Nicholas Winton organized the escape of 669 children, mostly Jews, from Czechoslovakia on the eve of World War II. After Mr. Winton died on July 1, at age 106, The New York Times asked the survivors, the original Winton’s Children, and their descendants — whose numbers now exceed 6,000 — to share their stories. Below are selected responses, edited and condensed for clarity. Mr. Salz in 1943, in his Royal Air Force uniform Paul Salz, 91 Winton Child I was 15 when my parents decided to send me to England. Before that, I had moved to Prague where my parents had an apartment. They were living in Stodo, Czechoslovakia, but were forced to flee when the Germans took over the Sudetenland. I left Prague on one of Mr. Winton’s trains with 10 Marks in my pocket for spending money. At the German-Dutch border, German guards searched all of our luggage. They confiscated my 10 Marks. In January 1940, I got word that my parents and brother were able to emigrate to the United States. At 20, I volunteered to join the Royal Air Force. I arrived in the United States in 1948 and reunited with my parents and brother after a little more than eight years. I met my wife, Lottie, at the International House at the University of California, Berkeley. She was Czech, but did not have the advantage of being one of Winton’s Children. She had been put into the Terezin concentration camp, then Dachau. She survived but her parents did not. We married July 1, 1953, and have two daughters and four grandchildren. I was an electical engineer at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory for nearly 40 years. Amit Yahav, 28 Grandson of Ernst Steiner, a Winton Child My grandfather Ernst Steiner and his family moved to Bratislava, Czechoslovakia, when the Germans invaded Prague. He joined a group of children there who were taken back to Prague to join the main Kindertransport organized by Nicholas Winton in May 1939. Tragically, they were only able to get a spot for Ernst, not his two brothers or his sister. At age 12, my grandfather bade farewell to his father and set off on a journey to England. He lived in a children’s home in East London that was run by some Jewish women. From 1941 to 1942, my grandfather exchanged letters with his family with the help of the Red Cross through Switzerland. In 1943, the letters stopped. The children, including my grandfather, were enrolled in the Jews’ Free School and, during the Blitz, were evacuated to the city of Ely in Cambridgeshire. From 1941 to 1942, my grandfather exchanged letters with his family with the help of the Red Cross through Switzerland. In 1943, the letters stopped. We later found out that his family had been sent to concentration camps. My grandfather’s father and older brother were killed at the Majdanek concentration camp in Poland. There are no death certificates for my grandfather’s mother, his younger brother or his younger sister. Near the end of the war, in 1945, my grandfather — now 87 and living in Petah Tikva, near Tel Aviv — joined the British Army and served in the Jewish Brigade in Berlin and elsewhere in Europe. In 1948, when he was demobilized from the British Army, he immigrated to Israel, where he met and married my grandmother in 1950. They had two children and four grandchildren. Helen Sprinzels, 60 Daughter of Peter Henry Sprinzels, a Winton Child My father, Peter Henry Sprinzels, was one of the children rescued by Sir Nicholas Winton from Prague in 1939. Unlike most rescued children who were placed with foster families in England, his own father (my grandfather), was the guarantor. I believe my father never talked about the train trip from Prague because of the painful memories associated with having to leave his mother when he was so young. I recently visited Prague to try to find out what happened to his mother and his paternal grandmother. I discovered their names on the wall of a synagogue in Prague that displayed the names of victims of the Holocaust. My father attended Cambridge University and emigrated to Australia around 1949 on a scholarship and earned his PhD in biochemistry from Melbourne University in 1953. He and my mother had three children and four grandchildren. He died in 1989. My family and I had a chance to meet Mr. Winton this year, before his death. Sarah Kovar, 33 Granddaughter of Nina Klein, a Winton Child At 17, my grandmother Nina Klein was one of the children Sir Nicholas Winton saved. Both of her parents and most of her family were killed in concentration camps; her parents were killed at Auschwitz, being on one of the last transports from Theresienstadt. She later met my grandfather Viktor Kovar a soldier in the Free Czech British Army. They eventually returned to Prague where they had one child, my father. Their home country was not what they remembered. Too many family members and friends had been killed and their communities destroyed, so along with their two-year-old, my father, they moved to Sydney to start a new life. Her mother gave her this diamond and told her to keep it under her tongue the whole way to London. ‘Let no one see it,’ she said. My grandfather died in 1971. My grandmother went on to marry again twice in her life, ending up in Washington