Tuesday, June 02, 2015
Monday, June 01, 2015
South China Sea islands are Chinese plan to militarise zone, claims US
 |
| South China Sea islands are Chinese plan to militarise zone, claims US |
America has told China to stop work on man-made islands!
But Beijing says its aim is to make dangerous waters safer Dozens of long!
==================================
America has told China to stop work on man-made islands but Beijing says its aim is to make dangerous waters safer Dozens of long, flat boats swarm across turquoise waters, inside the pale, curving arc of a new island they have created from open sea in just a few months.
The Chinese dredger barges can reach up to 30 metres below the surface, cutting out and scooping up huge quantities of sand and coral for land reclamation projects. The technology is sophisticated, but the idea is simple: debris is collected from the seabed and piled up until it creates an island.
Sometimes the slurry is pumped straight from the boats in heavy plumes, landing between barriers marking off what will become solid ground. If the areas being dredged and reclaimed are too far apart, it is loaded on to smaller boats that ferry it over before dumping it in place.
Decades old, the technology has been used around the world to build projects ranging from Hong Kong’s main airport and entire districts of Singapore to the ostentatious villa settlements on Dubai’s Palm Islands – man-made islands which form the shape of a tree.
But what was once largely a practical concern of urban planners and developers has been thrust into the international spotlight by Beijing’s decision to use the technology to consolidate its presence on a string of islands in the South China Sea. In barely two years, more than 2,000 acres, an area more than twice the size of New York’s Central Park, has been carved
The area is a busy shipping route connecting to the Strait of Malacca and the Pacific and is believed to have rich oil and gas deposits, meaning that the tiny specks of land that dot it have been contested by many neighbouring powers for decades.
Some countries, including Vietnam, Malaysia and Taiwan, have used land reclamation to expand or plan expansion of the islands so that they can better support human life and, by extension, troops and other military capacity.
However, China is the only power to have begun turning reefs, which are under water at high tide and therefore not considered land under international law, into permanent islands.
This weekend Beijing’s conversion of open ocean it claims as its own into land that could be used to claim even more ocean triggered a serious escalation in the long-running dispute.
US defence secretary Ashton Carter yesterday demanded an “immediate and lasting halt” to the reclamation projects after stepping up surveillance flights and a naval presence around the new islands. His demand has been supported by other regional powers alarmed at the speed of the developments.
“China has reclaimed over 2,000 acres, more than all other claimants combined, and more than in the entire history of the region. And China did so in only the last 18 months,” Carter told the Shangri-La regional dialogue in Singapore. “It is unclear how much farther China will go. That is why this stretch of water has become the source of tension in the region and front-page news around the world.”
China’s breakneck pace of island construction is partly a result of technological improvements. The country has become a world leader in land reclamation, creating more than 10,000 square kilometres along its coastline, but managing projects on a remote ocean outcrop is much harder than pushing out the shoreline by a few hundred kilometres near home.
 |
| A US navy crewman aboard a surveillance aircraft views a computer screen purportedly showing Chinese construction on the reclaimed land of Fiery Cross Reef. Photograph: Reuters |
Reefs are ideal locations for land reclamation because they rise far above the surrounding seabed, making them accessible to dredger barges. Recently released photos show more than 30 such ships clustered around one of the new islands, explaining the dramatic speed of the expansion.
One ship working in the South China Sea, tracked by Jane’s Defence Weekly, can suck up 4,500 cubic metres of debris an hour from the seabed. It has recently been at work on perhaps the most controversial aspect of the disputed expansion, runway construction.
One of the peculiarities of Beijing’s longstanding claim over the two South China Sea island chains, the Paracels and the Spratlys, is that they lie so far from the country that it has been effectively impossible for the Chinese military to patrol the area from its existing bases hundreds of nautical miles away.
But tarmac is already being laid on Fiery Cross Reef for an airstrip which is potentially long enough to support most military and surveillance planes. Even more disturbingly for China’s regional rivals, the airstrip may be intended as part of a wider web of bases and supply stations.
Plans on the website of the China State Shipbuilding Corporation laid out details of an airstrip complex at the Johnson South Reef, with a CGI image of the outpost containing windmills for power and greenhouses for food, although they have been taken down.
Beijing insists that the reclamation projects are part of an effort to support civilians and shipping in an area which has both heavy traffic and difficult weather and has brushed off reports that recent US satellite photos showed two artillery vehicles on one.
It’s obviously unfair for the west to question China’s intentions in its reclamation projectsXu Liping, researcher at the Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies
“The Nansha [Spratly] Islands is in a distant sea area with busy shipping routes and vulnerable to marine perils,” Ouyang Yujing, head of the foreign ministry’s department of boundary and ocean affairs told the official Xinhua news agency.
He listed China’s responsibilities for “maritime search and rescue, disaster prevention and mitigation, marine scientific research, meteorological observation, ecological environment preservation, safety of navigation and fishery production”.
Objections to the plan are born of fear and discrimination, say officials and analysts in China. They argue that other nations’ projects to boost their claims on disputed outposts, from expansion to sponsoring civilian communities, have gone largely unchallenged.
“It’s obviously unfair for the west to question China’s intentions in its reclamation projects. It shows that the west has wilfully misjudged the situation in the South China Sea,” said Xu
Liping, researcher at the Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies inside the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a leading government think tank.
However, no other power has created dry land from stretches of open sea and, whatever their current use, Beijing’s top generals and politicians are well aware of the islands’ vital strategic importance to a country that is aiming to project its naval power ever further from its shores.
The various outcrops claimed by China cover just 13 square kilometres in total, but are key to controlling 2m square kilometres of sea and critical routes to the Pacific, according to a recent US state department assessment of Beijing’s claims. Analysts, including Xu, describe them as one of China’s “core interests”, and the government has flirted with officially giving the area that status, which would put it on a par with areas such as Tibet and Taiwan, and therefore be seen as critical to national sovereignty and a possible trigger of military action.
 |
| An uneasy relationship: US secretary of state John Kerry (left) and Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi shake hands after a meeting in Beijing in May to discuss the South China Sea issue.Photograph: Ng Han Guan/AP |
That hardline view may have been behind a recent editorial in the Global Times, a fiercely nationalist government-controlled paper which warned that war was inevitable if the US tried to stop the reclamation projects. Beijing has since said that the paper speaks only for itself and that the government is focused on maintaining peace and stability in the area, but there is little question that the tabloid’s stance has been embraced by some hardliners within the Chinese military and government.
“The Global Times’ editorial has expressed a certain view,” Xu said. “China is determined to defend its sovereignty in the South China Sea and others should not test its bottom line or challenge its core interests.”
Beijing’s arguments have the weight of decades of history. The current claims were first expressed in recognisable form on a government map created several years before the communists swept to power in 1949, according to a US state department report .
However, they are somewhat vague, defined by a “nine-dash line”, drawn on maps without detailed coordinates and never officially submitted to an international body. The lines often sit closer to the coast of nearby countries than to the nearest island on which China is anchoring its claim.
Washington has always said that it takes no position on the sovereignty dispute, but objects to the islands because China is using the tiny new territories to take control of surrounding air and water, with a string of military warnings to stay away from one island recently captured on film by CNN.
“Turning an underwater rock into an airfield simply does not afford the rights of sovereignty or permit restrictions on international air or maritime transit,” said Carter, warning that China may find decades of dusty agreements far harder to transform than the sea itself.
He added: “America, alongside its allies and partners ... will not be deterred from exercising these rights.”
Additional research by Luna Lin
Thursday, May 28, 2015
ரணில் மைத்திரி பாசிசம் வித்தியா அமைதி ஆர்ப்பாட்டத்துக்குத் தடை.
Court bans protests in Jaffna
May 23, 2015 07:46
Jaffna protest
The police had to use tear gas to disperse the protesters who had damaged public property and had also pelted stones at the Jaffna court building.
Police spokesman ASP Ruwan Gunasekera said that the ban on protests was issued after information was received that some groups were going to stage protests demanding the release of 130 people arrested over the Jaffna violence.
May 23, 2015 07:46
Jaffna protest
The Jaffna Magistrate has issued a stay order banning all types of protests in the Jaffna town, the police media unit said.The stay order was issued as a result of the violence which erupted in Jaffna this week during a protest against the alleged rape and murder of a girl in Jaffna.
The police had to use tear gas to disperse the protesters who had damaged public property and had also pelted stones at the Jaffna court building.
Police spokesman ASP Ruwan Gunasekera said that the ban on protests was issued after information was received that some groups were going to stage protests demanding the release of 130 people arrested over the Jaffna violence.
Tata Motors net profit down 56 pct as Jaguar Land Rover Chinese sales drop
~~~~~~~~ REUTERS Business News | Tue May 26, 2015
Tata Motors net profit down 56 pct as Jaguar Land Rover Chinese sales drop
MUMBAI/NEW DELHI | BY ZEBA SIDDIQUI AND ADITI SHAH
Tata Motors Ltd (TAMO.NS), India's biggest automaker by revenue, reported a surprise 56 percent drop in quarterly net profit on Tuesday, hit by cooling demand for its sleek Jaguar saloons and sporty Range Rovers in the key Chinese market.
The company said it expected mixed economic conditions in China, the world's largest auto market, and other emerging economies to weigh on EBITDA margins for the fiscal year that started on April 1 compared with a year ago.
Jaguar Land Rover's sales in China, which had propped up group earnings in recent years, fell by a fifth to 23,526 vehicles, versus a 36 percent increase in the year-ago quarter.
Ralf Speth, JLR chief executive, noted the auto industry in China as a whole is struggling but was optimistic on the group's potential to grow given its low market share and strong product range.
Car sales as a whole in China grew 3.9 percent in the January to March quarter against the 7 percent growth projected for 2015 by the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM) industry body. [ID:nB9N0WZ00K]
Tata Motors posted consolidated net profit of 17.17 billion rupees ($268.3 million) for the fiscal fourth quarter to March 31, falling short of average analyst expectations of 40.95 billion, according to data compiled by Thomson Reuters.
