Sgt. Bergdahl: Congress Wants Answers

Bergdahl
Share this
Share

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.

By James Haleavy

Ukraine Suing Russia for 1 Trillion for Crimea

ukraine
Share this
Share

Russia is being sued by Ukraine for 1 trillion Ukrainian Hryvnias (UAH) for the illegal annexation of Crimea. The announcement was made by Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk Tuesday in the Verkhovna Rada.

The PM told the Parliament, “Ukraine has begun the process. The General Prosecutor’s Office has launched an investigation. And in a criminal case, the Ukrainian government filed suit in the amount of more than UAH 1 trillion.”

“The problems lie in the international legal plane,” said Yatsenyuk. “There are not many options for suing. But, without revealing all the legal details, we will use all possible legal means to bring the Russian Federation to court.”

Ukraine has filed two complaints with the European Court of Human Rights directly on the annexation of the Crimea and the responsibility of the Russian Federation to Ukraine, said the PM. Ukraine was also preparing claims against Russia for illegal seizure and robbery.

“We recognize that such trials do not take place in a month, but a legal process will be the result,” said Yatsenyuk.

Pavel Petrenko, Ukraine’s justice minister commented on the 1 trillion figure. “To date the amount of the loss is 1 trillion 80 billion. Due to the limitation of the use of objects, property and minerals, this amount will continue to grow,” said the Minister.

By Day Blakely Donaldson

Pravda Ukraine

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

Freedom News Network
Share this
Share

Bill HR4490, which has already passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee with bipartisan support, and is expected to be taken up by the full House as early as this summer, would create a new “federal news network,” called Freedom News Network, which would subsume other US international news agencies.

Under a section of the bill headed “Creation of the Federal News Network,” the bill is explained to provide for the creation of the Freedom News Network (FNN), consolidating the grantee broadcasters Radio Free Europe/Radio Libety (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN) into one “surrogate” grantee broadcaster. The brands would remain unchanged, thus maintaining “audience name recognition.”

The board for the FNN would be composed of new individuals appointed by the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House of Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees.

The FNN would also expand its programming “into regions where no current individual surrogate broadcaster currently operates,” such as sub-Saharan Africa.

The FNN’s mission is provided by the new bill: “[sharpening] the legislative vision of the proper focus for surrogate programming, directing the new grantee to promote democracy, civil society, free media, political freedom, and uncensored flows of information”

By Day Blakely Donaldson

Related:

Big Changes in US News Communications if Bill HR4490 Passes

HR4490

Congressional Research Service report

Federation of American Scientists

US Foreign Affairs

Big Changes in US News Communications if Bill HR4490 Passes

HR4490
Share this
Share

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.

By Day Blakely Donaldson

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

4,500 Russian Fighters Have Crossed the Ukraine Border

Ukraine
Share this
Share

4,500 Russian fighters have illegally crossed the Ukraine border from Russia into Donetsk and Lugansk, said Yaroslav Gonchar, deputy commander of the Azov battalion to the Ukraine Independent Information Agency (UNIAN) Thursday.

“According to the information that I have, approximately four and a half thousand fighters from Russia have entered into Donetsk and Lugansk regions illegally,” said Gonchar. “These fighters are rabble of the former Soviet Union.”

“The situation has developed in such a way that we have an unprotected border, and the rabble is able to cross the border of our country,” said the volunteer commander.

Azov battalion is a volunteer battalion of territorial defense for the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. Azov battalion is based in Mariupol, on the Azov Sea. It was established during the recent unrest in southern and eastern Ukraine. The battalion is based temporarily in Berdyansk.

Armed fighters have also been reported to be flooding into Donetsk since last weekend. The fighters have been reported to be from Russia in part–particularly from Chechnya and other North Caucasus regions. The fighters are heavily armed.

By Day Blakely Donaldson

UA

LSE

Art of Italian Furniture Design: Joseph Grima: “A New Idea Will Be Born”

Joseph Grima
Share this
Share

Joseph Grima, editor-in-chief of Domus magazine, recently commented on the state of design in Italy–a country with a long design tradition and which has undergone a prolonged crisis, saying that “an era is drawing to an end for Italian design,” and “a new idea will be born.” Grima’s words on the current state and future of Italian furniture design showed a strong vestment in cultural tradition and an understanding of the influence of the system that surrounds designers.