D.C. where she lived with third husband, Morton (Buddy) Friedman, a retired federal judge. She died in 2009. My three brothers and I owe our lives to Sir Winton. We simply would not be here without him. My grandmother wore a beautiful diamond ring her whole life. When I was little, I remember asking her where it came from. She told me that the last time she saw her mother was when she was put on Sir Winton’s train. Her mother gave her this diamond and told her to keep it under her tongue the whole way to London. “Let no one see it,” she said. If my grandmother were to be captured by the Nazis, she was to use it to buy her future, perhaps using it to bargain for her life. She never saw her mother again. She kept that diamond under her tongue the whole way. She told me she wore it for the rest of her life, as she told me, to her, it represented survival. Claire Speed, 53 Daughter of Emma Speed (née Zucker), a Winton Child My mother, Emmy, was 13 years old when she boarded the sixth and largest of the Kindertransports that made it out of Prague on July 1, 1939. I once asked her how she felt as she waved goodbye to her mother, Helen, who was standing in the darkness on the platform of Prague’s main train station. “I felt nothing,” she replied. “I was numb.” Her father had committed suicide, having said that, at his age, he would be a hindrance to his family’s efforts to begin life anew outside of the country. Four months prior to her leaving, so much had changed for her family. Her father had committed suicide, having said that, at his age, he would be a hindrance to his family’s efforts to begin life anew outside of the country. In his note to Emmy, he wrote: “Forgive your father, for he can do no more for you.” Her brother Ernest had already left for England. Her mother, having just lost her husband and her son, wasn’t about to say goodbye to Emmy. A German woman finally convinced Helen: “If she were my child, I would send her.” My mother lived for five years with her foster family in Nottingham, where she attended a Catholic high school. In 1944, she took a merchant ship to New York en route to Mexico to join her mother who managed passage from Prague just before the war broke out. Emmy earned a scholarship to attend Rosary College in Chicago. After that she worked at a Catholic newspaper in Kansas City and then New York, eventually moving to Toronto where her mother and brother had settled. She married my father, a British immigrant, in 1956. They had five daughters. Anita Grosz, 59 Daughter of Hanus Grosz, a Winton Child My father, Hanus Grosz, and his brother, Karel Gross, from Brno, Czechoslovakia, were saved by Nicholas Winton. My father was 15 and my uncle was 13 when they left for England. Their father died in Terezin and their mother was killed in Auschwitz. They were sponsored to come to England by Lilian Bowes-Lyon, a first cousin of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. The boys were first placed on a farm in Warborough to do manual labor, followed by a series of farm training camps. My father went to Czechloslovakia after the war to look for family. In Prague there were boards where you could search for family names, but he didn’t find anything. In 1948, he started medical school at the Welsh National School of Medicine where he specialized in psychiatry. He felt there was a lot of anti-semitism in the English medical field, so around 1959, he moved to Einstein University Hospital in New York to receive training in neurology. He went on to teach Psychiatry and Neurology at the Indiana University School of Medicine. After retiring he focused on helping victims of crime and people struggling with addiction. He died in 2001. Hanna Slome (née Beer), 90 Winton Child It was my mother who must have found out about Nicholas Winton and signed me up. On May 15, 1939, I left Prague on a train for England. I had just turned 14. My mother assured me the night before that we would soon be together again. I never saw her again. I ended up in the same boarding house in London where my father and brother had been staying. They had left Ostrava, in Moravia, a province of Czechoslovakia, on March 15, 1939, and reached England as refugees. My friend Marion’s family sent me a copy of the list of names, and there was my name. That’s how I found out that I, too, was one of Winton’s Children.’ My father committed suicide when he found out that my mother had died in a concentration camp, and my brother committed suicide later, when faced with the prospect of retirement. I left England in 1944 and moved to the United States, where I settled in Queens. I married in October 1948, and my husband died shortly after our 25th wedding anniversary. We have two children and seven grandchildren. I had never talked much about my rescue, and I didn’t want to relive that part of my life. But in 1999, a friend, Marion Feigl, who was one of Winton’s Children, told me about a Czech-language film, “All My Loved Ones.” I watched it, and at the end of the film, there was a list of names, but my eyes were filled with tears, so I was unable to read the names. My friend Marion’s family sent me a copy of the list of names, and there was my name. That’s how I found out that I, too, was one of Winton’s Children. Shulamit Amir (née Englander), 88 Winton Child I was saved by Sir Nicholas when I was 12 years old. My mother sent me on the train that left Prague on May 13, 1939. I never saw her again. I spent the war years in London, where my father was waiting for me. By chance, he had not been in Czechoslovakia when the Germans invaded. He made his way to England, hoping that my mother would manage to get me out. When I finished school, I went to teacher training college. I moved to Israel in 1947 to marry a man who was serving in the Jewish Brigade, which was part of the British Army. We have four children, 10 grandchildren and two great-granddaughters. My father stayed in England until his death in 1972. Copyright: New York Times 2015