Consolidated net sales rose 4 percent to 672.98 billion rupees.
Profit at the JLR unit fell by a third to 302 million pounds ($465.3 million), even as the operating margin rose 200 basis points to 17.4 percent due to a more profitable product mix.
The slowdown in China has forced automakers such as General Motors (GM.N) and Ford Motor Co (F.N) to cut prices, but Speth said the company had not so far followed suit.
In February, JLR started selling its locally made Range Rover Evoque in China, expected to ramp up volumes. JLR will also focus on expanding sales of its Jaguar XE, nicknamed the "baby Jag" because of its compact size and price.
JLR suffered a loss of 220 million pounds on commodity hedges and a revaluation of foreign currency debt, said Bharat Gianani, senior research analyst at Angel Broking. The brokerage's "buy" rating on the stock is under review, he said.
The loss at Tata Motor's India business widened to 11.64 billion rupees from 8.17 billion due to high depreciation and amortisation costs.
The group said it would not pay a dividend this year.
($1 = 64.0000 Indian rupees) ($1 = 0.6490 pounds)
(Editing by Sumeet Chatterjee and David Holmes)
Tata Motors net profit down 56 pct as Jaguar Land Rover Chinese sales drop
MUMBAI/NEW DELHI | BY ZEBA SIDDIQUI AND ADITI SHAH
 |
| Tata Motors logos are pictured outside their flagship showroom in Mumbai May 28, 2013. REUTERS/Vivek Prakash/Files |
The company said it expected mixed economic conditions in China, the world's largest auto market, and other emerging economies to weigh on EBITDA margins for the fiscal year that started on April 1 compared with a year ago.
Jaguar Land Rover's sales in China, which had propped up group earnings in recent years, fell by a fifth to 23,526 vehicles, versus a 36 percent increase in the year-ago quarter.
Ralf Speth, JLR chief executive, noted the auto industry in China as a whole is struggling but was optimistic on the group's potential to grow given its low market share and strong product range.
Car sales as a whole in China grew 3.9 percent in the January to March quarter against the 7 percent growth projected for 2015 by the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM) industry body. [ID:nB9N0WZ00K]
Tata Motors posted consolidated net profit of 17.17 billion rupees ($268.3 million) for the fiscal fourth quarter to March 31, falling short of average analyst expectations of 40.95 billion, according to data compiled by Thomson Reuters.
Consolidated net sales rose 4 percent to 672.98 billion rupees.
Profit at the JLR unit fell by a third to 302 million pounds ($465.3 million), even as the operating margin rose 200 basis points to 17.4 percent due to a more profitable product mix.
The slowdown in China has forced automakers such as General Motors (GM.N) and Ford Motor Co (F.N) to cut prices, but Speth said the company had not so far followed suit.
In February, JLR started selling its locally made Range Rover Evoque in China, expected to ramp up volumes. JLR will also focus on expanding sales of its Jaguar XE, nicknamed the "baby Jag" because of its compact size and price.
JLR suffered a loss of 220 million pounds on commodity hedges and a revaluation of foreign currency debt, said Bharat Gianani, senior research analyst at Angel Broking. The brokerage's "buy" rating on the stock is under review, he said.
The loss at Tata Motor's India business widened to 11.64 billion rupees from 8.17 billion due to high depreciation and amortisation costs.
The group said it would not pay a dividend this year.
($1 = 64.0000 Indian rupees) ($1 = 0.6490 pounds)
(Editing by Sumeet Chatterjee and David Holmes)
French Immigration Film ‘Dheepan’ Nabs Top Honors At Cannes Film Festival
French Immigration Film ‘Dheepan’ Nabs Top Honors At Cannes Film Festival
By Ismat Sarah Mangla @ismat i.mangla@ibtimes.com on May 24 2015 4:01 PM EDT
“Dheepan,” a French film about Sri Lankan refugees working for a new life in France, claimed the Palm d’Or -- the top honor at the Cannes Film Festival -- Sunday night. “Dheepan,” which was selected from 19 films in the competition, was an unexpected choice, and its announcement was greeted with a mix of boos and applause, Variety reported.
Directed by filmmaker Jacques Audiard, the movie follows the story of a former Sri Lankan civil war fighter who assembles a fake family and seeks a new life in Paris. Audiard took the runner-up prize at Cannes five years ago for his film “A Prophet.”
The jury was led by directors Joel and Ethan Coen, who praised the film. “This isn’t a jury of film critics. This is a jury of artists looking at the work,” Joel Coen said. Ethan Coen added, “We all thought it was a beautiful movie.”
By Ismat Sarah Mangla @ismat i.mangla@ibtimes.com on May 24 2015 4:01 PM EDT
“Dheepan,” a French film about Sri Lankan refugees working for a new life in France, claimed the Palm d’Or -- the top honor at the Cannes Film Festival -- Sunday night. “Dheepan,” which was selected from 19 films in the competition, was an unexpected choice, and its announcement was greeted with a mix of boos and applause, Variety reported.
 |
| Dheepan:Directed by filmmaker Jacques Audiard, Actors with Jacques Audiard |
 |
| தீபன் - நடிகர் அன்ரனி |
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
உலகமறுபங்கீட்டில் சீனத் தென் திசைக் கடல் பிராந்தியம்
சீனத் தென் திசைக் கடல் பிராந்தியத்தை மேற்காணும் வரைபடம் விளக்குவதோடு அக்கடல் பிராந்தியத்தின் மீது கடலோர நாடுகள் கடலுரிமை பாராட்டும் கடல்ப் பகுதிகளும் குறிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது,சீனா உரிமை கோரும் பகுதி ஏறத்தாழ , அண்டை நாடுகளைப் பொறுத்தவரையில் சீனத் தென் திசைக் கடல் பிராந்தியத்தை முற்று முழுதாக தனது ஏகாதிபத்திய நலனுக்கு அடிமைப்படுத்தும் ஆக்கிரமிப்பு திட்டமாகும்!
அமெரிக்காவைப் பொறுத்தவரையில் ரசிய சமூக ஏகாதிபத்தியத்தின் வீழ்ச்சிக்குப் பிந்திய உலக மேலாதிக்க முனைப்புக்கு சீனா வைக்கும் பொறியாகும்!
Page 2
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Sunday, May 17, 2015
முள்ளிவாய்க்கால் வீரகாவியம் ஆண்டு 6
முள்ளிவாய்க்கால் 2015
புதிய ஈழப் பிரகடனம்
ஈழத்தீவக மாணவச் சுடர் வித்தியாவுக்கு காணிக்கை.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
மோடி ஆட்சியின் இந்திய குழந்தை உழைப்புச் சட்டத் திருத்தம்
Cabinet clears changes to Child Labour Act, those under 14 can work in family businesses
Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times, New Delhi| Updated: May 13, 2015 20:59 IST
The Union Cabinet cleared amendments to the child labour law on Wednesday to allow children below the age of 14 to work in select 'non-hazardous' family enterprises.
The government earlier said it was planning to take the step to encourage learning at home as it led to entrepreneurship. It, however, said the children would be allowed to work only if their education wasn't being hampered.
According to a report published by Hindustan Times on April 8, a draft provision in the Child Labour Prohibition Act said the prohibition on child labour would not apply if they were helping the family in fields, forests and home-based work after school hours or during vacations, or while attending technical institutions.
The new norm would also apply to the entertainment industry and sports except the circus, a proposal by the labour ministry said. In addition, children between 14 and 18 years would not be allowed to work in hazardous industries.
"We don't want to redraw the social fabric of Indian society where children learn by participating in work with family elders. We, instead, want to encourage learning WORK AT HOME as it leads to entrepreneurship," a government official said.
The changes in the labour law also provide for stricter punishment for employers for violation. While there is no penalty provision for parents for the first offence, the employer would be liable for punishment even for the first violation.
In case of parents, the repeat offenders may be penalised with a monetary fine up to Rs 10,000. In case of first offence, the penalty for employers has been increased up to two and half times from the existing up to Rs 20 thousand to up to Rs 50,000 now.
Cabinet clears changes to Child Labour Act, those under 14 can work
Cabinet clears changes to Child Labour Act, those under 14 can work in family businesses
Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times, New Delhi| Updated: May 13, 2015
The Union Cabinet cleared amendments to the child labour law on Wednesday to allow children below the age of 14 to work in select 'non-hazardous' family enterprises.
The government earlier said it was planning to take the step to encourage learning at home as it led to entrepreneurship. It, however, said the children would be allowed to work only if their education wasn't being hampered.
According to a report published by Hindustan Times on April 8, a draft provision in the Child Labour Prohibition Act said the prohibition on child labour would not apply if they were helping the family in fields, forests and home-based work after school hours or during vacations, or while attending technical institutions.
The new norm would also apply to the entertainment industry and sports except the circus, a proposal by the labour ministry said. In addition, children between 14 and 18 years would not be allowed to work in hazardous industries.
"We don't want to redraw the social fabric of Indian society where children learn by participating in work with family elders. We, instead, want to encourage learning WORK AT HOME as it leads to entrepreneurship," a government official said.
The changes in the labour law also provide for stricter punishment for employers for violation. While there is no penalty provision for parents for the first offence, the employer would be liable for punishment even for the first violation.
In case of parents, the repeat offenders may be penalised with a monetary fine up to Rs 10,000. In case of first offence, the penalty for employers has been increased up to two and half times from the existing up to Rs 20 thousand to up to Rs 50,000 now.
In case of a second or subsequent offence of employing any child or adolescent in contravention of the law, the minimum imprisonment would be one year which may extend to three years.
Earlier, the penalty for second or subsequent offence of employing any child in contravention of the law was imprisonment for a minimum term of six months which may extend to two years.
Family businesses have been given a wide definition and cover any JOB, profession, or business performed primarily by family members. This will especially help poor families where children help in family subsistence, officials said.
