One day after Russian tanks crossed the Russia-Ukraine border, the EU invited Russia to participate in EU-Ukraine trade agreement talks. The EU continues to include Russia in efforts toward peace in Ukraine, despite the continued violence of pro-Russian fighters in Ukraine, who, according to the Ukrainian government, the US government, NATO, the EU and others, are aided by Russia–allegations which, although supported by proof, Russia continues to deny.

EU president Herman Van Rompuy made strong statements Saturday on Russia’s involvement in Ukraine. On Saturday, Van Rompuy said, “There is … no doubt that the armed fighters that are terrorizing and disrupting the lives of citizens in Ukraine, are enjoying external support, including arms supply and reinforcement through foreign fighters.”

“As a neighboring state, Russia bears a primary responsibility in ensuring that any such traffic and external support through its borders is immediately stopped,” Van Rompuy further commented.

The US State Department recently confirmed reports that Russian tanks had entered Ukraine, saying, “We assess that separatists in eastern Ukraine have acquired heavy weapons and military equipment from Russia, including Russian tanks and multiple rocket launchers… Russia will claim these tanks were taken from Ukrainian forces, but no Ukrainian tank units have been operating in that area. We are confident that these tanks came from Russia.”

Russia Has Sent Tanks Into Ukraine, Says US State Department

NATO supplied evidence about the veracity of the claims of Russian tanks entering Ukraine over the border. “The tanks do not bear markings or camouflage paint like those used by the Ukrainian military. In fact, they do not have markings at all, which is reminiscent of tactics used by Russian elements that were involved in destabilizing Crimea.

“These images raise significant questions concerning Russia’s role in facilitating instability in eastern Ukraine and its involvement in the movement of military equipment from Russian territory into Ukraine. If these latest reports are confirmed, this would mark a grave escalation of the crisis in eastern Ukraine in violation of Russia’s Geneva commitments”.

Last Friday, however, the president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, restated its willingness to include Russia. “[C]oming back to the agreements with Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia that we are going to sign in Brussels in June 27,” said Barroso, “I want to reiterate our willingness, as European Union, to pursue talks with Russia, to discuss the concrete implementation of these agreements, in case there are any concerns on the Russian side. Of course we have to respect the content of these agreements, what was already decided by the governments of these countries, but if there are some concerns, if there are technical issues that the Russian authorities want to clarify, we are ready for it.”

“So our message, as European Union, is a message of dialogue and cooperation, not a message of confrontation. At the same time we have to be firm in the respect of the sovereign right of any country to decide its own future.”

The EU leader reiterated “an appeal to Russia to engage constructively with Ukraine and to give concrete steps and clear evidence of de-escalating efforts.”

Meanwhile, the fighting in Eastern Ukraine continues. A second Ukrainian troop carrier plane was shot down at an airport near Luhansk airport Friday. The Il-76 transport plane was shot down with a MANPADs and was carrying 40 paratroopers and 9 crew.

The Speaker

KHPG

Reuters

Aviationist

The post Russia Moves Tanks Across Border, Pro-Russian Forces Shoot Down Second Ukrainian Carrier, EU Invites Russia to EU-Ukraine Trade Agreement Talks appeared first on The Speaker.

In response to the exchange of five high-level Taliban operatives for one US soldier–Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl–the US Senate Intelligence Committee held a closed-door briefing Tuesday, wanting answers as to why they were not included in the process, which from the beginning has raised concern for various reasons.

Among the criticisms are that the exchange puts Americans at risk by releasing potentially dangerous Taliban operatives, and that there may have been better alternatives in seeking the return of Bergdahl.

The exchange took place without the Senate’s knowledge despite a promise that the Obama administration would abide by a law that Congress be notified 30 days before any proposed transfer.

Congressmen are calling for an investigation. A full Senate briefing on the exchange has been set for Wednesday. Among the questions already raised are was the price of the exchange too high? was Bergdahl a deserter? was his health really in danger? and were there less costly options?

