China Tells India To Stay Off Its Indian Ocean 'Colony,' Sri Lanka

 

China Tells India To Stay Off Its Indian Ocean 'Colony,' Sri Lanka

Panos Mourdoukoutas  ,  Contribut I cover global markets, business and investment strategy 

After claiming South China Sea to be its own sea, telling America to stay off its islands, China is reaching for the Indian Ocean, telling India to stay off its own "colony," Sri Lanka.

That’s something investors in Southeast Asian markets should keep a wary eye on, as it opens yet another front between the two Asian giants, raising the geopolitical risk of investing in the region.

Sri Lanka’s "colonization" began back in 2007, when China supplied President Rajapaksaboth military and diplomatic support to crush the Tamil Tigers. Then came high profile construction projects and high interest loans that eventually were swapped for equity, transforming China into an owner of Sri Lanka’s major port— and a key outpost in the Indian Ocean for Beijing.

That’s bad news for India, which is becoming encircled by China.

“China’s growing involvement in sensitive ports so close to India’s shores fed New Delhi’s long-standing concerns about Chinese encirclement,” writes Jeff M. Smith in Foreign Affairs.

For its part, China has repeatedly asserted that it doesn’t plan to use the port for military purposes, this assertion coming as recently as last week.

But history proves otherwise. In the past three years, Chinese submarines  have begun suddenly and repeatedly showing up in the Chinese-operated South Container Terminal in the port of Colombo.
And that’s in spite of India’s high profile protests.

“For India, the sudden appearance of a Chinese submarine in Sri Lanka was too much to bear,” continues Smith.“Seventy percent of Colombo’s transshipment traffic comes from India, and New Delhi has long been concerned over China’s efforts to expand its presence in the island nation.”
When Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Rajapaksa a few weeks later, he reminded him that Colombo ‘was obliged to inform its neighbors about such port calls under a maritime pact.’ But the same submarine surfaced again in November 2014, catching New Delhi by surprise once more.

Apparently, what China says it plans to do with its "colony" and what it actually intends to do are two different things. And India must either devise a plan to contain China or be prepared to put up with it.

ஈழம் யார் நிலம்

கேப்பாப்பிலவு ENB சுவரொட்டி

காணி உரிமை போராட்டத்தில் கேப்பாப்புலவு மக்களுக்கு கிழக்கு மாகாண தமிழர்கள் ஆதரவு

12 பிப்ரவரி 2017

இலங்கையின் வடக்கே தங்களின் காணி உரிமைக்கான போராட்டத்தில் இரு வாரங்களாக தொடர்ந்து ஈடுபட்டுள்ள கேப்பாப்புலவு மக்களுக்கு ஆதரவு தெரிவித்து கிழக்கு மாகாதமிழர்கள்ஞாயிற்றுக்கிழமை
ஆர்ப்பாட்டம் செய்தனர்.

கேப்பாப்புலவு மக்களுக்கு ஆதரவு தெரிவித்து கிழக்கு மாகாண தமிழர்கள் ஆர்பாட்டம்

ஆர்ப்பாட்டத்தில் கலந்து கொண்டவர்கள் வடக்கு - கிழக்கு மாகாணங்களில் தமிழ் மக்களின் காணி உரிமையை வலியுறுத்தும் வகையிலான பதாகைகளை ஏந்தியவாறு கோஷங்களை எழுப்பினர்.

காணி உரிமை போராட்டத்தில் ஈடுபட்டுள்ள கோப்பாபுலவு மக்களின் காணியை மீட்பது தொடர்பாக அரசாங்கமும் ஜனாதிபதியும் கவனம் செலுத்த வேண்டும் என்றும் கேட்டுக் கொண்டனர்

முல்லைத்தீவு மாவட்டம் கேப்பாப்புலவு பகுதியில் விமானப்படை முகாம் அமைந்துள்ள தங்கள் காணிகள் விடுவிக்கப்பட வேண்டுமென கோரி காணி உரிமையாளர்கள் விமானப் படை முகாம் முன்பாக போராட்டத்தில் ஈடுபட்டு வருகின்றனர்.