Child right activists, however, have opposed the move, saying the proposal could be used to deny education to the girl child, whose school drop-out rate is almost double than that of boys, and can hamper the government's bid to provide elementary education to all children below 14 years.
India has seen a sharp drop in the number of child labourers in the last decade, down to 4.3 million from 12.6 million, according to census data. Child rights activists, however, dispute the numbers, saying the decline is due to under-reporting because of fear of prosecution but officials CREDITING the improvement to increased school enrolment.
A large number of child labourers continue to work in several industries such as fireworks, matchboxes, footwear and carpet making, where children are in high demand owing to their nimble fingers, necessary for intricate designs. Activists say children are often preferred because they can be forced to work long hours with poor pay.
The original child labour law banned the employment of children below 14 in only 18 hazardous industries but the UPA government in 2012 proposed to extend the ban to all industries.
They also introduced a new category of adolescents -- 14 to 18 years -- who were banned from hazardous industries but allowed to work in other sectors.
The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Bill, 2012, introduced in the Rajya Sabha, recommended a complete ban on child labour until they finish elementary education, guaranteed
under the Right To Education Act.
The amendments were welcomed by activists but were seen by many as an "inspector raj" that gave labour department officials a permit to harass small businesses and farmers.
The changes were re-examined by the new government due to apprehensions of misuse and fears that they could upset the social fabric of the country.
These were also the reasons given by the labour ministry while rejecting a parliamentary committee recommendation that barred children from helping parents in domestic chores, saying the ban could be reframed to prohibit employment in all occupations.
The ministry also rejected a proposal to make elementary education a must for employment of adolescents in non-hazardous industries, pointing out that a separate law existed to guarantee education.
Labour minister Bandaru Dattatreya announced said in April that the government would introduce amendments to the Child Labour Prohibition Act in the ongoing winter session of Parliament.
Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times, New Delhi| Updated: May 13, 2015
The Union Cabinet cleared amendments to the child labour law on Wednesday to allow children below the age of 14 to work in select 'non-hazardous' family enterprises.
The government earlier said it was planning to take the step to encourage learning at home as it led to entrepreneurship. It, however, said the children would be allowed to work only if their education wasn't being hampered.
According to a report published by Hindustan Times on April 8, a draft provision in the Child Labour Prohibition Act said the prohibition on child labour would not apply if they were helping the family in fields, forests and home-based work after school hours or during vacations, or while attending technical institutions.
The new norm would also apply to the entertainment industry and sports except the circus, a proposal by the labour ministry said. In addition, children between 14 and 18 years would not be allowed to work in hazardous industries.
"We don't want to redraw the social fabric of Indian society where children learn by participating in work with family elders. We, instead, want to encourage learning WORK AT HOME as it leads to entrepreneurship," a government official said.
The changes in the labour law also provide for stricter punishment for employers for violation. While there is no penalty provision for parents for the first offence, the employer would be liable for punishment even for the first violation.
In case of parents, the repeat offenders may be penalised with a monetary fine up to Rs 10,000. In case of first offence, the penalty for employers has been increased up to two and half times from the existing up to Rs 20 thousand to up to Rs 50,000 now.
In case of a second or subsequent offence of employing any child or adolescent in contravention of the law, the minimum imprisonment would be one year which may extend to three years.
Earlier, the penalty for second or subsequent offence of employing any child in contravention of the law was imprisonment for a minimum term of six months which may extend to two years.
Family businesses have been given a wide definition and cover any JOB, profession, or business performed primarily by family members. This will especially help poor families where children help in family subsistence, officials said.
Child right activists, however, have opposed the move, saying the proposal could be used to deny education to the girl child, whose school drop-out rate is almost double than that of boys, and can hamper the government's bid to provide elementary education to all children below 14 years.
India has seen a sharp drop in the number of child labourers in the last decade, down to 4.3 million from 12.6 million, according to census data. Child rights activists, however, dispute the numbers, saying the decline is due to under-reporting because of fear of prosecution but officials CREDITING the improvement to increased school enrolment.
A large number of child labourers continue to work in several industries such as fireworks, matchboxes, footwear and carpet making, where children are in high demand owing to their nimble fingers, necessary for intricate designs. Activists say children are often preferred because they can be forced to work long hours with poor pay.
The original child labour law banned the employment of children below 14 in only 18 hazardous industries but the UPA government in 2012 proposed to extend the ban to all industries.
They also introduced a new category of adolescents -- 14 to 18 years -- who were banned from hazardous industries but allowed to work in other sectors.
The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Bill, 2012, introduced in the Rajya Sabha, recommended a complete ban on child labour until they finish elementary education, guaranteed
under the Right To Education Act.
The amendments were welcomed by activists but were seen by many as an "inspector raj" that gave labour department officials a permit to harass small businesses and farmers.
The changes were re-examined by the new government due to apprehensions of misuse and fears that they could upset the social fabric of the country.
These were also the reasons given by the labour ministry while rejecting a parliamentary committee recommendation that barred children from helping parents in domestic chores, saying the ban could be reframed to prohibit employment in all occupations.
The ministry also rejected a proposal to make elementary education a must for employment of adolescents in non-hazardous industries, pointing out that a separate law existed to guarantee education.
Labour minister Bandaru Dattatreya announced said in April that the government would introduce amendments to the Child Labour Prohibition Act in the ongoing winter session of Parliament.
PM Shri Narendra Modi speech at the launch of the ''Make In India'' initiative.
PM Shri Narendra Modi speech at the launch of the ''Make In India'' initiative.
PM Narendra Modi Agressive Speech Land Bill | CVR News
PM Narendra Modi Agressive Speech Land Bill | CVR News
Chinese president meets Indian PM
Chinese president meets Indian PM
(Xinhua) 17:18, May 14, 2015
XI'AN, May 14 -- Chinese President Xi Jinping met with visiting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Xi'an, capital city of Shaanxi Province and Xi's hometown, on Thursday afternoon.
"This is the first time I have treated a foreign leader in my hometown and I hope you have a happy stay," Xi said at the start of the meeting.
Xi welcomed Modi and thanked him for the warm reception he received on his India visit in September, when the Indian PM accompanied him to visit his home state of Gujarat.
"That left me with a deep and good impression," Xi said.
In September, Xi and Modi "reached an important consensus on promoting the bilateral strategic partnership of cooperation and forging a closer partnership of development," according to the president.
Both sides have maintained frequent high-level contact and engagement, promoted cooperation in priority areas including construction of railways and industrial parks, strengthened exchanges, controlled border areas, Xi said.
China-India relations are experiencing stable development and facing broad prospects, he added, predicting that Modi's visit will strengthen the partnership.
Xi called on the two countries to look at their ties from a long-term perspective, strengthen coordination on global and regional affairs, and "steer the international order to develop in a fairer direction".
The two countries could strengthen communication on the Belt and Road Initiative, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and Modi's "Act East" policy, find areas of common interest, and hone a mode of cooperation with reciprocal benefit, Xi said.
He said the two countries should seek common ground in their respective development strategies to jointly promote the region's economic integration and contribute to global economic growth.
He called for more bilateral cooperation in areas including railways, industrial parks, urbanization and training, pledging to encourage Chinese companies to invest in India.
The president also expressed hope that the two countries can trust each other more and control their disputes to avoid weakening bilateral ties.
Xi also called on the two countries to strengthen exchanges between media, think tanks and young people to promote mutual understanding.
Calling China a great neighbor, Modi said India was ready to communicate and cooperate more closely with China, increase cultural exchanges and properly handle disputes.
He also voiced hope for more bilateral trade and closer cooperation with China within the AIIB.
He said he believed the AIIB will play an important role in regional economic and social development, and that India welcomes China to increase investment.
With regard to South Asia, Xi stressed that China has close relationships in the area and supports the region to maintain friendly ties. China is ready to strengthen reciprocal cooperation with all South Asian nations and promote the region's peace, stability and prosperity, he said.
Modi echoed Xi, saying India attaches high importance to communication in South Asia. India is ready to cooperate with China concerning the Belt and Road Initiative to promote the region's development and prosperity, he said.
This three-day tour is Modi's first China visit. Premier Li Keqiang and top legislator Zhang Dejiang will also meet him in Beijing on Friday.
CCTV shows India’s map without Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh
China has been laying territorial claim over Arunachal Pradesh and parts of Jammu and Kashmir but India has been strongly resisting it.
 |
| CCTV shows India’s map without Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh |
CCTV shows India’s map without Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh
A controversy was kicked up Thursday with China’s state-owned television CCTV showing India’s map without Jammu and Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh while reporting on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit.
The map was displayed during a bulletin when Modi was in Xi’an city where he held talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in his hometown.
China has been laying territorial claim over Arunachal Pradesh and parts of Jammu and Kashmir but India has been strongly resisting it.
The unresolved boundary issue has been a sticking point in the relations between the two major Asian countries and both are making efforts to settle it through Special Representatives’ talks. The Special Representatives have held 18 rounds of discussions so far.
 |
| Modi in China 2015 |
China says the border dispute is confined only to 2,000 kms mostly in Arunachal Pradesh whereas India asserts that the dispute covered the western side of the border spanning to about 4,000 kms, especially the Aksai Chin area ceded to China by Pakistan.
Taking strong objection to depiction of the Indian map wrongly, Congress questioned the Prime Minister whether he would raise the issue strongly with the Chinese leadership.
“Official Chinese media is showing maps depicting Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin as Chinese territory and the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir out of India’s boundary,” Congress spokesman Randeep Singh Surjewala said and asked, “Will the Prime Minister take up the issue strongly and as a first priority with the Chinese leadership?”
 |
| Modi in China 2015 |
Surjewala said that in 2013, the UPA government had announced the formation of the Mountain Strike Corps (MSC), a 90,000 strong Army battalion specifically to prevent intrusion by Chinese troops, at a cost of Rs 64,478 cr.
