sat in uncomfortable silence as Ms. James’s lawyers methodically laid out their case. The attorney general’s office accused the former president of inflating his riches by more than $2 billion to obtain favourable deals with banks and bragging rights about his wealth.

“Year after year, loan after loan, defendants misrepresented Mr. Trump’s net worth,” Kevin Wallace, a lawyer for Ms. James, said during opening statements. Exaggerating for a television audience or Forbes Magazine’s list of the richest people is one thing, he said, but “you cannot do it while conducting business in the state of New York.”

Mr. Wallace cast doubt on the value of some of Mr. Trump’s signature properties, including Trump Tower in Manhattan, laying the groundwork for a reckoning of the former president’s net worth.

An empire under scrutiny. Letitia James, New York State’s attorney general, has been conducting a yearslong civil investigation into former President Donald Trump’s business practices, culminating in a lawsuit that accused Trump of “staggering” fraud. Here’s what to know:

The origins of the inquiry. The investigation started after Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer and fixer, testified to Congress in 2019 that Trump and his employees had manipulated his net worth to suit his interests.

The findings. James detailed in a filing what she said was a pattern by the Trump Organization to inflate the value of the company’s properties in documents filed with lenders, insurers and the Internal Revenue Service.

💬“Year after year, loan after loan, defendants misrepresented Mr. Trump’s net worth,” Kevin Wallace, a lawyer for Ms. James, said during opening statements. Exaggerating for a television audience or Forbes Magazine’s list of the richest people is one thing, he said, but “you cannot do it while conducting business in the state of New York.”

Fraud lawsuit. In September 2022, James’s office rebuffed a settlement offer from Trump’s lawyers. Days later, she filed a lawsuit against Trump and his family business, accusing them of a sweeping pattern of fraudulent business practices.

Two key rulings. The civil trial against Trump began on Oct. 2, after a New York appeals court rejected the former president’s attempt to delay it. The decision came after the judge overseeing the case found that Trump persistently committed fraud by inflating the value of his assets and stripped him of control over some of his signature New York properties.

Possible penalties. James has argued that Trump inflated the value of his properties by as much as $2.2 billion and is seeking to recover about $250 million. The former president and his sons could also be barred from running any business in New York.

The trial, expected to last more than a month and to include testimony from Mr. Trump, coincides with the former president’s latest White House run. After Ms. James’s civil case ends, Mr. Trump will face four criminal trials that touch on a range of subjects: hush-money payments to a porn star, the handling of classified documents and his efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election.

Ms. James’s case, which will be decided by the judge rather than a jury, has struck a nerve with the former president. Her claims portray him as a cheat rather than a captain of industry and undercut an image he constructed while he catapulted from real estate to reality television fame and ultimately the White House.

For now, though, government scrutiny has only bolstered Mr. Trump’s political fortunes. He is polling far ahead of his Republican rivals and has used the cases against him to make fund-raising appeals, casting himself as a martyr under attack from Democrats like Ms. James and Justice Engoron.

“For years, Donald Trump falsely inflated his net worth to enrich himself and cheat the system,” Letitia James said in a statement Monday. Credit...Ahmed Gaber for The New York Times

The trial will enable Mr. Trump to bring the campaign to the courthouse steps, where he can deliver impassioned defenses and pointed attacks while his lawyers inside the courtroom grapple with accounting and financial arcana.

On Monday, Mr. Trump sat at the defense table, arms crossed and scowling, while occasionally rolling his eyes at the judge and yawning during the duller portions of the proceeding. But he came out swinging on his way into the courtroom, telling reporters that Ms. James was out to get him because he is performing so well in the polls.

“You ought to go after this attorney general,” he said, without specifying who or how.  He said that Justice Engoron should “be disbarred” and that the case against him was “a witch hunt, it’s a disgrace.”

One of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Alina Habba, echoed some of his harshest claims during her opening statement, saying that Ms. James ran for her office to “get Trump.”

She argued, as Mr. Trump nodded along, that his company was simply “doing business” and that “there was no intent to defraud, period, the end.” She spoke as though she were addressing a jury, or a television camera, rather than Justice Engoron.

Her statement, which she said he had not planned, altered the tenor of what had begun as a dry proceeding. It prompted squabbles between the defense team and the judge.

The substance of Mr. Trump’s defense is that his annual financial statements were merely estimates, and that valuing real estate is more art than science. The banks to which Mr. Trump submitted his statements, his lawyers argued, were hardly victims: They made money from their dealings with Mr. Trump and did not rely on his estimates.

A Guide to the Various Trump Investigations

Confused about the inquiries and legal cases involving former President Donald Trump? We’re here to help.