84 குடும்பங்களுக்கு சொந்தமான இக்காணிகள் கடந்த 31ம் தேதி விடுவிக்கப்படும் என ஏற்கனவே அறிவிக்கப்பட்டிருந்த போதிலும் அது ஏமாற்றமாகிவிட்டதாக காணி உரிமையாளர்கள் தெரிவிக்கின்றனர்.

போராட்டத்தில் ஈடுபட்டுள்ள மக்கள் உரிமை கோரும் காணி, வன இலாகாவிற்குரியது என இலங்கை விமானப்படை கூறுகின்றது,

 

சமரன்: நிதி நிலை அறிக்கை; கழக கண்டன ஆர்ப்பாட்டக் காட்சிகள...

சமரன்: நிதி நிலை அறிக்கை; கழக கண்டன ஆர்ப்பாட்டக் காட்சிகள...: மோடி கும்பலின் தேசவிரோத, மக்கள் விரோத நிதி நிலை அறிக்கையை எதிர்த்துப் போராடுவோம்!     மோடி கும்பலின் தேசவிரோத, மக்கள் விரோத நிதி...

The story of the people of Kepapilavu

கேப்பப் பிலவு மக்களின் ஒரு தரப்புக் கதை:

In search of justice: The story of the people of Kepapilavu

 The life and times of the people of Kepapilavu should make for a study in endless suffering. After witnessing the war at its cruellest, experiencing multiple displacements and spending the longest interval of time confined in Menik Farm, one would expect that life can hardly get any worse. Yet, their present situation is darker than their past, and the future is a landscape of uncertainty.

The story of the people of Kepapilavu reminds all of us that the ethnic conflict is far from over. Their reality contradicts the regime’s claims of rapid post-war development and the rhetoric of peace.
So much for rights

“Any citizen of Sri Lanka has the inalienable right to acquire land in any part of the country, in accordance with its laws and regulations, and reside in any area of his/her choice without any restrictions or limitations imposed in any manner whatsoever”  

The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission Report ( 6.104).

The Headquarters of the 59th Division, in Kepapilavu, Mullaitivu spans over a thousand acres. Much of the residential land and some of the agricultural land are believed to be legally owned by private individuals who hold legal documentation. This military base is the root cause of all the problems the people of Kepapilavu are facing. The Government Agent of Mullaitivu and several military officials, who visited the Kepapilavu families in Menik Farm a few days before the closure of the internment facility, promised the people that they would be resettled in the lands of origin within two months. It’s been three months and the promised resettlement is yet to happen: the people are still living in Seeniyamottai, a barren area close to Nandikkadal. They were forced to take refuge here as a temporary measure after leaving Menik Farm.

Massive buildings in the Kepapilavu HQ and the army’s general behaviour suggest that the promised closure of this facility will not happen anytime soon. The allocated compensatory plots, in Seeniyamottai, are infertile and smaller in size than the lands in Kepapilavu. The army is coercing the people into accepting Seeniyamottai as the alternative. In a bid to seal the dispossession, the army is building permanent houses for the families; in contrast humanitarian agencies refused to construct any permanent structures, fearing that it would compromise the people’s rights and wishes. When six women braved their circumstances and made preparations to file fundamental rights petitions to acquire their lands back, they were called into the GN office and threatened by high ranking army officials. They were apparently told that their pursuit of justice would ‘result in losing what little they have.’

The normal and the abnormal

 Fear and intimidation caused by the military’s presence is plainly visible. The level of military involvement in civilian life in the Seeniyamottai camp is a grim reminder of Menik Farm days. The uniformity in the people’s answers to certain questions demonstrates that they are under strict orders.
For ordinary people, survival is the priority. Enforcing helplessness is the simple strategy employed by the Government in its attempts to normalise the present. The goons, the conventional army, and the military intelligence department operate on many different levels in the mission to silence the people’s voice. The goons go around throwing petrol bombs, pouring foul oil on protestors and collecting information for the higher powers; the conventional army is the pacifying force, and does the propaganda work as well; the intelligence department is responsible for promptly removing anyone who shows the slightest glimpse of political awareness. While this is the general trend in the North and the East, in the Vanni it is worse. The day when the abnormal becomes the normal is not far away. As for the people in Kepapilavu, it has already happened.