A two-day conferencefocusing on ending the persecution of Burma's Rohingyas concluded today, with a call from seven Nobel Peace Laureates to describe the Rohingya plight as nothing less than a genocide. In his pre-recorded address to the conference, Desmond Tutu, leader of South Africas anti- apartheid movement in the 1980s, called for an end to the slow genocide of the Rohingya. Tutu;s appeal was amplified by six other fellow Nobel Peace laureates: Mairead Maguire from Northern Ireland, Jody Williams from the USA, Tawakkol Karman from Yeman, Shirin Ibadi from Iran, Leymah Gbowee from Liberia, and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel from Argentina. They stated that, ;what Rohingyas are facing is a textbook case of genocide in which an entire indigenous community is being systematically wiped out by the Burmese government; Philanthropist George Soros drew a parallel between his childhood memories of life in a Jewish ghetto under the Nazi occupation in Hungary and the plight of the Rohingya after visiting refugee camps where they are currently being housed.;In 1944, as a Jew in Budapest, I, too was a Rohingya…The parallels to the Nazi genocide are alarming; he said, in a pre-recorded address to the Oslo conference. The meeting was held at the prestigious Norwegian Nobel Institute and Voksenaasen Conference Center in Oslo, Norway. It was attended by Buddhist monks, Christian clergy, and Muslim leaders from Myanmar. Also present were genocide experts, international diplomats, interfaith and human rights leaders. Attendees explored ways to end Myanmar;s systematic persecution of the Rohingya, and to foster communal harmony in Burma. Addressing the conference, Børge Brende, the State Secretary of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, announced his governments decision to give 10 million Norwegian Kroner ($1.2 million US) in humanitarian assistance to Burma. The participants were dismayed however, as the State Secretary choose not to even mention the wordt; in his entire speech in an apparent compliance to Myanmar's government stand. The conference communiqué urged the Norwegian government to immediately prioritize ending Myanmar's genocide over its economic interests in Burma, including sizeable investment by Telenor and StatOil. During the conference, former Prime Minister of Norway Kjell Magne Bondevik conferred on three leading Myanmar monks, who have saved Muslim lives in Burma and opposed Islamophobia, the first-ever ;World Harmony Awards" on behalf of the Parliament of the Worlds Religions, a 120- year-old interfaith organization. Rev. Seindita, Rev. Withudda, and Rev. Zawtikka, were the three awardees who also chanted Buddhist prayers at the inauguration. Presenting the awards, the Parliaments chair, Imam Malik Mujahid said, "These extraordinary monks challenge the widespread perception that all Buddhist monks clamor for violence against the Rohingyas.; The participants from 16 different countries, including leading Rohingya activists and leaders, as well as genocide scholars, adopted the following statement: -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Full text of the communiqué adopted by the Oslo Conference-- -- -- -- -- -- -- Today the Oslo Conference to End Myanmars Persecution of the Rohingya ended. The conference was held at the Norwegian Nobel Institute and Voksenaasen, Oslo, Norway on May; 27, 2015. After two days of deliberations the conference issue the following urgent appeal to the international community, based on the following conclusions: The pattern of systematic human rights abuses against the ethnic Rohingya people entails crimes against humanity including the crime of genocide; The Myanmar government;s denial of the existence of the Rohingya as a people violates the right of the Rohingya to self-identify; The international community is privileging economic interests in Myanmar and failing to prioritize the need to end its systematic persecution and destruction of the Rohingya as an ethnic group. The call by Archbishop Desmond Tutu to end Myanmars genocide of the Rohingya made during the Oslo conference is supported by six additional Nobel Peace Laureates: Mairead Maguire, Jody Williams, Tawakkol Karman, Shirin Ibadi, Leymah Gbowee, and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel. The United Nations and the international community have an urgent responsibility to stop Myanmars systematic persecution