“I think crisis can engender nostalgia, especially when it’s so protracted,” Grima said. Grima spoke of a new idea that will be born, and the hope for such an idea in the contemporary Italian design world. “Something new will emerge,” he said.

As to how this new thing wound enter Italian furniture design, Grima said, “Some hope that new technologies will bring that era in. The digital technologies that we talked a lot about last year, they lend themselves also to being combined with traditional knowledges  regarding materials, the kind of craft–hands-on skills of the artisans that exist in this region and are unrivaled anywhere else.

Grima made his comments in relation to the annual show at the Triennale, where a wide range of Italian designers present.

“I think it’s interesting that at the Triennale the annual design museum exhibition is very much on the theme of the great masters and the past and Italian design almost searching for comfort in its own history, and Italy trying to remind itself that there is something there,” said Grima.

“I think everybody realizes that possibly an era is drawing to an end and a new era is beginning.”

I think some manufacturers are really seriously beginning to think about how they can engage a completely different model of design industry.”

Grima spoke of a distinction between the Italian design tradition and the tradition currently experiencing favor, citing relatively prosperous London. “The great tradition that was born here was not born from the tradition of schools. It’s actually the direct contact between the masters and the craftsmen. It’s almost an apprenticeship model, which is something really, really different from the London model, for example. That’s something that now is in a little bit of a crisis because it’s something that’s not as easy to perpetuate, and the world has moved a little bit more towards being aligned with the schools model.”

Of London, where wealth gained through financial services has been replaced by fast-growing, digital community, Grima said, “I think the reason that that’s sprung up in London is a direct consequence of London being one of the great education centers of the world. It’s got some of the best universities and the best schools.”

Grima did not think the state of Italy was conductive to design innovation. “I think there’s a lot of uncertainty, and the political model of course is not encouraging,” he said

Of the system, Grima said, “It can [move forward with the times]. It’s not a system that is predisposed to naturally move in that direction, and it’s one of the paradoxes of Italy that on the one hand it’s completely–it’s one of the most innovative, creative countries in the world, indisputably. On the other hand, the culture of bureaucracy, the actual framework–the mental framework, the bureaucratic framework, the economic framework of the nation–is, actually, one would be forgiven for actually thinking that it had been designed to suppress any sort of creative, vital energy of creating something new. It’s really–some aspects of it are really beyond belief.

Finally, of the current situation in which Italy is importing designers from around the world, and in which great designers are not living in the country, Grima said,  “I don’t think it necessarily matters, because I don’t think you can expect to survive by perpetuating the past, and I think Milan still has an undisputed role as the design capital of the world, and as long as it is able to look out to the world and kind of capture, and be the arbiter in a way of what is interesting and what is innovative in the design world, that’s something that can be equally as important as being simply the product of a lot of small countries.”

By Joseph Reight

Domus

MIA New Self-Directed Music Video “Double Bubble Trouble” Feat. Neon 3-D Printed Guns and Peace Sign Drones – BRIEF

MIA
Share this
Share

MIA self-directed the music video for her latest release, “Double Bubble Trouble,” in which attractive, customized 3-D printed guns in various shapes and sizes owned and shared by young people and neon peace-sign drones hover over groups of girl dancers.

121105-MIA3

The video also flashes an infomercial of 3-D printing guns, 1984, groups of teen boys being made out with by blonde teen girls in a row, rape rings, fashion, flashing images, helmet cams, sweat-pants room-dancers, fish-tank bongs, smiling-face Niqab, Japanese kanji, tattoos, e-cigarettes, gun-flashing and gun-pointing, American military-style drones, picture-in-picture, “YES WE CAN,” pop tags, security cameras, ying-yangs, parrots with neon guns, monkeys, and grills.

Russian President Putin “Lies,” Speaks “Fiction” and Makes “False Claims,” Say US State Department, NY Times, Others

Vladimir Putin
Share this
Share

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s statements, affirmations and denials in recent months have caused the US State Department, the New York Times, and other news agencies to begin to publish articles labeling his words “lies,” “fiction” and “false claims.”

Putin has maintained strong stances against accusations of Russian involvement in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, as well as on the purpose and presence of Russian troops stationed near the Eastern Ukrainian border, but realities have shown otherwise.