“Not even the weakest case has been made” to back up the administration’s assertion that Bergdahl’s health was in grave condition, necessitating immediate action, said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga), after the closed-door briefing Tuesday.

Share and Enjoy

The post Sgt. Bergdahl: Congress Wants Answers appeared first on The Speaker.

A new bill has passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee with bipartisan support. The USICA bill, if it passes into law–it is expected to be taken up by the full House as early as this summer and the Senate is working on a similar bill–will abolish the current USIB Act, and the current bipartisan board in charge of international communications for US media, as well as the IBB, will be replaced with a new CEO vested with the authorities currently entrusted to the groups.

The bill was explained for members and committees of Congress in a report published recently by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which was written by Matthew Weed. Representative Ed Royce (R-CA), who is chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said the legislation was essential in the face of negative and inaccurate information increasingly disseminated about the United States abroad, referring to “countries like Russia” and their information campaigns.

The United States International Communications Reform Act of 2014 (H.R. 4490) was introduced April 28 by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Edward Royce with co-sponsors, and the Committee voted in favor of the bill April 30.

The bill states that the BBG “operates poorly under a flawed structure, that the BBG’s internal operations and personnel
decision making have deficiencies, and that U.S. international broadcasters lack clearly defined missions.” The flaw of the “international broadcasters” leads, the bill finds, to “duplicative services and a lack of focus on the ‘public diplomacy’ and ‘surrogate’ missions of the broadcasters.”

The bill has several central provisions. One provision is the creation of a US International Communications Agency (USICA). If the bill is enacted, the current USIB Act would be repealed in its entirety (although HR4490 includes several provisions similar to those in USIB), and effectively abolish the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB). A new agency–USICA–would be established.

There would also be a new board, which would presumably mirror the BBG’s structure. But the USICA Board would only have an advisory role in the new agency. The authority over communications–which is now vested in the bipartisan BBG board of nine governors–would instead be vested in a new USICA Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The CEO would also have the authorities currently vested in the IBB. The board would retain the power to appoint and remove the CEO.

The current system under the BBG is a presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed board, with the Secretary of State serving as the ninth member ex officio. The BBG oversees the IBB, VOA, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB and Radio/TV Marti), Radio Free Europe/Radio Libety (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN).

The bill also provides that US international broadcasting “is alligned with ‘broad’ US foreign policy interests, and reduce overlap in broadcast services.” The bill will do this by requiring the USICA and a new grantee surrogate “Freedom News Network” (FNN) to meet regularly and “coordinate with the US Department of State to share relevant information.”

The USICA would answer and report to Congress, including on matters such as “the size of the workforce, the structure of the organization, contracting methods and practices, and language services performance.”

Modern US international broadcasting is said to have begun during World War II. Since 1994 (United States International Broadcasting Act; USIB Act), all US international communications have been handled by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) within the United States Information Agency (USIA). Members of Congress have frequently expressed interest in oversight over the BBG and its individual broadcasters, according to the congressional report. In 1998, Congress passed legislation establishing the BBG as an independent entity within the executive branch at the same time that it incorporated USIA’s functions into the State Department.

Bill HR4490 and the wider issue of increased congressional power over US broadcasting is expected to receive increased congressional attention during the second session of the 114th Congress, which began January 3.

Related:

New USICA Act Would Create a New US News Agency “Freedom News Agency,” Subsuming Other International News Agencies

HR4490

Congressional Research Service report

Federation of American Scientists

US Foreign Affairs

Share and Enjoy

The post Big Changes in US News Communications if Bill HR4490 Passes appeared first on The Speaker.

Criticism by privacy advocates has caused the U.S. Homeland Security Department (DHS) to review its proposal for private companies to provide the government with a U.S.-wide database of licence plate tracking information.  The concerns raised by privacy advocates include the gratuitous nature of the privacy intrusion, the lack of regulations and safeguards regarding the data collection, and the lack of measures that would provide for audits of the system.