of the Rohingya. As the home country of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, the conference urges the Government of Norway to immediately prioritize ending Myanmar's genocide over its economic interests in that country, including sizeable investment by Telenor and StatOil. The conference calls upon the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the European Union (EU), the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the United Nations (UN) and other relevant international actors to take all possible measures to pressure the Government of Myanmar to do the following: to immediately end its policies and practices of genocide; to restore full and equal citizenship rights of the Rohingya; to institute the right of return for all displaced Rohingya; to effectively provide the Rohingya with all necessary protection; and to actively promote and support reconciliation between communities in Rakhine State, Myanmar ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 The Business Journals

The head of Burundi's army said on Thursday that an attempted coup had failed and forces loyal to President Pierre Nkurunziza were in control, a day after another general said he had sacked Nkurunziza for seeking an unconstitutional third term in office. “The coup attempt failed, loyal forces are still controlling all strategic points,” said Army Chief of Staff General Prime Niyongabo in a statement broadcast on state radio. A Reuters witness reported a journalist at the state broadcaster had said there was still heavy gunfire being heard around the state television and radio station in the capital on Thursday morning. Another Reuters witness said loud blasts were heard in the capital. The Reuters witness said two private radio stations and a television station were attacked by unknown men in police uniforms. The two stations were among those that carried Major General Godefroid Niyombare's announcement on Wednesday that he had sacked Nkurunziza. Neither Niyombare nor his spokespeople were immediately available to comment. With President Nkurunziza having gone to Tanzania to discuss the crisis with East African leaders on Wednesday, the presidency dismissed the declaration by Niyombare, who was fired as Nkurunziza's intelligence chief in February, saying on Facebook that the coup had been “foiled”. Late on Wednesday night, Nkurunziza's whereabouts were unclear. A Tanzanian official said he had not attended the talks in Dar es Salaam, and had left to return to Burundi. But Niyombare said the capital's airport and all border crossings were closed. The East African leaders condemned the bid to oust him and called for a return to “constitutional order”. Late on Wednesday, continental body the African Union condemned the attempted coup. “The chairperson condemns in the strongest terms today's coup attempt in Bujumbura, calls for the return to constitutional order and urges all stakeholders to exercise utmost restraint,” AU Commission chairwoman Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma said in a statement. Activists say more than 20 people have been killed in weeks of protest against Nkurunziza's re-election bid, plunging Burundi into its worst crisis since an ethnically fuelled civil war ended in 2005. The United Nations said more than 70 000 Burundians had fled to neighboring states in a region with a history of ethnic fighting. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c)2015 Reuters

An Iraqi nun initially denied a visa to testify before Congress — before the White House caved in to a wave of outrage — told lawmakers Wednesday that Islamic State (ISIS) jihadists are committing "cultural and human genocide" by persecuting Iraqi Christians. Sister Diana Momeka of the Dominican Sisters of Saint Catherine of Siena, speaking before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said ISIS' plan is to "evacuate the land of Christians and wipe the earth clean of any evidence that we ever existed." "This is cultural and human genocide," she declared. "The only Christians that remain in the Plain of Nineveh are those who are held as hostages." Her remarks were posted by the Christian News Wire and broadcast by C-Span. In wrenching detail, the nun recounted the surge of ISIS militants into Iraq, recalling that last June 10, ISIS, starting with the city of Mosul, "overran one city and town after another, giving the Christians of the region three choices: convert to Islam, pay a tribute . . . to ISIS, or leave their cities . . . with nothing more than the clothes on their back." "As this horror spread throughout the Nineveh Plain, by Aug. 6, 2014, Nineveh was emptied of Christians, and sadly, for the first time since the seventh century A.D., no church bells rang for Mass in the Plain of Nineveh," she said, adding that since then, more more than 120,000 people found themselves "displaced and homeless" in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. Sister Diana pleaded with lawmakers that "we, as Christians, do not want or deserve to leave or be forced out of our country any more than you would want to leave or be forced out of yours." "But the current persecution that our community is facing is the