Unwillingness to learn from the past

 The mistreatment of Kepapilavu families highlights that Sri Lanka is yet to repent for its original sin: the failure to treat the minority communities as equal citizens. Living in one’s land of origin is a fundamental right. The denial of this right was a major factor that gave rise to the country’s ethnic conflict. It is depressing to see the mistake so wilfully repeated in the lives of the people of Kepapilavu. Indeed, what we are witnessing now is nothing new. Sri Lanka has already seen the consequences of arrogant denial of rights.

Today, in Sri Lanka, more than ever, the place of the minorities’ is increasingly under threat. The self-proclaimed patriots who concern themselves with the fight against separation remain consciously ignorant of the causes that gave rise to the Tamil struggle. Tamil political leaders have failed to envision a new strategy: they seem stuck with the international community – a force that has failed the Tamils and will happily do so again. Moderates, of course, are silently watching the inferno burn down the country. Will Sri Lanka ever learn?

Natural justice, the Chief Justice and the people of Kepapilavu

 Ironically, the people in Kepapilavu are the very people the state proudly claims to have liberated from the LTTE. Recently, the government drafted an Action Plan to implement the LLRC recommendations. And it has also promised a new dawn in Sri Lanka’s human rights history. Three-and-a-half-years after the end of war, there is nothing new in the lives of the people in Kepapilavu.
‘I just want to live and die in the land of my origin,’ a middle-aged mother summed up the entire community’s plight. The demand to return to their lands goes beyond economic reasons, and has nothing to do with any ethno-political ideology. There is no justification for setting up a swarm of military bases and stealing private lands in the process. This land grab by the military is illegal, and must be treated as such. The Army HQ must be closed down, or relocated, and people must be allowed to settle in the original habitat.

Natural justice does not discriminate between the powerful and the powerless, or between ethnicities. The Chief Justice and the people of Kepapilavu, in the eyes of justice, are the same. Those who want the PSC’s verdict on the impeachment motion annulled on the grounds of natural justice, in the same spirit, should be willing to defend the basic right of the people of Kepapilavu. After all, the government gave the CJ a trial: the people of Kepapilavu cannot even file a petition.

Donald Trump should not be allowed to speak in UK parliament, says Speaker

Donald Trump should not be allowed to speak in UK parliament, says Speaker

Government sources describe John Bercow’s comments about US president as ‘hugely political and out of line’

Anushka Asthana , Jessica Elgot, Rowena Mason
Monday 6 February 2017 23.01 GMT  First published on Monday 6 February 2017 17.07 GMT 

Donald Trump is unfit to address MPs, according to the Speaker of the House of Commons, who said that he would refuse to invite the US president to speak at Westminster because of parliament’s long held opposition “to racism and to sexism”.

John Bercow warned that the opportunity to speak in the prestigious Westminster Hall during a state visit “is not an automatic right, it is an earned honour” in an extraordinary intervention that divided MPs and annoyed No 10.

The unprecedented step caused many MPs to pour praise on Bercow, but also triggered an angry response in parts of government with ministers privately claiming that he had overstepped the mark.
Senior figures accused the Speaker of grandstanding – while his counterpart in the House of Lords, Lord Fowler, was understood to be irritated by the unexpected statement.

Bercow, whose role is non-political, told MPs that he did not have the power to block the state visit invitation extended to Trump by Theresa May, but made clear that he would use his authority to prevent what is considered one of the high points of the official trip.

The Speaker made clear that he was always against the idea of Trump making a speech in the same hall that Barack Obama did in 2012, but said recent policies had left him even more determined to block the move.

“After the imposition of the migrant ban by President Trump I am even more strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall,” Bercow told MPs, who were visibly shocked by his comments.

“I would not wish to issue an invitation to president Trump.”

In a raised voice, he added: “I feel very strongly that our opposition to racism and to sexism and our support for equality before the law and an independent judiciary are hugely important considerations in the House of Commons.”