“However just three weeks ahead of the PM’s visit to China, the Defence Ministry has reduced the sanctioned strength of this battalion by 50 per cent. The official reason given was a severe FUND shortage,” he claimed.
News Source : Greater Kashmir
Saudi Arabia Promises to Match Iran in Nuclear Capability
~~~~~~~ MIDDLE EAST
Saudi Arabia Promises to Match Iran in Nuclear Capability
By DAVID E. SANGERMAY 13, 2015
WASHINGTON — When President Obama began making the case for a deal with Iran that would delay its ability to assemble an atomic weapon, his first argument was that a nuclear-armed Iran would set off a “free-for-all” of proliferation in the Arab world. “It is almost certain that other players in the region would feel it necessary to get their own nuclear weapons,” he said in 2012.
Now, as he gathered Arab leaders over dinner at the White HOUSE on Wednesday and prepared to meet with them at Camp David on Thursday, he faced a perverse consequence:
Saudi Arabia and many of the smaller Arab states are now vowing to match whatever nuclear enrichment capability Iran is permitted to retain.
“We can’t sit back and be nowhere as Iran is allowed to retain much of its capability and amass its research,” one of the Arab leaders preparing to meet Mr. Obama said on Monday, declining to be named until he made his case directly to the president. Prince Turki bin Faisal, the 70-year-old former Saudi intelligence chief, has been touring the world with the same message.
“Whatever the Iranians have, we will have, too,” he said at a recent conference in Seoul, South Korea.
For a president who came to office vowing to move toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, the Iran deal has presented a new dilemma. If the agreement is sealed successfully next month — still far from guaranteed — Mr. Obama will be able to claim to have bought another decade, maybe longer, before Iran can credibly threaten to have a nuclear weapon.
But by leaving 5,000 centrifuges and a growing research and development program in place — the features of the proposed deal that Israel and the Arab states oppose virulently — Mr. Obama is essentially recognizing Iran’s right to continue enrichment of uranium, one of the two pathways to a nuclear weapon. Leaders of the Sunni Arab states are arguing that if Iran goes down that road, Washington cannot credibly argue they should not follow down the same one, even if their technological abilities are years behind Iran’s.
“With or without a deal, there will be pressure for nuclear proliferation in the Middle East,” said Gary Samore, Mr. Obama’s top nuclear adviser during the first term and now the executive director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. “The question is one of capabilities. How would the Saudis do this without help from the outside?”
In fact, the Arab states may find it is not as easy as it sounds. The members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a loose affiliation of nations that make the crucial components for nuclear energy and, by extension, weapons projects, have a long list of components they will not ship to the Middle East. For the Saudis, and other Arab states, that leaves only North Korea and Pakistan, two countries that appear to have mastered nuclear enrichment, as possible sources.
It is doubtful that any of the American allies being hosted by Mr. Obama this week would turn to North Korea, although it supplied Syria with the components of a nuclear reactor that Israel destroyed in 2007.
Pakistan is another story. The Saudis have a natural if unacknowledged claim on the technology: They FINANCED much of the work done by A.Q. Khan, a Pakistani nuclear scientist who ended up peddling his nuclear wares abroad. It is widely presumed that Pakistan would provide Saudi Arabia with the technology, if not a weapon itself.
The Arab leader interviewed on Monday said that countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council, all to be represented at the Camp David meeting, had discussed a collective program of their own — couched, as Iran’s is, as a peaceful effort to develop nuclear energy. The United Arab Emirates signed a deal with the United States several years ago to build nuclear power plants, but it is prohibited under that plan from enriching its own uranium.
Over the last decade, the Saudi government has FINANCED nuclear research projects but there is no evidence that it has ever tried to build or buy facilities of the kind Iran has assembled to master the fuel cycle, the independent production of the makings of a weapon.
Still, the Saudis have given the subject of nuclear armament more than passing thought. In the 1980s they bought a type of Chinese missile, called a DF-3, that could be used effectively only to deliver a nuclear weapon because the missiles were too large and inaccurate for any other purpose. American officials, led by Robert M. Gates, then the director of the C.I.A., protested. There is no evidence the Saudis ever obtained warheads to fit atop the missiles.
Mr. Obama met with Saudi princes in the Oval Office on Wednesday — Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — who will most likely
moderate their criticisms of his administration while talking directly to the president. Mr. Obama is expected to OFFER them and the other Arab states some security assurances,
although not as explicit or legally binding as the kind that protect American treaty allies, from NATO to Japan to South Korea.
But Mr. Obama will have a difficult time overcoming the deep suspicions that the Saudis, and other Arab leaders, harbor about the Iran deal. Several of them have said that the critical
problem with the tentative agreements, as described by the White HOUSE and Secretary of State John Kerry, is that they assure nothing on a permanent basis.
Prince Turki, while in Seoul, went further. “He did go behind the backs of the traditional allies of the U.S. to strike the deal,” he said of Mr. Obama during a presentation to the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, a South Korean research organization.
Although “the small print of the deal is still unknown,” he added, it “opens the door to nuclear proliferation, not closes it, as was the initial intention.”
Prince Turki argued that the United States was making a “pivot to Iran” that was ill advised, and that the United States failed to learn from North Korea’s violations of its nuclear deals.
“We were America’s best friend in the Arab world for 50 years,” he said, using the past tense.
Source:NYTimes
Saudi Arabia Promises to Match Iran in Nuclear Capability
By DAVID E. SANGERMAY 13, 2015
WASHINGTON — When President Obama began making the case for a deal with Iran that would delay its ability to assemble an atomic weapon, his first argument was that a nuclear-armed Iran would set off a “free-for-all” of proliferation in the Arab world. “It is almost certain that other players in the region would feel it necessary to get their own nuclear weapons,” he said in 2012.
Now, as he gathered Arab leaders over dinner at the White HOUSE on Wednesday and prepared to meet with them at Camp David on Thursday, he faced a perverse consequence:
Saudi Arabia and many of the smaller Arab states are now vowing to match whatever nuclear enrichment capability Iran is permitted to retain.
“We can’t sit back and be nowhere as Iran is allowed to retain much of its capability and amass its research,” one of the Arab leaders preparing to meet Mr. Obama said on Monday, declining to be named until he made his case directly to the president. Prince Turki bin Faisal, the 70-year-old former Saudi intelligence chief, has been touring the world with the same message.
“Whatever the Iranians have, we will have, too,” he said at a recent conference in Seoul, South Korea.
For a president who came to office vowing to move toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, the Iran deal has presented a new dilemma. If the agreement is sealed successfully next month — still far from guaranteed — Mr. Obama will be able to claim to have bought another decade, maybe longer, before Iran can credibly threaten to have a nuclear weapon.
But by leaving 5,000 centrifuges and a growing research and development program in place — the features of the proposed deal that Israel and the Arab states oppose virulently — Mr. Obama is essentially recognizing Iran’s right to continue enrichment of uranium, one of the two pathways to a nuclear weapon. Leaders of the Sunni Arab states are arguing that if Iran goes down that road, Washington cannot credibly argue they should not follow down the same one, even if their technological abilities are years behind Iran’s.
“With or without a deal, there will be pressure for nuclear proliferation in the Middle East,” said Gary Samore, Mr. Obama’s top nuclear adviser during the first term and now the executive director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. “The question is one of capabilities. How would the Saudis do this without help from the outside?”
In fact, the Arab states may find it is not as easy as it sounds. The members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a loose affiliation of nations that make the crucial components for nuclear energy and, by extension, weapons projects, have a long list of components they will not ship to the Middle East. For the Saudis, and other Arab states, that leaves only North Korea and Pakistan, two countries that appear to have mastered nuclear enrichment, as possible sources.
It is doubtful that any of the American allies being hosted by Mr. Obama this week would turn to North Korea, although it supplied Syria with the components of a nuclear reactor that Israel destroyed in 2007.
Pakistan is another story. The Saudis have a natural if unacknowledged claim on the technology: They FINANCED much of the work done by A.Q. Khan, a Pakistani nuclear scientist who ended up peddling his nuclear wares abroad. It is widely presumed that Pakistan would provide Saudi Arabia with the technology, if not a weapon itself.
The Arab leader interviewed on Monday said that countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council, all to be represented at the Camp David meeting, had discussed a collective program of their own — couched, as Iran’s is, as a peaceful effort to develop nuclear energy. The United Arab Emirates signed a deal with the United States several years ago to build nuclear power plants, but it is prohibited under that plan from enriching its own uranium.
Over the last decade, the Saudi government has FINANCED nuclear research projects but there is no evidence that it has ever tried to build or buy facilities of the kind Iran has assembled to master the fuel cycle, the independent production of the makings of a weapon.
Still, the Saudis have given the subject of nuclear armament more than passing thought. In the 1980s they bought a type of Chinese missile, called a DF-3, that could be used effectively only to deliver a nuclear weapon because the missiles were too large and inaccurate for any other purpose. American officials, led by Robert M. Gates, then the director of the C.I.A., protested. There is no evidence the Saudis ever obtained warheads to fit atop the missiles.
Mr. Obama met with Saudi princes in the Oval Office on Wednesday — Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — who will most likely
moderate their criticisms of his administration while talking directly to the president. Mr. Obama is expected to OFFER them and the other Arab states some security assurances,
although not as explicit or legally binding as the kind that protect American treaty allies, from NATO to Japan to South Korea.
But Mr. Obama will have a difficult time overcoming the deep suspicions that the Saudis, and other Arab leaders, harbor about the Iran deal. Several of them have said that the critical
problem with the tentative agreements, as described by the White HOUSE and Secretary of State John Kerry, is that they assure nothing on a permanent basis.
Prince Turki, while in Seoul, went further. “He did go behind the backs of the traditional allies of the U.S. to strike the deal,” he said of Mr. Obama during a presentation to the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, a South Korean research organization.