most brutal in our history," she said. The nun's powerful remarks came just weeks after she was denied entry to the United States – a refusal reported by Newsmax.com and Newsmax TV that so outraged listeners and readers that the White House relented. Her visit was sponsored by two Washington-area organizations, the Institute for Global Engagement and 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative, the Christian News Wire reports. "I am but one, small person – a victim myself of ISIS and all of its brutality," she testified. "Coming here has been difficult for me – as a religious sister I am not comfortable with the media and so much attention. But I am here, and I am here to ask you, to implore you for the sake of our common humanity, to help us. "Stand with us as we, as Christians, have stood with all the people of the world and help us. We want nothing more than to go back to our lives; we want nothing more than to go home." According to Christian News Wire, after her remarks, the nun noted that the situation in her war-torn country was "grave but not without hope." "I believe that the international community, and especially the good people of the United States, want to see my government fulfill its responsibility to protect, defend, and promote the welfare of all of its citizens," she said. "I call on all Americans to raise your voices on our behalf so that diplomacy and not genocide, social well-being and not weapons, and the desire for justice, not selfish interests, determines the future for Iraq and all of her children." ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________(c) 2015 NewsMax

United Nations Special Rapporteur Rashida Manjoo addresses journalists in central London. (Carl Court, AFP) The United Nations' special rapporteur on violence against women on Monday cancelled an official visit to South Africa saying the government delayed and ignored requests. Rashida Manjoo has been trying to set up a visit to the country since 2012, her office said in a statement. Manjoo was finally able to secure a formal invitation for a visit earlier this year, but President Jacob Zuma's government then postponed her trip and failed to confirm a new schedule, despite repeated requests, said the statement. Manjoo is a South African national who has worked at the country's Commission on Gender Equality. In her capacity as special rapporteur, she was meant to lead a fact-finding mission to investigate violence against women in South Africa, which has high rates of domestic violence and sexual assault. The special rapporteur would have met with survivors, civil society groups as well as government officials, her spokesperson, Nathalie Stadelmann, said. Manjoo ends her second three-year term as special rapporteur at the end of July, and she said she hoped her replacement would continue discussions with South Africa. Manjoo's predecessor, Yakin Erturk, also failed to secure a visit to the country, said Stadelmann. The South African Women's Ministry did not immediately comment. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) News 24

There he was, the president of South Africa, reading the Sunday newspapers and thinking: “This makes us look bad.” The cause of President Jacob Zuma’s consternation was a picture on the front page of the Sunday Times of a man holding a knife menacingly over Mozambican Emmanuel Sithole, who later died of the stab wounds. On Tuesday, Defence Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula announced that the army had been deployed to hotspots affected by attacks on foreign nationals. She too lectured the media about “responsible reporting.” In a twilight zone of “patriotic journalism” that Zuma and members of his Cabinet envisage, would South Africa “look good” even as soldiers patrol the streets to prevent violence? There is definitely a conversation to be had about James Oatway’s shocking pictures of Emmanuel Sithole’s attack. That conversation would include whether publishing the images of his agony as he lay bleeding in a gutter perpetuated the indignity of his death and devalued black life. It would examine whether pictures of white people are ever displayed as graphically in the media. There is a debate to be had about whether public interest and exposing the ugly truth about the society we live in justifies such pictures being published. The discussion should not, however, include any consideration to suppress such material because it makes South Africa “look bad,” which appears to be President Jacob Zuma’s understanding of a patriotic media. Speaking at an anti-xenophobia forum at the ANC headquarters in Johannesburg on Monday, Zuma questioned the publishing of Oatway’s pictures, asking, “What are we telling the world about ourselves?” He likened the situation to a family with an errant member. He asked whether that family would expose the deviant member as representing them. He said the pictures also conveyed that “all South Africans are carrying knives, are killing one another”. As he has done in the past when speaking about the virtues of a patriotic media, Zuma used the example of Mexico and how the media does not represent their country in a negative light despite the high crime