The data collection proposal by the DHS was made public Feb. 12 on the government website, Federal Business Opportunities.  The website, also known as Fed Biz Ops, is a public access service on which all Federal Procurement Opportunities over $25,000 are available to view.  The DHS’s solicitation was for a private company to collect, store, and provide license plate data on a national scale.  The data collection, similar to the NSA’s bulk telephony data collection, would constantly track and forever store the movements of vehicles across America.  Like telephone metadata, location data can often tell more than content data about behavior and activities.  Jennifer Lynch, attorney at Electronic Frontier Foundation, explained that this type of data can tell who a person associates with, what religion they practice, and what doctors they visit, among other information.

One concern raised by privacy advocates is that a program such as the one proposed would track the behavior and activities of non-criminal citizens.  Privacy advocates consider this an imposition and do not believe the imposition has justification in its benefits to law enforcement.  Another concern is that the proposed program had no specific regulations or safeguards.  There was no telling low long records would be kept or what government agencies besides the DHS would have access to the records. Relatedly, the method of use for the system included anonymous, alias, and full identity use, which caused privacy advocates concern because there would be no way to audit the use of the database and so no way to know which information requests were legitimate or hold accountable unidentifiable abusers of the system.

Mike German, a former F.B.I. special agent and current fellow at New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice, speaking on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, stated that there should be “strict public guidelines” about what information is collected, who has access to that information, and for what purposes the information is allowed to be used.   German also commented on government claims that the information was necessary to help solve serious crimes, saying that the information is often used for very low-level crimes.

The plan proposed by the DHS was for a commercial enterprise to collect and store license plate data (rather than the government creating its own database).  The targets of the plan, according the DHS, were fugitives and undocumented immigrants.  The system would have allowed officers of the law, once those officers had an investigative lead, to query the database with plate numbers to determine where and when the vehicle traveled.  The plan included a smartphone ap so that information records would be available around-the-clock and from any location.

Currently, several large private companies are already providing license plate data to businesses and law enforcement agencies.  Law enforcement agencies have used these services to recover abducted children, solve murders, and track down automobiles for repossession.  License plate databanks also reduce surveillance man-hours and improve the safety of law enforcement officers, according the U.S. immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

The U.S.-wide license plate data collection program proposal was cancelled by the Department of Homeland Security the week after it was submitted.  No official reason was provided for why the proposal was made or why it was withdrawn. Gillian Christensen, a spokesperson for ICE, announced that the proposal had been made “without the awareness of the ICE leadership.”

By Day Blakely Donaldson

Sources:

Businessweek
Businessweek
Burlington Free Press

Share and Enjoy

The post U.S. Department of Homeland Security Reconsiders U.S.-Wide Licence Plate Data Collection Program appeared first on The Speaker.

The U.S. has a special relationship with South Sudan, being responsible in large part for the creation of South Sudan in 2011. Last Friday a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing was held in Washington about South Sudan, specifically about civil unrest and ethnic cleansing in the country.

The Senate engaged in dialogue with two panels. First the current U.S. Envoy to South Sudan was interviewed, led by Linda Thomas-Greenfield. Second a panel of experts on South Sudan was interviewed.

What follows in this article is a summary of the Committee hearing. Senators took turns asking questions of the panels. Senators sometimes made statements themselves. The article refers to all senators and panel-members as “the U.S.” for sake of convenience. Obviously, it does not represent the views of any particular member involved, but is a shorthand of how the U.S. views South Sudan.

What is South Sudan, in America?

South Sudan is the world’s youngest nation, having been formed finally in 2011. South Sudan is still a somewhat fragile democracy, but had been–before December 15–a success story in America.

America has been South Sudan’s strongest international champion. In Washington, South Sudan has a powerful and interested constituency. America has invested hundreds of millions in aid to South Sudan. The U.S. has invested a total of possibly around $12 billion in South Sudan. America’s most recent aid portfolio was $350 million. The U.S. has now added $50 million to the $350 million.