Although “the small print of the deal is still unknown,” he added, it “opens the door to nuclear proliferation, not closes it, as was the initial intention.”
Prince Turki argued that the United States was making a “pivot to Iran” that was ill advised, and that the United States failed to learn from North Korea’s violations of its nuclear deals.
“We were America’s best friend in the Arab world for 50 years,” he said, using the past tense.
Source:NYTimes
Monday, May 11, 2015
Govt. faces financial crisis; can’t even pay salaries - CBK
Former president Chandrika Kumaratunge said today that the present government was facing a serious FINANCIAL crisis and was even unable to pay public servants their salaries.
Addressing a meeting organised by the Sri Lanka Development Officers’ Union in Colombo yesterday, she said the government was facing difficulties due to the depleted FINANCES of the Treasury.
She said the crisis had been caused by the lack of transparency in the projects carried out by the previous government.
She said the payment of state sector salaries was difficult because of the lack of FUNDS. “The government is not able to pay state sector salaries to everyone. It’s hard to expand the sector, and some of the employees have no work,” she said.
She said those opposed to Yahapalanaya (good governance) had begun a counterrevolution against the new government.
- See more at: http://www.dailymirror.lk/71849/govt-faces-financial-crisis-can-t-even-pay-salaries-cbk#sthash.Uj0uG19H.dpuf
Hambantota was an uncleared area : Fonseka
Fonseka says govt caught sharks, but wants it to go after whales now
May 10, 2015, 10:32 pm
By Chandrasiri Jasenthuliyana, Ambalangoda Corr
Addressing a meeting of DP regional leaders at the Ambalangoda Town Hall auditorium Field Marshall Fonseka said that the government had come to power, promising action against fraudsters who had plundered the public institutions and embezzled people’s MONEY. The good governance administration had been able to cast a net to capture the sharks of corruption. "But, it is yet to throw a net to catch the whales of corruption. The government should start fighting corruption from the very top. Then only it can catch the whales of corruption."
Field Marshal Fonseka thanked his party men who had helped effect a regime change and to ensure the victory of Maithripala Sirisena at the January 08 presidential election. "This government is run by the President and Prime Minister that we appointed. We let them rule the country for 100 days without any criticism. The forthcoming general election will be a crucial and decisive one for our party men.
Most probably we will be able to get two members elected from districts such as Colombo and Kalutara," he said.
"Mahinda Rajapaksa would still have been the President and Gotabhaya Defence Secretary they had acted according to the wishes of the public. They also fought with the wrong person.
When they incarcerated me, I had time. I used to run two kilometres a day. So, I was healthier and more vigorous when I came out of the prison. We are respecters of policies and we are not ready to betray our policies and go before the powers that be on bended knees. There were many OFFERS to me but I took none and kept my backbone straight. I will do the same in the future," the Field Marshal said.
May 10, 2015, 10:32 pm
By Chandrasiri Jasenthuliyana, Ambalangoda Corr
After another two months’ time, ten per cent of the office time of incumbent President Maithripala Sirisena would be over but people of the country had received only one per cent of the benefits promised to them under the good governance regime,Leader of the Democratic Party Field Marshall Sarath Fonseka said on Saturday.
Addressing a meeting of DP regional leaders at the Ambalangoda Town Hall auditorium Field Marshall Fonseka said that the government had come to power, promising action against fraudsters who had plundered the public institutions and embezzled people’s MONEY. The good governance administration had been able to cast a net to capture the sharks of corruption. "But, it is yet to throw a net to catch the whales of corruption. The government should start fighting corruption from the very top. Then only it can catch the whales of corruption."
Field Marshal Fonseka thanked his party men who had helped effect a regime change and to ensure the victory of Maithripala Sirisena at the January 08 presidential election. "This government is run by the President and Prime Minister that we appointed. We let them rule the country for 100 days without any criticism. The forthcoming general election will be a crucial and decisive one for our party men.
"We cannot forget the damage and destruction caused by the former regime. Hambantota was an uncleared area then. We planned eight rallies in that district during the last presidential election. But, the then ruler did not permit us to build a single stage there. But we did not cancel our plans to meet the people. We took mobile stages there and set them on the roof of vehicles and addressed the masses. We showed the people the plight we were in and called upon them to use their votes wisely. Even under suppression we polled more than 10,000 votes in Hambontota. Our party is only three years old, but people have welcomed us and our policies," the Field Marshal said.He said when they joined the campaign to help the then Presidential candidate Maithripala Sirisena they had 700,000 votes. They were certain that number now had increased up to more one million. "We hope to CONTEST all districts in the forthcoming general election and it is our target to get at least one member elected from our party to Parliament from each district.
Most probably we will be able to get two members elected from districts such as Colombo and Kalutara," he said.
"Mahinda Rajapaksa would still have been the President and Gotabhaya Defence Secretary they had acted according to the wishes of the public. They also fought with the wrong person.
When they incarcerated me, I had time. I used to run two kilometres a day. So, I was healthier and more vigorous when I came out of the prison. We are respecters of policies and we are not ready to betray our policies and go before the powers that be on bended knees. There were many OFFERS to me but I took none and kept my backbone straight. I will do the same in the future," the Field Marshal said.
இலங்கை மத்திய வங்கி ஆளுநருக்கு எதிராக நம்பிக்கையில்லாப் பிரேரணை!
அரங்கேறும் பக்ச பாசிஸ்டுக்களின் ஆட்சிக் கவிழ்ப்பு எதிர்ப்பு- `பாராளமன்றச் சதி! ENB
Eighty eight MPs sign no confidence motion against CB Governor
Ministers, state ministers and deputy ministers among them
May 10, 2015, 10:33 pm
By Saman Indrajith
Three cabinet ministers, three state ministers and three deputy ministers are among the 88 members who have signed a no confidence motion against Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran.
The no confidence motion now included in the Parliamentary Order Book according to the Addendum to the Order Book No 14 released yesterday has seven charges against Governor
Mahendran.
It says: "After Arjuna Mahendran, who is a Singaporean citizen and a closest acquaintance of the Prime Minister, was appointed as the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka in the latter part of January 2015, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka has sharply deteriorated within the short time in which he has held office and this has brought the whole country to disrepute and caused a FINANCIALloss as well.
"Arjuna Mahendran has intentionally caused a huge loss to the government and the whole economy by awarding in an absolutely corrupt manner the 30-year Treasury bonds issued on 27th February 2015 by the Public Debt Department of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka to Perpetual Treasuries, which is the primary dealer firm that belongs to his son-in-law; in that transaction, by increasing the interest rate of the country unnecessarily and artificially to benefit the firm of his son-in-law he had paved the way to earn undue profit of Rs. 200 crores for that firm and therefore only during the period of last 6 weeks the Government of Sri Lanka experienced an interest loss of about Rs. 4,500 crores which is the biggest interest loss in the Sri Lankan history, apart from that the overall interest rate in the whole FINANCIAL system was increased due to the fraudulent act of Mr Arjuna Mahendran and the whole population in the country loses the benefits enjoyed when the inflation rate of the country was maintained at a mid-single digit for more than 6 years and owing to that, the other primary role of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, maintaining stability of the price is in great peril today.
"Owing to the artificially manipulated interest rate caused by the action of Arjuna Mahendran, the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka on 27th February 2015 all other interest rates were affected and therefore compared to the interest rates of the previous day the interest rates increased by nearly 30% and this increase in the interest rates resulted in businessmen, rent payers, house builders and all others who obtain LOANS suffering and as a result of a great number of citizens having to pay high interest rates, there is an imminent danger of increasing the amount of bad debts in banks and non-banking institutions and thereby posing the other major function of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka to maintain the stability of financial system is at stake as at today.
"Colombo STOCK MARKET has rapidly collapsed through the loss of confidence in the Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka which continues to grow day by day, as a result of the actions pointed out above and through that, it has been estimated that market capitalization of Sri Lankan Companies has already declined by a value more than Rs. 2,000 crores within the last 100 days alone.
"Arjuna Mahendran, the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka has displayed through his practice that he is not fit to hold the said onerous, prestigious Office in view of the aforementioned facts; he has made efforts to fulfil certain political objectives and other personal objectives of the United National Party, his actions, orders and conduct have caused a severe damage, loss and discredit to the Government of Sri Lanka and the national economy; that this Parliament is of the opinion that Arjuna Mahendran, should be dismissed from the Office of the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka forthwith."
Eighty eight MPs sign no confidence motion against CB Governor
Ministers, state ministers and deputy ministers among them
May 10, 2015, 10:33 pm
By Saman Indrajith
Three cabinet ministers, three state ministers and three deputy ministers are among the 88 members who have signed a no confidence motion against Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran.
They are Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena (Cabinet Minister of Parliamentary Affairs), Reginald Cooray (Cabinet Minister of Aviation Services), Piyasena Gamage (Cabinet Minister of Skills Development and Vocational Training), Dilan Perera (State minister of Housing and Samurdhi), Jeevan Kumaratunga (State Minister of Labour), C.B.Ratnayake (State Minister of Public Administration and Democratic governance), Jagath Pushapakumara (Deputy Minister of Plantations), Lakshaman Seneviratne (Deputy Minister of Disaster Management) and Shantha Bandara (Deputy Minister of Mass Media).
The no confidence motion now included in the Parliamentary Order Book according to the Addendum to the Order Book No 14 released yesterday has seven charges against Governor
Mahendran.
It says: "After Arjuna Mahendran, who is a Singaporean citizen and a closest acquaintance of the Prime Minister, was appointed as the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka in the latter part of January 2015, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka has sharply deteriorated within the short time in which he has held office and this has brought the whole country to disrepute and caused a FINANCIALloss as well.