• Key Cases and Inquiries: The former president faces several investigations at both the state and the federal levels, into matters related to his business and political careers. Here is a close look at each.
• Case Tracker: Trump is at the center of four criminal investigations. Keep track of the developments in each here.
• What if Trump Is Convicted?: Will any of the proceedings hinder Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign? Can a convicted felon even run for office? Here is what we know, and what we don’t know.

Gaetz Moves to Oust McCarthy, Threatening His Grip on the Speakership

The move forces a vote within days on whether to keep the speaker in his post, a challenge that only two other House speakers have faced in the history of the chamber. 

Representative Matt Gaetz’s animus toward Speaker Kevin McCarthy extends far beyond the most recent funding skirmish.Credit...Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times

 

By Catie Edmondson

Reporting from Capitol Hill

Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida moved on Monday to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy from his post in an act of vengeance that posed the clearest threat yet to Mr. McCarthy’s tenure and could plunge the House into chaos.

After days of warnings, Mr. Gaetz rose on Monday evening to bring up a resolution declaring the speakership vacant. That started a process that would force a vote within days on whether to keep Mr. McCarthy in his post. In doing so, Mr. Gaetz sought to subject Mr. McCarthy to a rare form of political punishment experienced by only two other speakers in the 234-year history of the House of Representatives.

The move came just days after Mr. McCarthy opted to avert a government shutdown the only way he could — by relying on Democratic votes to push through a stopgap spending bill over the objections of an unmovable bloc of hard-liners in his own party, including Mr. Gaetz.

It was a brief but tense interruption of the day-to-day proceedings of the House. Mr. McCarthy was not present on the House floor when Mr. Gaetz made his motion, but scores of Democrats crowded in the aisles to watch the spectacle. The House adjourned shortly afterward, but under the chamber’s rules, Mr. McCarthy and his leadership team will need to address it within two legislative days.

“It is becoming increasingly clear who the speaker of the House already works for, and it’s not the Republican conference,” Mr. Gaetz said earlier Monday, making the case for Mr. McCarthy’s ouster. He added that the speaker had allowed President Biden to take his “lunch money in every negotiation.”

Mr. Gaetz cited Mr. McCarthy’s dependence on Democrats to pass the funding bill — which was necessary to avert a shutdown because Mr. Gaetz and 20 of his colleagues opposed a temporary funding bill. And he accused Mr. McCarthy of lying to his Republican members during spending negotiations and making a “secret deal” with Democrats about funding for Ukraine, which he and dozens of other conservatives have opposed.

The move is a significant escalation of the long-simmering power struggle between Mr. McCarthy and a clutch of conservative hard-liners in his party. They have dangled the threat of dethroning the speaker since he was elected, after they subjected him to a painful round of 15 votes.

Mr. McCarthy, a chronic optimist who has shown a remarkable willingness to weather political pain to maintain his grip on the speaker’s gavel, appeared undaunted. Minutes after Mr. Gaetz filed the resolution, he wrote on social media, “Bring it on.”

“I think it’s disruptive to the country, and my focus is only on getting our work done,” Mr. McCarthy said earlier Monday. “I want to win the vote so I can finish the job for the American people. There are certain people who have done this since the day we came in.”

Mr. Gaetz’s animus toward Mr. McCarthy extends far beyond the most recent funding skirmish. He emerged as Mr. McCarthy’s chief tormentor during the speaker’s fight in January, when he suggested on the House floor that the California Republican had “sold shares of himself for more than a decade,” and never quite stopped.

It was to appease Mr. Gaetz and the 19 other Republicans who opposed his speakership that Mr. McCarthy agreed to change the rules of the House to allow any one lawmaker to call a snap vote for his ouster.

After Mr. McCarthy struck a bipartisan deal with Mr. Biden in the spring to suspend the debt ceiling, there were rumblings among the far right about moving forward on a motion to vacate. They settled for shutting down the House floor instead.

It was unclear how many Republicans planned to join Mr. Gaetz in his attempt to dethrone Mr. McCarthy. Some archconservatives who have been critical of the speaker have said in recent days that they would not support removing him now.

But Mr. Gaetz told reporters at the Capitol he had sufficient G.OP. backing to prevail — unless Democrats voted to save Mr. McCarthy.

“I have enough Republicans,” he said. Four other Republicans, Representatives Tim Burchett of Tennessee, Eli Crane and Andy Biggs of Arizona, and Bob Good of Virginia, have said they were inclined to support the motion. More have signaled openness to it.

It remained to be seen whether Democrats would help Mr. McCarthy maintain his post. If they were to vote against Mr. McCarthy — as is almost always the case when a speaker of the opposing party is being elected — Mr. Gaetz would need only a handful of Republicans to join the opposition to remove him, which requires a simple majority vote.

But Mr. McCarthy could hang onto his gavel if enough Democrats voted to support him, skipped the vote altogether or voted “present.” In that situation, Democrats who did not register a vote would lower the threshold for a majority and make it easier to defeat Mr. Gaetz’s motion.