On April 17 chinks in the veneer began to show when Putin publicly stated that Russian troops were at work in Crimea from the outset. Putin had previously denied any Russian participation in Crimea. The Russian representation at the UN and Russian diplomats in serving in foreign countries had also vehemently denied accusations of Russia’s actions. In the same nationally televised presentation, Putin referred to Eastern Ukraine as “New Russia,” but continued to deny that so-called pro-Russian forces attacking buildings in Eastern Ukraine and calling for Russian intervention and Crimea-style referendums to separate from Ukraine were Russian soldiers. Putin called such allegations “all nonsense.”

Justifying the pro-Russian presence in Crimea, Putin stated, “They acted politely, but resolutely and professionally. There was no other way to hold the referendum in an open, honest and honorable way and allow the people to express their opinion.”

On April 20, the New York Times reported on photos endorsed by the Obama administration linking the “green men” operating in Eastern Ukraine to the Russian military. The Ukrainian government also announced they had proof the forces were Russian in origin.

Then, on May 17, Ostro reported that the head of the self-proclaimed Peoples Republic of Donetsk (DRP), Aleksandr Boroday, had told a press conference that the forces in Crimea and those in East Ukraine were under “a single command” and that he had worked in Crimea as a spin doctor.

A of group of the DRP, who had forcefully occupied Donetsk government buildings, pronounced a separate state April 7, and held a Crimea-style referendum May 11. The DRP announced that the turnout for the referendum was 75 percent and the vote was 89 percent in favor of separation from Ukraine.

During the original Crimean occupation by Russia–which at the time was not admitted to be participated in by Russia–Russia amassed a sizable military force near Crimea on Russian soil, but after the peaceable annexation of the peninsula in the wake of the March 16 referendum, the force was withdrawn. A force then amassed on the borders of Eastern Ukraine. Originally, the Russian government denied any buildup of troops. Then Putin continuously maintained that the buildup was for military exercises, of which NATO and other organizations reported they had seen no evidence. At the end of March Putin announced that the massive Russian force had been ordered to withdraw, but NATO and other organizations reported that they had seen no evidence of withdrawal. Then again on May 19, Putin publicly ordered the forces Ukrainian border to return to their home bases, and said that the withdrawal had started. Again, NATO stated that it had seen no sign of soldiers returning to their bases.

The response to Putin’s words and the contrast with Russian actions have caused Western politicians and media to begin to label Putin as a falsifier and a liar. On March 5 the Office of the Spokesperson of the US State Department published a statement on the US State Department website titled, “President Putin’s Fiction: 10 False Claims About Ukraine,” where the office lists 10 of “Putin’s recent claims justifying Russian aggression in the Ukraine, followed by the facts that his assertions ignore or distort.”

On March 6, the New York Times–America’s second-largest newspaper by circulation and most popular with internet readers–covered the Russian response to the US State Department article, but in its headline called the 10 Russian claims “Lies.”

The long list of news organizations which have begun to publish articles on Putin as using lies include Forbes, the National Post, and Telegraph UK.

A senior White House official commented on the most recent statements by Putin about the withdrawal of troops on the eastern border of Ukraine, “As you’ll recall, they’ve made similar claims before. They made them at the end of March and didn’t follow through, so we’ll be tracking this closely over the course of today and the coming days, and we’ll want to see clear, firm evidence of this move before we make any judgment.”

By James Haleavy

Sources:

US State Department

Seattle Times

New York Times

New York Times

Ostro

The Interpreter

East Ukraine Pro-Russian Leader Admits Crimea and East Ukraine Operations All Prepared by “A Single Command,” and Other Admissions

Ukraine
Share this
Share

Alexsandr Boroday, the leader of the Donetsk Peoples Republic in East Ukraine held a press conference Saturday in which he admitted that the pro-Russian actions in Crimea as well as those in Donetsk, Lugansk and other contended areas in Eastern Ukraine, made up a team and were organized by “a single command.”

Boroday, who is a Moscow native and a citizen of Russia, also admitted that he had personally “worked in Crimea,” although he maintained that he was acting as “a private person” in Ukraine.

“I will not hide the fact that I worked in the Crimea, said Boroday,” explaining his work in Crimea was as a spin doctor.”

Boroday also stated that he had been “involved in political and business consulting for various structures” “for many years,” and that he was seeking Russia’s annexation of East Ukraine.

Boroday declined to answer the question of whose project he and other pro-Russian forces were implementing in Crimea and East Ukraine.