"Arjuna Mahendran has intentionally caused a huge loss to the government and the whole economy by awarding in an absolutely corrupt manner the 30-year Treasury bonds issued on 27th February 2015 by the Public Debt Department of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka to Perpetual Treasuries, which is the primary dealer firm that belongs to his son-in-law; in that transaction, by increasing the interest rate of the country unnecessarily and artificially to benefit the firm of his son-in-law he had paved the way to earn undue profit of Rs. 200 crores for that firm and therefore only during the period of last 6 weeks the Government of Sri Lanka experienced an interest loss of about Rs. 4,500 crores which is the biggest interest loss in the Sri Lankan history, apart from that the overall interest rate in the whole FINANCIAL system was increased due to the fraudulent act of Mr Arjuna Mahendran and the whole population in the country loses the benefits enjoyed when the inflation rate of the country was maintained at a mid-single digit for more than 6 years and owing to that, the other primary role of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, maintaining stability of the price is in great peril today.
"Owing to the artificially manipulated interest rate caused by the action of Arjuna Mahendran, the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka on 27th February 2015 all other interest rates were affected and therefore compared to the interest rates of the previous day the interest rates increased by nearly 30% and this increase in the interest rates resulted in businessmen, rent payers, house builders and all others who obtain LOANS suffering and as a result of a great number of citizens having to pay high interest rates, there is an imminent danger of increasing the amount of bad debts in banks and non-banking institutions and thereby posing the other major function of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka to maintain the stability of financial system is at stake as at today.
"Colombo STOCK MARKET has rapidly collapsed through the loss of confidence in the Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka which continues to grow day by day, as a result of the actions pointed out above and through that, it has been estimated that market capitalization of Sri Lankan Companies has already declined by a value more than Rs. 2,000 crores within the last 100 days alone.
"Arjuna Mahendran, the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka has displayed through his practice that he is not fit to hold the said onerous, prestigious Office in view of the aforementioned facts; he has made efforts to fulfil certain political objectives and other personal objectives of the United National Party, his actions, orders and conduct have caused a severe damage, loss and discredit to the Government of Sri Lanka and the national economy; that this Parliament is of the opinion that Arjuna Mahendran, should be dismissed from the Office of the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka forthwith."
ரணிலுக்கெதிராக நம்பிக்கையில்லாப் பிரேரணை!
No Confidence Motion against Ranil Prompted by Bond issue
No Confidence Motion against Ranil Prompted by Bond issue
BY SHAAHIDAH RIZA
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is party to the biggest FINANCIAL fraud in Sri Lanka's post independence history and a No Confidence Motion against him must be in order, said Western Provincial Councillor and leader of the Pivithuru Hela Urumaya (PHU) Udaya Gammanpila to Ceylon Today, yesterday (10).
He made these comments with regard to Central Bank Governor, Arjuna Mahendran who is allegedly involved in the controversial treasury bonds issue, which caused a loss of Rs 45 billion according to Gammanpila.
The leader of the National Freedom Front (NFF) and Parliamentarian, Wimal Weerawansa also expressed the same concern at the Kurunegala rally last Friday (8). He said,
Although most MPs have not yet voiced their support for the No Confidence Motion against the Prime Minister, Gammanpila stated that he is confident of garnering support. He said,
"The opposition MPs made a request to remove the Central Bank Governor and 114 signatures were obtained to see this through. However, the Prime Minister did not heed the request.
Instead he appointed a committee made up of his colleagues who cleared Mahendran. He did not appoint a proper Parliamentary Select Committee to investigate it. I have confidence that those 114 MPs will support this move. In addition, there are also ministers who voiced their concerns about the Mahendran case, including the Cabinet Spokesperson and Health Minister, Rajitha Senaratne."
Meanwhile Deputy Minister of INVESTMENT Promotions, Eran Wickramaratne said that the government will present the report to Parliament and the opposition can read it and call for a
Parliamentary Committee on the issue.
"I think there should be a discussion on the matter and I think this should be investigated in a transparent manner," he said.
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is party to the biggest FINANCIAL fraud in Sri Lanka's post independence history and a No Confidence Motion against him must be in order,said Western Provincial Councillor and leader of the Pivithuru Hela Urumaya (PHU) Udaya Gammanpila to Ceylon Today, yesterday (10).Ceylontoday, 2015-05-11 02:03:00
No Confidence Motion against Ranil Prompted by Bond issue
BY SHAAHIDAH RIZA
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is party to the biggest FINANCIAL fraud in Sri Lanka's post independence history and a No Confidence Motion against him must be in order, said Western Provincial Councillor and leader of the Pivithuru Hela Urumaya (PHU) Udaya Gammanpila to Ceylon Today, yesterday (10).
He made these comments with regard to Central Bank Governor, Arjuna Mahendran who is allegedly involved in the controversial treasury bonds issue, which caused a loss of Rs 45 billion according to Gammanpila.
The leader of the National Freedom Front (NFF) and Parliamentarian, Wimal Weerawansa also expressed the same concern at the Kurunegala rally last Friday (8). He said,
"The true opposition hopes to submit a No Confidence Motion against the Prime Minister during the course of the week.This will lead to a quick dissolution of Parliament, thus it is prudent to prepare for general elections."
Although most MPs have not yet voiced their support for the No Confidence Motion against the Prime Minister, Gammanpila stated that he is confident of garnering support. He said,
"The opposition MPs made a request to remove the Central Bank Governor and 114 signatures were obtained to see this through. However, the Prime Minister did not heed the request.
Instead he appointed a committee made up of his colleagues who cleared Mahendran. He did not appoint a proper Parliamentary Select Committee to investigate it. I have confidence that those 114 MPs will support this move. In addition, there are also ministers who voiced their concerns about the Mahendran case, including the Cabinet Spokesperson and Health Minister, Rajitha Senaratne."
Meanwhile Deputy Minister of INVESTMENT Promotions, Eran Wickramaratne said that the government will present the report to Parliament and the opposition can read it and call for a
Parliamentary Committee on the issue.
"I think there should be a discussion on the matter and I think this should be investigated in a transparent manner," he said.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Saudi Arabia Says King Won’t Attend Meetings in U.S.
MIDDLE EAST
Saudi Arabia Says King Won’t Attend Meetings in U.S.
By HELENE COOPER MAY 10, 2015
WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia announced on Sunday that its new monarch, King Salman, would not be attending meetings at the White House with President Obama or a summit gathering at Camp David this week, in an apparent signal of its continued displeasure with the administration over United States relations with Iran, its rising regional adversary.
As recently as Friday, the White House said that King Salman would be coming to RESUME consultations on a wide range of regional and bilateral issues,” according to Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman.
But on Sunday, the state-run Saudi Press Agency said that the king would instead send Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Saudi interior minister, and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the defense minister. The agency said the summit meeting would overlap with a five-day cease-fire in Yemen that is scheduled to start on Tuesday to allow for the delivery of humanitarian aid.
Arab officials said they viewed the king’s failure to attend the meeting as a sign of disappointment with what the White House was willing to OFFER at the summit meeting as reassurance that the United States would back its Arab allies against a rising Iran.
King Salman is expected to call Mr. Obama on Monday to talk about his last-minute decision not to attend the summit meeting, a senior administration official said on Sunday.
The official said that when the king met Secretary of State John Kerry in Riyadh last week, he indicated that he was looking forward to coming to the meeting. But on Friday night, after the White House put out a statement saying Mr. Obama would be meeting with King Salman in Washington, administration officials received a call from the Saudi foreign minister that the king would not be coming after all.
There was “no expression of disappointment” from the Saudis, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. “If one wants to snub you, they let you know it in different ways,” the official said.
Jon Alterman, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said King Salman’s absence was both a blessing and a snub. “It holds within it a hidden opportunity,” he said, “because senior U.S. officials will have an unusual opportunity to take the measure of Mohammed bin Salman, the very young Saudi defense minister and deputy crown prince, with whom few have any experience.”
But, Mr. Alterman added: “For the White House though, it sends an unmistakable signal when a close partner essentially says he has better things to do than go to Camp David with the president, just a few days after the White House announced he’d have a private meeting before everything got underway.”
Mr. Kerry met on Friday in Paris with his counterparts from the Arab nations that were invited to the summit meeting — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman — to discuss what they were expecting from the summit meeting, and to signal what the United States was prepared to OFFER at Camp David.
But administration officials said that the Arab officials had pressed for a defense treaty with the United States pledging to defend them if they came under external attack. But that was always going to be difficult, as such treaties — similar to what the United States has with Japan — must be ratified by Congress.
Instead Mr. Obama is prepared to OFFER a presidential statement, one administration official said, which is not as binding and which future presidents may not have to honor.
The Arab nations are also angry, officials and experts said, about comments Mr. Obama recently made in an interview with The New York Times, in which he said allies like Saudi Arabia should be worried about internal threats — “populations that, in some cases, are alienated, youth that are underemployed, an ideology that is destructive and nihilistic, and in some cases, just a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for grievances.”
At a time when American officials were supposed to be reassuring those same countries that the United States would support them, the comments were viewed by officials in the gulf as poorly timed, foreign policy experts said.
The Arab countries would also like to buy more weapons from the United States, but that also faces a big obstacle — maintaining Israel’s military edge. The United States has long put restrictions on the types of weapons that American defense firms can sell to Arab nations, in an effort to ensure that Israel keeps a military advantage against its traditional adversaries in the region.
That is why, for instance, the administration has not allowed Lockheed Martin to sell the F-35 fighter jet, considered to be the jewel of America’s future arsenal, to Arab countries. The plane, the world’s most expensive weapons project, has stealth capabilities and has been approved for sale to Israel.
In Paris on Friday, Mr. Kerry said that the United States and its Arab allies, which constitute the Gulf Cooperation Council, were “fleshing out a series of new commitments that will create between the U.S. and G.C.C. a new security understanding, a new set of security initiatives that will take us beyond anything that we have had before.”
The king is the latest top Arab official who will not be attending the summit meeting for delegations from members of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
The United Arab Emirates is also sending its crown prince to the meetings, the officials said. The Emirati president, Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan, was never expected to attend because of health reasons, American and Arab officials said. Sultan Qaboos bin Said of Oman also will not be attending because of health reasons, officials said.