Some Democrats representing moderate and conservative-leaning districts have indicated that they would be hard-pressed to punish Mr. McCarthy for working across the aisle to prevent a shutdown.

But others said they saw no reason to bail him out, pointing to the string of concessions Mr. McCarthy has made to appease his right flank. Those included opening an impeachment inquiry into Mr. Biden and reneging on spending levels negotiated with the president during the debt limit crisis.

💬 Mr. Gaetz  accused Mr. McCarthy of lying to his Republican members during spending negotiations and making a “secret deal” with Democrats about funding for Ukraine, which he and dozens of other conservatives have opposed.

In a statement, Representative Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, savaged Mr. McCarthy for his opposition to abortion rights and measures to combat climate change. She called him “a weak speaker who has routinely put his self-interest over his constituents, the American people and the Constitution.”

Mr. McCarthy “has made it his mission to cover up a criminal conspiracy from Donald Trump, and is himself a threat to our democracy,” she said. “He literally voted to overturn the 2020 election results, overthrow the duly elected president and did nothing to discourage his members from doing the same.”

Mr. Gaetz’s antics have infuriated Mr. McCarthy’s allies, who view the Florida Republican’s campaign as a publicity stunt motivated by personal animus. As Mr. Gaetz waited to speak on the House floor on Monday, Representative Tom McClintock, Republican of California, rose and chastised him to his face without naming him. Mr. McClintock said he could not “conceive of a more counterproductive and self-destructive course” than to try to remove the speaker from one’s own party.

“I implore my Republican colleagues to look past their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests and their selfish views,” Mr. McClintock said.

Even some Republicans who initially opposed Mr. McCarthy’s speakership indicated on Monday that they would not back Mr. Gaetz’s drive to dethrone him. Representative Chip Roy of Texas, an influential conservative, said on “The Sean Hannity Show” that he believed “the speaker deserves the ability to finish this year’s process.”

But he hinted that he would be open to getting rid of Mr. McCarthy if the speaker moved to approve aid to Ukraine without also securing the southern border.

“The gloves are off then,” Mr. Roy said.

There are a number of procedural sleights of hand that Mr. McCarthy and his allies could use to try to avoid an up-or-down vote on whether to keep him as speaker. He could hold a vote to table the resolution, which would effectively kill it, or refer it to a committee made up of his allies.

Still, Mr. Gaetz’s decision pushes the House into rarely tested waters.

Only two other speakers have faced motions to vacate: once in 1910, and more recently, in 2015, when Representative Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina, sought to oust Speaker John A. Boehner. The House never voted on the motion, but it contributed to Mr. Boehner’s decision to give up his gavel and resign from Congress.

Luke Broadwater and Karoun Demirjian contributed reporting.

Catie Edmondson is a reporter in the Washington bureau, covering Congress. More about Catie Edmondson

☝

UK to Deploy Additional Troops in Kosovo After North Clashes

 

Balkaninsight Xhorxhina Bami and Sasa DragojloBelgrade, Pristina BIRN October 2, 2023

Britain is to send 200 more troops to keep the peace in Kosovo after an armed attack by Serb militants on September 24 raised the spectre of a wider conflict.

Armed Kosovo police officers patrol
the village of Banjska, Kosovo, 27 September 2023.
Photo: EPA-EFE/GEORGI LICOVSKI

The UK has decided to deploy additional troops to NATO’s peacekeeping mission in Kosovo, KFOR, after the violent attack on Kosovo Police on September 24 in northern Kosovo in the village of Banjska/Banjske in the municipality of Zvecan, where one Kosovo policeman was shot dead.

“Following a request from Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and approval by the North Atlantic Council, the UK will deploy around 200 soldiers from 1st Battalion of the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment in the coming days to join the 400-strong British contingent already in country as part of an annual exercise,” the UK government announced on Sunday.

KFOR is a NATO-led international peacekeeping force and has been present in Kosovo since the war there ended in 1999. Once about 50,000 strong, it now numbers about 4,500 troops, from 27 contributing nations with Italy (852 soldiers), Turkey (780) and United States (679) as three top contributors, according to KFOR’s last update in June.

Albania’s Prime Minister, Edi Rama, wrote on Twitter that Albania had “communicated at the highest levels of the Euro-Atlantic alliance and we have found maximum readiness” that “KFOR should take control of the north” of Kosovo as soon as possible.

But Rama’s request was dismissed by Germany’s Ambassador to Kosovo, John Rohde, who said such a move could happen only if Kosovo authorities call on EU’s EULEX and NATO’s KFOR mission to intervene.