U.S. diplomat for Africa Thomas-Greenfield explained why South Sudan matters to the U.S. this way:

“For 30 years the United States has been supporting the people of South Sudan, even before South Sudan became an entity, supporting their right to exist, their right to freedom of religion, and their fight against the government of Sudan. We birthed this nation and there are Americans from all walks of life … who are concerned about what is happening.”

U.S. presence in South Sudan

The U.S. in South Sudan is currently working very closely with the UN, NGOs and international partners, both at the Juba level and in Nairobi. The U.S. has been seen by both sides of the conflict as an honest broker between the two. The U.S. has also been accused by both sides of aiding the other.

The UN in South Sudan

The UN mission in South Sudan was not there to deal with civil violence. Violence broke out suddenly in mid December. The violence was something new to the peacekeepers, who hadn’t before thought of aggressive peacekeeping as their mission. The UN operation was largely concerned with statebuilding. The current UN mission is divided into separate categories, such as government capacity building, standing up of new institutions, etc.

Does statebuildling represent leverage in situations like the current conflict? Does the aid and assistance given represent leverage the U.S. can use? Is it effective at all, or just on the margins, or not at all? The U.S. did not provide a clear answer to this.

The UN, in order to meet the new challenges of South Sudan, will have to organize, provide and train for a different role: aggressive peace-keeping. The mission will have to protect civilians. UN compounds will have to be secured against rebel encroachment. Protected areas will have to be patrolled. A ceasefire–when it comes–will have to be monitored and reported. It will take the UN mission a while to adjust to this very different type of mission.

Challenges to providing aid in South Sudan

Security challenges in South Sudan are the main–almost the only–obstruction to distributing aid, but logistical challenges also exist. For example, the White Nile is a highway for supplies, but all barges on the White Nile have been commandeered and can’t move relief supplies. There are few roads in South Sudan. The rainy season is upcoming (May). Now–the dry season–is the time when provisions need to be pre-positioned around the country for the coming year.

Status of current U.S. aid in South Sudan

U.S. aid is being altered by the rebel outbreak. U.S. aid had gone to the South Sudanese government. Therefore, the U.S. can’t implement this aid right now. The U.S. has considered that if violence continues the U.S. should suspend support. The U.S. committee was not certain how much U.S. aid would run to South Sudan if a new government was instituted in the event of a successful coup.

Current U.S. aid measures taking place

The U.S. has begun to fund additional flights for the UN to distribute aid, but this is expensive because it is not an organized distribution mission based on most effective and economical means. The flights are emergency, immediate, individual missions. Aid cannot be moved to an optimal degree nor as quickly using this type of method.

Mass graves

Thomas-Greenfield stated that the reports of mass graves has not been confirmed, and that confirmation would be the job of UN workers who would go out into the field to find out.

Refugees in South Sudan

The outflow of refugees into neighboring countries takes the problems of South Sudan into those other countries, who–given their recent histories–know well what will be the impact of refugees on their economies and societies.

The region is one that already has significant displacement of persons, and there are already pressures of dealing with such significant displacement of persons.

Uganda’s activity in South Sudan

Uganda came in at the request of South Sudan. Ugandan military has has been tasked with protecting infrastructure at the airport, on Juba road, and protecting Ugandan citizens. Uganda is prepared to aid militarily in South Sudan.

China and what China will do regarding the South Sudan crisis

China went further than it ever has in just making a statement that the sides should cease hostilities. China’s interests are actually much deeper than the U.S. or any other country regarding national security. China will therefore act, America believes, but not publicly. The U.S. seeks ways to engage China in supporting stability in South Sudan. The U.S. seeks to find common ground with China so that they can together support peace efforts in South Sudan. One expert suggestion at the committee had to do with reforming the TROIKA plus China (and India) for leverage, due to the major oil investment of China and India in South Sudan.