Yousef Al Otaiba, the United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States, declined to say exactly what his government was pushing for from the United States when he spoke at a conference in Washington on Thursday.
“The last thing I want to say is ‘here’s what we need,’ ” he said at a panel discussion sponsored by the Atlantic Council in Washington. “That’s not the right approach. The approach is, let’s come here, let’s figure out what the problems are, how we can work together to address our needs.”
King Salman’s decision to skip the summit meeting does not mean that the Saudis are giving up on the United States — they do not have many other options, said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “As upset as the Saudis are, they don’t really have a viable alternative strategic partnership in Moscow or Beijing,” Mr. Sadjadpour said.
But, he added, “there’s a growing perception at the White House that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are friends but not allies, while the U.S. and Iran are allies but not friends.”
Ben Hubbard contributed reporting from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Peter Baker from Washington.
A version of this article appears in print on May 11, 2015, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Saudi King Plans to Skip Meetings in Washington.
Saudi Arabia Says King Won’t Attend Meetings in U.S.
By HELENE COOPER MAY 10, 2015
 |
President Obama speaking about the Iran nuclear agreement at the White House last month. CREDIT Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times |
As recently as Friday, the White House said that King Salman would be coming to RESUME consultations on a wide range of regional and bilateral issues,” according to Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman.
But on Sunday, the state-run Saudi Press Agency said that the king would instead send Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Saudi interior minister, and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the defense minister. The agency said the summit meeting would overlap with a five-day cease-fire in Yemen that is scheduled to start on Tuesday to allow for the delivery of humanitarian aid.
Arab officials said they viewed the king’s failure to attend the meeting as a sign of disappointment with what the White House was willing to OFFER at the summit meeting as reassurance that the United States would back its Arab allies against a rising Iran.
 |
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef,
the Saudi interior minister.
|
King Salman is expected to call Mr. Obama on Monday to talk about his last-minute decision not to attend the summit meeting, a senior administration official said on Sunday.
The official said that when the king met Secretary of State John Kerry in Riyadh last week, he indicated that he was looking forward to coming to the meeting. But on Friday night, after the White House put out a statement saying Mr. Obama would be meeting with King Salman in Washington, administration officials received a call from the Saudi foreign minister that the king would not be coming after all.
There was “no expression of disappointment” from the Saudis, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. “If one wants to snub you, they let you know it in different ways,” the official said.
Jon Alterman, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said King Salman’s absence was both a blessing and a snub. “It holds within it a hidden opportunity,” he said, “because senior U.S. officials will have an unusual opportunity to take the measure of Mohammed bin Salman, the very young Saudi defense minister and deputy crown prince, with whom few have any experience.”
But, Mr. Alterman added: “For the White House though, it sends an unmistakable signal when a close partner essentially says he has better things to do than go to Camp David with the president, just a few days after the White House announced he’d have a private meeting before everything got underway.”
Mr. Kerry met on Friday in Paris with his counterparts from the Arab nations that were invited to the summit meeting — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman — to discuss what they were expecting from the summit meeting, and to signal what the United States was prepared to OFFER at Camp David.
But administration officials said that the Arab officials had pressed for a defense treaty with the United States pledging to defend them if they came under external attack. But that was always going to be difficult, as such treaties — similar to what the United States has with Japan — must be ratified by Congress.
Instead Mr. Obama is prepared to OFFER a presidential statement, one administration official said, which is not as binding and which future presidents may not have to honor.
The Arab nations are also angry, officials and experts said, about comments Mr. Obama recently made in an interview with The New York Times, in which he said allies like Saudi Arabia should be worried about internal threats — “populations that, in some cases, are alienated, youth that are underemployed, an ideology that is destructive and nihilistic, and in some cases, just a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for grievances.”
At a time when American officials were supposed to be reassuring those same countries that the United States would support them, the comments were viewed by officials in the gulf as poorly timed, foreign policy experts said.
The Arab countries would also like to buy more weapons from the United States, but that also faces a big obstacle — maintaining Israel’s military edge. The United States has long put restrictions on the types of weapons that American defense firms can sell to Arab nations, in an effort to ensure that Israel keeps a military advantage against its traditional adversaries in the region.
That is why, for instance, the administration has not allowed Lockheed Martin to sell the F-35 fighter jet, considered to be the jewel of America’s future arsenal, to Arab countries. The plane, the world’s most expensive weapons project, has stealth capabilities and has been approved for sale to Israel.
In Paris on Friday, Mr. Kerry said that the United States and its Arab allies, which constitute the Gulf Cooperation Council, were “fleshing out a series of new commitments that will create between the U.S. and G.C.C. a new security understanding, a new set of security initiatives that will take us beyond anything that we have had before.”
The king is the latest top Arab official who will not be attending the summit meeting for delegations from members of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
The United Arab Emirates is also sending its crown prince to the meetings, the officials said. The Emirati president, Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan, was never expected to attend because of health reasons, American and Arab officials said. Sultan Qaboos bin Said of Oman also will not be attending because of health reasons, officials said.
Yousef Al Otaiba, the United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States, declined to say exactly what his government was pushing for from the United States when he spoke at a conference in Washington on Thursday.
“The last thing I want to say is ‘here’s what we need,’ ” he said at a panel discussion sponsored by the Atlantic Council in Washington. “That’s not the right approach. The approach is, let’s come here, let’s figure out what the problems are, how we can work together to address our needs.”
King Salman’s decision to skip the summit meeting does not mean that the Saudis are giving up on the United States — they do not have many other options, said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “As upset as the Saudis are, they don’t really have a viable alternative strategic partnership in Moscow or Beijing,” Mr. Sadjadpour said.
But, he added, “there’s a growing perception at the White House that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are friends but not allies, while the U.S. and Iran are allies but not friends.”
Ben Hubbard contributed reporting from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Peter Baker from Washington.
A version of this article appears in print on May 11, 2015, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Saudi King Plans to Skip Meetings in Washington.
Saturday, May 09, 2015
After Victory, Cameron Faces a Divided Kingdom
After Victory, Cameron Faces a Divided Kingdom
David Cameron's Conservatives swept to a surprising victory in the UK's general elections. But his country's role in the world is likely to diminish in coming years, writes CFR's James M. Lindsay.
==============
The Conservative Party’s Surprising Victory Doesn’t Herald a Bolder Britain
by James M. Lindsay
May 8, 2015
The Conservative Party’s surprising victory yesterday has rendered obsolete the orgy of pre-election handwringing about the ineffectiveness of Britain’s impending minority government. But it hasn’t rendered obsolete growing concerns about Britain’s retreat from the world stage. INDEED, it may just intensify them.
David Cameron now has a second term as prime minister and a majority government for the first time. But the vote wasn’t a resounding endorsement of the Tories. They won 37 percent of the vote, just two percentage points above what the polls predicted. And Cameron’s majority is slim. He will be devoting a lot of time to holding it together.
Cameron also hasn’t seemed inclined thus far to assert Britain’s global influence. Aside from Libya, he has preferred to let Berlin, Paris, or Washington lead on most issues. His overseas efforts have focused heavily on promoting Britain’s commercial interests.
That choice might reflect the demand of combating the Great Recession or the political need to chart a different path from Tony Blair, whose aggressive support for U.S. foreign policy angered many Britons. But even if Cameron now opts to be assertive, at least two issues will make that hard to do.
The first is the success Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish National Party had yesterday. The SNP won fifty-six of Scotland’s fifty-nine parliamentary seats, and in doing so revived the idea of an independent Scotland thought dead after the No vote won last September’s referendum. Even if the SNP fails to secure another referendum, it will push to devolve more power to Scotland. That will fuel Welsh and English nationalism, encouraging Britons to turn inward.
The second issue is Cameron’s pledge to hold a referendum in 2017 on Britain’s membership in the European Union. The UK Independent Party (UKIP) won 13 percent of yesterday’s vote, so he faces continued pressure to secure a “better deal” for Britain in the EU. What that better deal is remains unknown. What is clear is that Germany, the dominant force in the EU, has little interest in granting London concessions.
Even if Cameron asserts his inner CHURCHILL, blunts Scottish nationalism, and derails the euroskeptics, larger, long-term trends are diminishing Britain’s capacity to influence on world events. Consider:
Britain now has had the world’s ninth largest economy. It is likely to fall out of the top ten in the coming years.
Britain does have a UN Security Council veto. But that confers powers more symbolic than real. Likewise, London’s importance as a global financial center makes Britain a leading force in international finance. But that might inhibit rather than embolden British diplomacy. The Cameron government lobbied hard to ensure that sanctions against Russia wouldn’t send rubles flowing out of the City of London, or, as some wags prefer to call it, “London-grad.”
Of course, a Britain with modest global ambitions may be the best choice for Britons themselves. The British economy might benefit from elevating British commercial and trade interests over wider foreign policy interests.
But anyone looking for a Britain that has “a grander role, a grander ambition, a place beyond the ordinary” will likely be disappointed by the new Cameron government. That’s especially true for the United States, which has long treated British support for its policies as axiomatic.
This is not to say the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom will disappear. It won’t. Common history and a shared tongue count for a lot. But on an increasing number of issues, London and Washington will be happier talking about the past than the future.
Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions.
David Cameron's Conservatives swept to a surprising victory in the UK's general elections. But his country's role in the world is likely to diminish in coming years, writes CFR's James M. Lindsay.
==============
The Conservative Party’s Surprising Victory Doesn’t Herald a Bolder Britain
by James M. Lindsay
May 8, 2015
The Conservative Party’s surprising victory yesterday has rendered obsolete the orgy of pre-election handwringing about the ineffectiveness of Britain’s impending minority government. But it hasn’t rendered obsolete growing concerns about Britain’s retreat from the world stage. INDEED, it may just intensify them.