“I don’t see the need that KFOR takes over [the north] because we have a sovereign country [Kosovo] with a law enforcement agency who acted very professionally,” Rohde told BIRN’s Kallxo Pernime show on Friday.

💬The director of Kosovo Police, Gazmend Hoxha, said on Sunday that, based on the investigation so far, “there is a [Serbian] plan for the total annexation of the northern part of Kosovo, foreseen in the initial phase with 37 positions from where our police units would be attacked not only in Banjska, but everywhere in the northern part of Kosovo”.

“Kosovo is a sovereign country, Kosovo Police is the law enforcement agency in Kosovo supported by KFOR and EULEX and if there is a request by Police to act… they will according to the rule. But there was no request and we commend the KP on its professional handling of the situation,” he added.

Top Serbian officials, including President Aleksandar Vucic and Defence Minister Milos Vucevic, have praised cooperation with KFOR.

“The cooperation of the [Serbian] Ministry of Defence with KFOR is good and continuous, it runs in accordance with Resolution 1244 and in accordance with the Kumanovo Agreement, it is daily and has been going on for years,” Vucevic said on Monday.

Kosovo police-confiscations weapons north, Weapons that the Kosovo police confiscated in Banjska/Bansjke.
Photo: Kosovo Police

Serbia denies attackers received military training

Kosovo Police on Sunday published footage from police armoured vehicles showing the alleged attack against them, as well as footage, claiming it was from confiscated drones, showing training. BIRN could not independently verify the footage and the claims.

Kosovo PM Albin Kurti, resharing some of the footage, claimed that “the terrorists who carried out the attacks trained in Pasuljanske Livade, one of the Serbian Army’s key bases, four days before the attacks. Other exercises took place in the Kopaonik base. The attacks enjoyed the full support & planning of the Serbian state”.

The Chief of the General Staff of Serbian Army, Milan Mojsilovic, and Defence Minister Vucevic denied that Milan Radoicic or his group joined any paramillitary excercises at Pasuljanske livade.

“Milan Radoicic did not participate in the training at Pasuljanski Livade, nor did he attend, nor did he fire any grenades, he did not respond to any calls, and what is he doing on private property it’s not a thing of Serbian Army”, he said.

On Friday, Radoicic, known as the real power holder of the north of Kosovo, took sole responsibility for the attack, claiming that he organised what he called a “defence” operation against the Kosovo authorities himself, without the knowledge of his party, Srpska Lista, or the Serbian authorities in Belgrade.

Defence Minister Vucevic denied claims that videos Pristina has published are authentic. “The fact that someone releases termovision photages from an unclear location with completely unidentified persons does not mean anything“, said Vucevic, adding that the Hammers in the videos look more like those Kosovo forces have, showing photos of them at the press conference.

He added that the fact the arms that the group led by Radoicic used were manufactured in Serbia proves nothing because the same weapons are used by the Kosovo Police, shoving photos of KP members with arms manufactured in Serbia.

Meanwhile, the head of Serbia’s office for Kosovo, Petar Petkovic, showed a photo of one of the murdered gunmen, Bojan Mijailovic, claiming that Serbian experts have concluded that Mijailovic was killed face to face, while he was lying wounded on the ground. BIRN could not independently verify that photo and claim. 

“The issue of the autopsy is crucial when it comes to the manner in which they were killed, especially Bojan Mijailović,” said Petkovic.

He added that EULEX has told Belgrade that the autopsy of the murdered Serbs was performed on September 26, but the death certificate received by all three families states that the autopsy was published on September 25.

“That is why it is of crucial importance that we see the EULEX report on the autopsies because Pristina is falsifying the facts and that is why it is clear why EULEX was refused to participate in the investigation on September 24 and the following days,” he stated.

He said that Belgrade had requested that Serbian experts participate in the autopsy, but “they [Kosovo] didn’t allow us to, because they are obviously hiding something”.

The three murdered gunmen were buried on Sunday. The Kosovo Institute of Forensic Medicine finished the autopsies one day prior and has yet to publish the results.

The director of Kosovo Police, Gazmend Hoxha, said on Sunday that, based on the investigation so far, “there is a [Serbian] plan for the total annexation of the northern part of Kosovo, foreseen in the initial phase with 37 positions from where our police units would be attacked not only in Banjska, but everywhere in the northern part of Kosovo”.

But on September 30, President Vučić denied planning to invade any prt of Kosovo. He said he “does not intend to order the army” to cross the border with Kosovo it is also not true that Serbia has sent the army to the border.

 “Last year we had 14,000 people near the administrative line, today we have 7,500 and we will reduce it to 4,000,” Vucic told the UK Financial Times. On September 29, the US called on Serbia to withdraw its troops from the border, calling their move a “very destabilizing development”. 

A day later, the government of Kosovo and the European Union also asked Serbia to withdraw its troops from the border.