The Speaker made clear that invitations to address Westminster Hall were not simply issued by him but also Fowler.

“The Lord Speaker was not consulted by Mr Bercow on his statement. The Lord Speaker will make his own statement tomorrow to the Lords,” said a House of Lords spokesperson.

Bercow’s intervention is hugely significant because of the process by which a dignitary is invited to speak. Officials made clear that a government request to invite a head of state would be sent to Bercow and Fowler, who both have to agree to it. The lord great chamberlain, who represents the Queen, is then consulted.

His unexpectedly strong response shocked ministers and Downing Street officials, who have been working hard to build relations with the new president, including through the recent visit in which Trump grasped hold of the prime minister’s hand. May has also offered to be a “bridge” to Trump for European Union leaders, in a bid to make the most of the special relationship, which is seen as increasingly important by advisers following the Brexit vote.

“Bercow better make sure of the president’s plan before he shoots off like this. The clear indications are that the White House are not even planning to address both houses of parliament,” one government source said.

The mood in Downing Street was said to be mild annoyance with the Speaker, with some questioning “if there is anything else that has never been proposed to which he would like to object”. The White House did not respond to a request for comment on Bercow’s statement.

But there was also a sense that the Speaker – who has sat as a Conservative MP – was sufficiently separate to May for his comments to be of “no real consequence”.

Bercow was responding to a point of order by Labour MP Stephen Doughty, whose early day motion calling on officials to withhold permission for an address to Westminster Hall was signed by 163 colleagues.

I am delighted that the Speaker has listened to members from across the house regarding our deep concerns that Donald Trump not be honoured with an address in Westminster Hall or elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster, after his comments and actions on women, torture, refugees and the judiciary,” he said.

Labour’s Yvette Cooper said Trump was “continuing his assault on the democratic values that the British Parliament holds dear”.

She said it was fine to invite him to the UK but not to offer the “special privilege of an address in the heart of our democracy”.

And Chi Onwurah said that more than 1.8 million people had signed a petition against a Trump address at Westminster Hall, saying it was “ridiculous” to allow it to go ahead. “I am glad the Speaker has given voice to what so many feel.”

Tory MP Heidi Allen admitted the comments were “controversial” for some, but insisted they were right.

However, Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said a number of his colleagues were surprised and annoyed by Bercow’s intervention. “He’s completely overstepped the mark. It was a pre-emptive strike to torpedo the leader of the democratically free world and our greatest ally from speaking in parliament,” he said, stressing the importance of a UK-US trade deal.

“Our relationship is now more important than at any time than the second world war.”

Bercow made clear that he had less say over the Royal Gallery — a second, smaller room that is used by world leaders to address parliamentarians — although he said he still had “a say in that matter”.
The government has rolled out the red carpet in a state visit more than 100 times, with controversial figures including Vladimir Putin and Robert Mugabe travelling to Britain for the honour. However, visits do not always include an invitation to address parliament. Westminster Hall tends to be limited to the most coveted guests, which have included the Pope, Nelson Mandela and Barack Obama.
Other leaders, including Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, have spoken in the Royal Gallery.
Government sources have told the Guardian that Trump would see such an address as “the ultimate establishment” act and claimed he would not want it. Instead, he is keen on the “pomp and ceremony” of a visit with the Queen, a military parade and golf at Balmoral palace.

சமரன்: நிதி நிலை அறிக்கை 2017-18, கழக முழக்கமும் கண்டன ஆர...

சமரன்: நிதி நிலை அறிக்கை 2017-18, கழக முழக்கமும் கண்டன ஆர...:   மோடி கும்பலின் தேசவிரோத, மக்கள் விரோத நிதி நிலை அறிக்கையை எதிர்த்துப் போராடுவோம்!   * 2017-18 நிதிநிலை அறிக்கை அந்நிய முதலீட்டு...

ENB-TENN:தமிழீழச் செய்தியகம்: Trump's aggression towards Iran will deepen sectar...

ENB-TENN:தமிழீழச் செய்தியகம்: Trump's aggression towards Iran will deepen sectar...:  Patrick Cockburn  Donald Trump's Twitter aggression towards Iran will deepen sectarian conflict in the Middle East In pursui...