David Cameron now has a second term as prime minister and a majority government for the first time. But the vote wasn’t a resounding endorsement of the Tories. They won 37 percent of the vote, just two percentage points above what the polls predicted. And Cameron’s majority is slim. He will be devoting a lot of time to holding it together.
Cameron also hasn’t seemed inclined thus far to assert Britain’s global influence. Aside from Libya, he has preferred to let Berlin, Paris, or Washington lead on most issues. His overseas efforts have focused heavily on promoting Britain’s commercial interests.
That choice might reflect the demand of combating the Great Recession or the political need to chart a different path from Tony Blair, whose aggressive support for U.S. foreign policy angered many Britons. But even if Cameron now opts to be assertive, at least two issues will make that hard to do.
The first is the success Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish National Party had yesterday. The SNP won fifty-six of Scotland’s fifty-nine parliamentary seats, and in doing so revived the idea of an independent Scotland thought dead after the No vote won last September’s referendum. Even if the SNP fails to secure another referendum, it will push to devolve more power to Scotland. That will fuel Welsh and English nationalism, encouraging Britons to turn inward.
The second issue is Cameron’s pledge to hold a referendum in 2017 on Britain’s membership in the European Union. The UK Independent Party (UKIP) won 13 percent of yesterday’s vote, so he faces continued pressure to secure a “better deal” for Britain in the EU. What that better deal is remains unknown. What is clear is that Germany, the dominant force in the EU, has little interest in granting London concessions.
Even if Cameron asserts his inner CHURCHILL, blunts Scottish nationalism, and derails the euroskeptics, larger, long-term trends are diminishing Britain’s capacity to influence on world events. Consider:
Britain now has had the world’s ninth largest economy. It is likely to fall out of the top ten in the coming years.
In 1990, Britain spent 3.8 percent of its GDP on defense. Today, it spends less than 2 percent. In absolute terms, defense spending has fallen 14 percent since 2010 after accounting for inflation.
British troop levels have shrunk 19 percent since 2007, and they’re set to shrink another 8 percent by 2020. Even steeper cuts could be on the way. If they materialize, the British army would be the smallest it has been since it lost to the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord.
In 1996, the British Navy had thirty-six warships—destroyers and frigates. Today, it has eighteen. Britain is building two new aircraft carriers. The first is scheduled to be completed in 2017, three years before Her Majesty’s Navy acquires the planes that will fly off its decks.
Britain does have a UN Security Council veto. But that confers powers more symbolic than real. Likewise, London’s importance as a global financial center makes Britain a leading force in international finance. But that might inhibit rather than embolden British diplomacy. The Cameron government lobbied hard to ensure that sanctions against Russia wouldn’t send rubles flowing out of the City of London, or, as some wags prefer to call it, “London-grad.”
Of course, a Britain with modest global ambitions may be the best choice for Britons themselves. The British economy might benefit from elevating British commercial and trade interests over wider foreign policy interests.
But anyone looking for a Britain that has “a grander role, a grander ambition, a place beyond the ordinary” will likely be disappointed by the new Cameron government. That’s especially true for the United States, which has long treated British support for its policies as axiomatic.
This is not to say the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom will disappear. It won’t. Common history and a shared tongue count for a lot. But on an increasing number of issues, London and Washington will be happier talking about the past than the future.
Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions.
Wednesday, May 06, 2015
ஐரோப்பாவில் பாசிசம்: இணைய சுதந்திரம் மீது பிரான்ஸ் அரசு பாய்ச்சல்!
நியூயோர்க் ரைம்ஸ் பத்திரிகையின் ஆளும் வர்க்க தாராளவாத ஜனநாயகப் பார்வையில்:
EUROPE | NEWS ANALYSIS
Familiar Swing to Security Over Privacy After Attacks in France
By ALISSA J. RUBIN and DAVID E. SANGER MAY 6, 2015
PARIS — For two years after the revelations by Edward J. Snowden, Europe was awash in talk about American excesses in mass surveillance, objecting to how the National Security Agency swept up emails and phone conversations — even of political leaders like Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany — in an American electronic net that seemed to envelop the Continent.
But the past few months have helped clarify what much of Europe really objected to: the American involvement in that surveillance, not the net itself. Worried ABOUT ISLAMIC extremists in its midst, Britain passed even more sweeping surveillance laws last summer. And in the wake of terrorist attacks in Paris in January, the French have begun what has become almost a rite of passage for Western nations since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, voting through the lower house of Parliament on Tuesday vastly expanded government powers to protect, and spy on, its own citizens.
In Europe the impulse for government protection, even at the expense of civil liberties, is hardly new. Britain’s surveillance cameras on every major city block are well known. FRANCE has conducted similarly intensive surveillance for years, but without explicit legal authorization. “The French government is saying, in essence, ‘We do it anyway, so we might as well be able to use it for evidence in court,’ ” said Frédérick Douzet, a cybersecurity expert and professor at the University of Paris 8.
However, some of the measures authorized in the pending legislation would be new — at least as far as anyone knows — including the use of new technology to conduct analysis of bulk metadata, experts said.
The reality, however, is that it is unlikely that any of the proposed new measures would have prevented the January attacks at Charlie Hebdo, a satirical newspaper, said some experts in
Paris. And while counterterrorism was the justification as the National Assembly greatly enhanced the spying powers of the nation’s intelligence services, Ms. Douzet and others point out that the law allows broad surveillance in other areas as well.
But there was a near absence of public attention and debate around the measures — or around whether France needs the kinds of checks and balances on surveillance that the United States has imposed. INDEED, the news barely made the front pages of newspapers here on Wednesday, even though in the run-up to the vote, some news media had extensively highlighted the potential abuses of the far-reaching legislation.
“This is the tradition of a country that used to see itself as a great power — so we do whatever it takes,” said Dominique Moïsi, the co-founder of the French Institute for International
At the same time, Congress is inching in the other direction. By the END OF JUNE, the government may get out of the business of bulk collection of telephone metadata — though under legislation and a proposal by President Obama, that collection would simply move to telecommunications companies.
In fact, after more than a decade of massive government surveillance — the extent of which was not fully known until the leaks from Mr. Snowden — the N.S.A. now finds itself having to justify its programs, to the White House and the American people.
But the outrage in Europe about the Snowden disclosures was largely centered on the intrusion of the American surveillance system on European soil — sometimes with the help, witting or unwitting, of American companies. “The common vocabulary among the Europeans is that Europe is privacy friendly, and the United States tolerates a Stasi-like N.S.A. and vicious data collectors, like Google and Facebook,” said Benjamin Wittes, the co-author of “The FUTURE of Violence.” “It’s nonsense. They object to the American part.”
The exception may be Germany, where the current uproar is about what the B.N.D., Germany’s intelligence service, may have done in partnership with the United States. But when it comes to social media, European sensibilities are beginning to change. Even those countries that PRIZE discretion are facing the reality that there is a new era of global communication that compromises privacy, and that little on the Internet can be kept secret. That, perhaps, is making it easier for citizens to accept government snooping.
In FRANCE, opposition to the bill gained little traction even though critics argued that the proposed legislation would allow French intelligence services to collect and monitor bulk communications, read texts and email and tap cellphones with little judicial oversight. The opponents included many Internet companies, civil liberties supporters and some left-leaning members of the French Parliament, as well as some judges and lawyers.
But they won little political support: Western Europe lacks the strand of antigovernment sentiment seen in Libertarians or the Tea Party in the United States. And while there is some legislative branch oversight, it rarely delves deeply into government proposals and programs.
So just as the Sept. 11 attacks led President Bush and Congress to grant far-reaching powers to American intelligence agencies, deadly attacks in FRANCE and elsewhere in Europe and fear about the thousands of extremists in Syria and Iraq with European passports are allowing intelligence and security services to obtain powers that previously eluded them.
France, with the largest Muslim population in Europe, has seen more of its citizens go to fight in the Middle East than any other European country. Similarly, the hundreds of British citizens who went to Syria in recent years prompted the government last summer to approve surveillance measures forcing telecommunication companies to retain data for a year. (In the United States, the norm is even longer.)
Now human rights and civil liberties advocates say their worry is not only how France might use the new law, but how other countries will seize on the precedent.
“My fear is that France is setting an example here, and it encourages a race for the bottom on a global level,” said Cynthia Wong, a lawyer and senior Internet researcher for Human Rights Watch. “If France does it, why wouldn’t every other government do the same thing?”
Even so, some analysts and opponents of the new measures said they would not necessarily have prevented Chérif and Saïd Kouachi from massacring 12 people at Charlie Hebdo. Nor would the added measures probably have headed off Amedy Coulibaly from taking hostages days later at a kosher grocery store, killing four of them as well as a police officer, they said.
“The Kouachi brothers and Coulibaly were already targeted by the intelligence services,” said Pierre-Olivier Sur, the head of the Paris bar association, who opposes the new measures.
The authorities, others note, already have more information and suspects than they can possibly track with the current levels of resources and FUNDING, neither of which are augmented by the proposed legislation.
“The law would not have added anything,” Mr. Sur said.
Alissa J. Rubin reported from Paris, and David E. Sanger from Washington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
அமெரிக்க ஈரான் புரிந்துணர்வு ஒப்பந்த மூல வரைபு-தமிழ்
அமெரிக்காவிற்கும் ஈரானுக்கும் இடையிலான ஒப்பந்தத்தின் (புரிந்துணர்வு ஒப்பந்தம்) மூல வரைபு நியூயார்க் டைம்ஸ் ஜூன் 17, 2026, (தமிழாக்கம் கூகி...
-
தமிழகம் வாழ் ஈழத்தமிழர்களை கழகக் கண்டனப் பொதுக்கூட்டத்தில் கலந்து கொள்ளக் கோருகின்றோம்! -
சமரன்: தோழர்கள் மீது எடப்பாடி கொலை வெறித்தாக்குதல், கழகம்...