By Day Blakely Donaldson

Source:

Ostro

Russian Troops Photo Released Again Reveals No Withdrawal on Ukraine Border, Contradicting Claims of Russian Government

Russia
Share this
Share

Tuesday, the US government released satellite images which show Russian forces still near Ukraine’s eastern border, contradicting assertions by the Russian government of late that the forces had been withdrawn.

The photos were published by the US State Department and on the US Mission to NATO’s Twitter account. The troops pictured are assembled at Belgorod, May 9.

Russian President Vladimir Putin had announced the withdrawal last Wednesday. Both the US and NATO countered that they had seen no withdrawal.

“The reality is that Russia continues to have 40,000 high readiness troops massed on Ukraine’s border and another 25,000 troops in Crimea,” countered NATO Allied Command Operations Spokesman Colonel Martin Downie. “The units on the latest satellite pictures show mechanised infantry, armoured vehicles and combat helicopters,” he said in a statement. “These units are there to intimidate Ukraine’s government and they could be used for an invasion of Ukraine, if ordered by Moscow. We will continue to keep a close eye on Russia’s actions near our borders.”

Last April, NATO published similar satellite images, but the Russian government denied the images were recent, saying they were taken last August.

By Day Blakely Donaldson

Sources:

NATO 

Euronews

Russia “State Sponsor of Terrorism” Petition to White House Passes Half Way Mark

Russia
Share this
Share

The petition to designate Russia a “state sponsor of terrorism” has passed the half way mark at the Obama Administration’s White House. The petition currently has 54,085 signatures, and needed only 45,915 signatures by May 23 to to qualify for reaching its goal of 100,000.

The petition, created April 23, reads,

“In its unannounced war against Ukraine, Russia relies on covert operations which fall squarely within the definition of ‘international terrorism’ under 18 U.S.C. § 2331. Specifically, armed operatives of Russia, acting under disguise, attempt to influence the policy of Ukrainian government by intimidation or coercion. They also try to affect the conduct of a government by assassinations and kidnapping, taking by force government buildings, police posts and military bases of Ukraine. This activity is being conducted on large scale and over prolonged time period, despite condemnation by the USA, G-7, NATO, EU and UN.

“Accordingly, Russia must be officially designated as ‘State sponsor of terrorism’, per http://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm”

Code 18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines “international terrorism” as activities that occur outside of the US and “involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;” and “appear to be intended” “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;” “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or” “to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.”

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2331, “act of war” means “any act occurring in the course of” “declared war;” “armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or” “armed conflict between military forces of any origin.”

State sponsors of terrorism are, according to the US State Department, “countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.” State sponsors of terrorism currently include Syria (added 1979), Cuba (1982), Iran (1984), Sudan (1993).

Nations designated “state sponsor of terrorism” are subject to three US laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. These laws restrict US foreign assistance, ban defense exports and sales and some other items, and provide financial and other restrictions. People and countries engaging in certain trade with a “state sponsor” are also implicated in sanctions and penalties.

By Day Blakely Donaldson

Sources:

Petition at White House

US State Department

Findlaw

 

South Sudan Peace Deal Broken in Two Days, Two Accusations by Two Leaders

south sudan
Share this
Share

The peace deal signed by South Sudanese leaders President Salva Kiir and Dr Riek Machar in Addis Abada, Ethiopia, Friday has been broken. Both sides are blaming the other.

The agreement came at the urging of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who visited South Sudan Friday and spoke to the two warring leaders. Pressure has also begun to build on South Sudanese leaders due to the beginnings of American sanctions, which targeted generals of both sides of the conflict.

The peace deal was broken just hours after its coming into force. Several attacks took place Sunday morning in South Sudan. The two leaders blamed each other.

“This morning at 6:30 AM Riek Machar forces attacked our forces at Rubkona in Unity State,” said Kiir. “They attacked our forces and we repulsed them and they ran away left dead bodies down there that was one case. When it reached 8:20 AM this morning, Riek Machar forces attacked our base at Kilo-Kamsin east of Bentiu capital of Unity State. They fought and they were also repulsed. The same morning at 9:00 AM, they attacked our forces at Mathiang north- east of Nassir. All in all, they were beaten back and they ran away.”

The opposition reported that it was in fact the government who initiated the fighting. Military spokesman Brigadier-General Lul Ruai Koang said that government forces launched attacks on their bases in Unity State and Upper Nile State hours after the ceasefire.

By Day Blakely Donaldson

Source:

Eye Radio, South Sudan