Trump's aggression towards Iran will deepen sectarian conflict in the Middle East



Patrick Cockburn

Donald Trump's Twitter aggression towards Iran will deepen sectarian conflict in the Middle East

In pursuit of an anti-Iranian line, the Trump administration is making the same mistake as that made by Western governments after the 2011 uprisings in the Arab world. They tended to think in terms of nationalities and the nation state, but in the Middle East these count for less as communal bonds than religious identity
The US President has said that ‘nothing is off the table’ in relation to current disagreements between the US and Iran

President Trump is adding further venom to the raging sectarian hatreds tearing apart Iraq and Syria by his latest ill-judged tweets. These have far greater explosive potential than his better known clashes with countries like Australia and Mexico, because in the Middle East he is dealing with matters of war and peace. In this complex region, the US will have to pay a high price for switching to a vaguely belligerent policy which pays so little regard to the real situation on the ground.

In one tweet this week, Trump says that “Iran is rapidly taking over more and more of Iraq even after the US has squandered three trillion dollars there. Obvious long ago!” In fact, it is not obvious at all because it is not true. Iran was in a stronger position in Iraq before June 2014 when the Isis offensive captured Mosul, defeated the Iraqi army and provoked the fall of the government of Nouri al-Maliki who was close to Iran.

The victories of Isis at that time led to a return of US influence in Iraq as President Obama created a US-led air coalition which has launched thousands of air strikes against Isis. He sent at least 5,000 US military personnel backed by thousands of American contractors who handle training and logistics for the current Iraqi army assault on Mosul. The attack is very much a joint US-Iraqi joint operation and has turned into the hardest fought battle in Iraq since the US invasion of 2003.

But Trump is not the only person saying that Iraq is increasingly controlled by Iran. Isis continually maintains that the majority Iraqi Shia community, which makes up about two thirds of the 33 million Iraqi population, is not really Iraqi but Iranian. Isis has always demonised the Iraqi Shia as religious heretics and “Safavids”, called after the Iranian dynasty, and said they are not real Muslims and deserve to die. Saudi Arabia, with whose rulers Trump recently had a long conversation, holds somewhat similar views about equating Shia Islam with Iran and the need to combat both.

Trump’s claim about growing Iranian control of Iraq might be dismissed as nonsense without long term consequences. But there are other arrows pointing in the same direction: Iraqis, Iranians and others in the region are pointing to the bizarre make-up of the list of seven states whose citizens have been temporarily banned from entering the US. This is supposedly directed against al-Qaeda and Isis, drawing on lessons learned after 9/11. But none of the states from which the hijackers came – Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon – are subject to the ban as are Iraq and Iran. “The list looks like its intent is basically anti-Shia,” says one observer in Baghdad and the governments of Saudi Arabia and Turkey seem to think the same thing, since they have either supported or failed to condemn the US action, though it is more or less openly directed against Muslims.

The Trump administration seems to think in tweets and slogans, so it is probably wrong to speak of a coherent change in policy. But in its first weeks in office, it has been far more vocal about confronting a supposed Iranian threat than it has about eliminating Isis. This came across clearly on Wednesday when the national security adviser, General Michael Flynn, once head of the Defence Intelligence Agency until sacked by Obama, accused Iran of conducing a “provocative” nuclear missile test in breach of a UN Security Council resolution and helping Houthi rebels in Yemen, saying “as of today we are putting Iran on notice”. The phrase about Iran was repeated in a tweet by Trump, indicating a greater concern in the White House about Iran than Isis and little interest in the titanic battle being waged for control of Mosul. In some secret location in that city, the self-declared caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, may be pondering the same question that is absorbing other world leaders: how much of what Trump says is just bombast and how far will it turn into reality on the ground? It is a little early to say, but the signs are not encouraging.