Other countries in South Sudan

The U.S. seeks to put collective pressure on South Sudan’s leaders during key point moments, when there needs to be a push.

Currently, South Sudan is staffed with peacekeepers from Bengal, Kenya, Nigeria, and is expecting Guineans.

South Sudanese oil

Most of the oil pumping in South Sudan has ceased, according to Thomas-Greenfield, leaving South Sudan without much to fall back on. This statement contradicts somewhat the South Sudanese government’s statements that oil production has fallen 45 000 barrels per day to 200 000 due to Unity State fighting–that is to say Upper Nile State is still producing 200 000 bpd.

The U.S. decided that South Sudan would need to have a more dynamic relationship regarding its economy. South Sudan should not just have oil production. The U.S. noted that the second largest revenue source in South Sudan was a brewery.

Droughts and floods in South Sudan

Climate change creates a threat multiplier in South Sudan because draughts and floods create negative consequences for agriculture and food security. The overwhelming majority of South Sudanese depend on agriculture. Poverty is also linked to this situation. Floods and droughts create a negative feedback loop wherein civilians fight for smaller and smaller amounts of natural resources, making it more difficult to solve the original problem. Any disruption in agricultural production–whether flood, drought, or civil violence–rolls back any progress and gains previously made. Steps must be taken to reduce the long-term impact of climate change in South Sudan. Greater resilience to floods and droughts must be created. There must be greater management of risk.

Machar and Kiir

No evidence was seen by the U.S. that the outbreak was a coup attempt by Machar. Thomas-Greenfield stated that the outbreak had been “the consequence of a huge political rift” in South Sudan.

The U.S. noted that Machar split from the SPLA in the 90s and had massacred Dinka. The U.S. also noted that party dissenters do not favor Machar; rather, party dissenters criticize the ways policy institution dissolvements have taken place during Kiir’s presidency.

The U.S. stated that Kiir must accept his burden as president and play his role more effectively. The U.S. sees Kiir, though, “for all his faults” as “the democratically elected President, and you have to build on that.” The U.S. remembered Kiir’s past. Kiir had been proud of and admired for creating unity among all the groups in the run-up to the formation of South Sudan. This was one of the reasons Kiir was highly supported. Kiir has changed direction since then. Kiir now sees all critics as enemies. Kiir’s original contribution is being lost.

Dinka and Nuer tribes

The tribal question was of interest to the U.S. 30-35 percent of South Sudan is Dinka, although that group contains many subgroups. Nuer is the second largest ethnic group. There are 65 ethnic groups in South Sudan. There was reference to the problem of possible all-out tribal war as being “a numbers thing,” and in which the U.S. should “forget the mandate.”

Accountability for humanitarian crimes

The U.S. stated that those actors who are guilty of violence should not be part of a new government. Charles Taylor and Liberia were remembered. The U.S. wants to see an example set that war criminals will be tried in the international court.

U.S. selling arms to South Sudan

In January 2012 Obama added South Sudan to the U.S. list of countries eligible to buy weapons from the U.S., although the EU maintained an arms embargo on South Sudan. The U.S. authorized $9 million in weapons sales to South Sudan, and $3 million were actually shipped to South Sudan.

Possible new restrictions on weapons sales to South Sudan

In light of the fact that there is a risk that the weapons will be used to commit atrocities, the U.S. is considering suspending or limiting weapons sales to South Sudan. There was a call for a review of U.S. arms exports in general, which weapons were used to commit human rights violations. A statement was made that the U.S. has the responsibility for longterm harm if the U.S. does sell weapons.

The video of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in Washington Friday:

By Day Blakely Donaldson

Sources:

CSPAN
UN
Yahoo
Gurtong
Radio Miraya
DW
BBC

Share and Enjoy

The post South Sudan: How Does the U.S. View South Sudan? appeared first on The Speaker.