Amber Rudd: Donald Trump’s travel ban a ‘propaganda opportunity’ for terrorists
In any case, bombast alone is capable of reshaping the political landscape. Paradoxically, White House actions in the Middle East are creating the very conditions for Iran to displace US influence in Iraq in a way that Trump wrongly imagines has already happened. Responding to the travel ban, the Iraqi parliament declared that US citizens proposing to enter Iraq over the next 90 days should be subjected to the same restrictions. The Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi refused to go along with this, saying it was more important to keep cooperation with the US while the battle for Mosul is still going on.

But the matter is not likely to rest there, because the US relationship with Iran in Iraq has always been a curious mixture of open rivalry and rather more covert cooperation, since they share a common enemy in Isis and, previously, in al-Qaida in Iraq. American power in Iraq has grown since 2014 because it is Iraq’s main military ally. Without US and coalition air strikes, the Iraqi army could not defeat Isis or even hold its own against it. But the US political position in Iraq is weaker than its military one and, thanks to the US travel ban and Trump’s escalating attacks on Iran, it’s going to get weaker still. The ban is a “golden opportunity” for Iran to push back against the US, said a former senior Iraqi official. “Iraqis are very worried,” said Kamran Karadaghi, an Iraqi commentator and former chief of staff to the Iraqi presidency. “If anything bad happens to Iran because of Trump, it will be bad for Iraqis.”

Trump says 'Iran is playing with fire' after ballistic missile test

In pursuit of an anti-Iranian line, the Trump administration is making the same mistake as that made by Western governments after the 2011 uprisings in the Arab world. They tended to think in terms of nationalism, nationalities and the nation state, but in the Middle East these count for less as communal bonds than religious identity. Thus, what was essentially a Sunni Arab uprising in Syria six years ago changed the balance of power between Sunni and Shia in Iraq and restarted the civil war there. The threat to President Bashar al-Assad and his Alawite dominated government was bound to lead to the Shia in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon rallying to his support to prevent his overthrow, because they felt that was an existential threat to themselves.

The Trump administration has not made any disastrous missteps in the Middle East yet, but, going by its actions over the last week, it may soon do so. There is the same mixture of wishful thinking, misinformation and arrogance in Washington as led to the US disaster in Lebanon in 1982-83 and in Iraq after 2003. Trump’s tub-thumping in quarrels with Australia and Mexico may not have very dire effects in the long term because no blood is being spilt. But in the Middle East, a zone of wars, Trump’s angry amateurism is more likely to produce a thoroughgoing disaster.
 

Seattle judge blocks Trump's travel ban; White House to appeal

World News | Sat Feb 4, 2017 | 10:25am GMT

 

Seattle judge blocks Trump's travel ban; White House to appeal
 
By Dan Levine and Scott Malone | SEATTLE/BOSTON

A Seattle federal judge on Friday put a nationwide block on U.S. President Donald Trump's week-old executive order that had temporarily barred refugees and nationals from seven countries from entering the United States.

The judge's temporary restraining order represents a major setback for Trump's action, though the White House said late Friday that it believed the ban to be "lawful and appropriate" and that the U.S. Department of Justice would file an emergency appeal.

Still, just hours after the ruling, U.S. Customs and Border Protection told airlines they could board travellers who had been affected by the ban.

Trump's Jan. 27 order caused chaos at airports across the United States last week as some citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen were denied entry. Virtually all refugees were also barred, upending the lives of thousands of people who had spent years seeking asylum in the U.S.

The State Department said Friday that almost 60,000 visas were suspended in the wake of Trump's order; it was not clear Friday night whether that suspension was automatically revoked or what travellers with such visas might confront at U.S. airports.

While a number of lawsuits have been filed over Trump's action, the Washington state lawsuit was the first to test the broad constitutionality of the executive order. Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee, explicitly made his ruling apply across the country, while other judges facing similar cases have so far issued orders concerning only specific individuals.

The challenge in Seattle was brought by the state of Washington and later joined by the state of Minnesota. The judge ruled that the states have legal standing to sue, which could help Democratic attorneys general take on Trump in court on issues beyond immigration.

Washington's case was based on claims that the state had suffered harm from the travel ban, for example students and faculty at state-funded universities being stranded overseas. Amazon.com (AMZN.O) and Expedia (EXPE.O), both based in Washington state, had supported the lawsuit, asserting that the travel restrictions harmed their businesses.

Tech companies, which rely on talent from around the world, have been increasingly outspoken in their opposition to the Trump administration's anti-immigrant policies.

Judge Robart probed a Justice Department lawyer on what he called the "litany of harms” suffered by Washington state’s universities, and also questioned the administration's use of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States as a justification for the ban.

Robart said no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by individuals from the seven countries affected by the travel ban since that assault. For Trump’s order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be “based in fact, as opposed to fiction.”

Gulf carrier Qatar Airways will allow passengers barred by an executive order last week to board flights to the United States, after Robart's order, a spokeswoman told Reuters.

But for some who had changed their travel plans following the ban, the order was not enough reassurance.

In Dubai, Tariq Laham, 32, and his fiance Natalia had scrapped plans to travel to the U.S. after their July wedding in Poland, where Natalia is from.

Laham said the couple would not reverse their decision.

"It is just too risky," said Laham, a Syrian who works as a director of commercial operations at a multinational technology company. "Everyday you wake up and there is a new decision."

"OUTRAGEOUS ORDER"

The White House said it would file an appeal as soon as possible.

    “At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the president, which we believe is lawful and appropriate,” the White House said in a statement.

"The president’s order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people."

Washington Governor Jay Inslee celebrated the decision as a victory for the state, adding: "No person - not even the president - is above the law."

The judge's decision was welcomed by groups protesting the ban.

“This order demonstrates that federal judges throughout the country are seeing the serious constitutional problems with this order,” said Nicholas Espiritu, a staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center.

Eric Ferrero, Amnesty International USA spokesman, lauded the short-term relief provided by the order but added: "Congress must step in and block this unlawful ban for good."

But the fluid legal situation was illustrated by the fact that Robart's ruling came just hours after a federal judge in Boston declined to extend a temporary restraining order allowing some immigrants into the United States from countries affected by Trump's three-month ban.

A Reuters poll earlier this week indicated that the immigration ban has popular support, with 49 percent of Americans agreeing with the order and 41 percent disagreeing. Some 53 percent of Democrats said they "strongly disagree" with Trump's action while 51 percent of Republicans said they "strongly agree."

State Department informed of court ruling on Trump's immigration order - spokesperson
U.S. Customs give airlines green light to board all visa-holders after Seattle ruling
At least one company, the ride-hailing giant Uber, was moving quickly Friday night to take advantage of the ruling.

CEO Travis Kalanick, who quit Trump's business advisory council this week in the face of a fierce backlash from Uber customers and the company's many immigrant drivers, said on Twitter: "We have a team of in-house attorneys who’ve been working night & day to get U.S. resident drivers & stranded families back into country.

"I just chatted with our head of litigation Angela, who’s buying a whole bunch of airline tickets ASAP!! #homecoming #fingerscrossed"

FOUR STATES IN COURT

The decision in Washington state came at the end of a day of furious legal activity around the country over the immigration ban. The Trump administration has justified its actions on national security grounds, but opponents have labelled it an unconstitutional order targeting people based on religious beliefs.

In Boston, U.S. District Judge Nathan Gorton expressed scepticism during oral arguments about a civil rights group's claim that Trump's order represented religious discrimination, before declining to extend the restraining order.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, ordered the federal government to give the state a list by Thursday of "all persons who have been denied entry to or removed from the United States."

The state of Hawaii on Friday also filed a lawsuit alleging that the order is unconstitutional and asking the court to block the order across the country.

He lists several examples of Syrian friends from around the world, whose work and personal life had been thrown into disarray by Trump's orders.

One has been unable to visit family residing in the U.S., while another was unsure whether they would be able to take up a job offer in California after their U.S. visa appointment was cancelled in the wake of the ban.

(Additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York, Brian Snyder in Boston and Lawrence Hurley, Lesley Wroughton, Julia Edwards and Susan Heavey in Washington, Tom Arnold and Alexander Cornwell in Dubai; Writing by Jonathan Weber and Kristina Cooke; Editing by Bill Rigby, Nick Macfie and Alexander Smith)