rate. The president said publishing pictures of “mutilated” bodies could also provoke family members to seek revenge and could therefore “perpetuate” violence. He said after the September 11 attacks, the US media did not show pictures of the dead bodies out of respect for those who perished. But that was clearly not Zuma’s primary concern. He went on to criticise broadcasters for using “clever people” as analysts, as they also project the country in a negative light. “Clever people,” in context, appear to be opinionated commentators who are less than congratulatory about those in leadership positions and the state of the nation. It is interesting where Zuma pegs the problem in the context of the current violence. The resurgence of xenophobic attacks points to several things. In a fashion similar to our dealing with the 2008 Eskom crisis, the country has not tackled the root causes of the attacks on foreign nationals since the xenophobic violence that killed 62 people in the same year. Government as the leading force in society has not been able to promote better relations in communities, or respect for foreign nationals, and also failed to address issues that caused resentment. The hostility against foreign nationals ranges from perceptions that they are responsible for crime and drugs in communities. Poor socio-economic conditions also mean that there is greater competition for resources and jobs. After years of promises about job creation and improving living conditions in impoverished areas, people are venting their frustrations. Acknowledging all this would mean that the president would have to concede failures in his leadership and his administration. He would clearly rather have the Hlaudi Motsoeneng formula for “patriotic journalism” – reporting 70% good news – than have the full picture exposing his weaknesses and failures on display. It is generally known that South Africa is an extremely violent society. Our sky-high rates of murder, sexual violence and aggravated robbery all bear testament to this. In everyday reality, communities, particularly poor ones, are accustomed to violence. Zuma’s claim that having a picture of a man stabbing another man on the front page of national newspaper incorrectly portrays South Africans as being violent is a misnomer. There is no denying that violence is prevalent everywhere in our society. What the pictures did was give crime, and particularly the xenophobic attacks, human faces – both of the victims and the perpetrators. Through Oatway’s pictures, we got to know Sithole and the difficult life he led to make a living to support his family in Mozambique. We got to see the pain he endured at the hands of South Africans. The pictures we have seen of those involved in violence and looting have been of mobs running through the streets. Oatway’s pictures froze that terrible spot in time so we could see the attackers’ faces in the moment, what they looked like as they beat, kicked and stabbed Sithole. We needed to see the pictures not only so the perpetrators could be identified and face the law, but also to bear witness to the young men who could have been good but which society moulded into evil. They are part of a generation without hope, without jobs and without positive role models, that we sometimes treat as being invisible. They are not. In announcing the deployment of the South African National Defence Force to hotspots affected by xenophobic violence, Defence Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula called on the media to be responsible in reporting the attacks. It is not clear how foreign nationals being assaulted, shot at and stabbed, and having their belongings looted, can be reported “responsibly” without telling the truth. The media has also been telling the stories of those seeking refuge in temporary shelters and those fleeing the country. Any effort to suppress these heart-breaking stories and human trauma would be to collude in a country wide cover up. Presenting half-truths or trying to play down the attacks would abet the atrocities and shield the perpetrators.' There is in fact no way to portray soldiers patrolling the streets in a “patriotic” or positive way. The very fact that the police are unable to contain the situation and require backup from personnel trained for war zones to stabilise volatile areas tells the story without “clever people” having to dress it up. Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini on Monday called for the media’s role in the xenophobic violence to be investigated. At an imbizo in Durban, he claimed the media had quoted his comments about foreign nationals out of context and also said there were “people who want to pit us against each other.” “What I see in newspapers is that people are fed [lies],” the king said. At the court appearance of Sithole’s attackers at the Alexandra Magistrates Court on Tuesday, journalists were intimidated by members of the community. Photographers were warned not to take pictures of people who had come to support the accused. It is concerning when journalists are viewed as the enemy and prevented from doing their jobs. The South African media operates in a relatively free environment and is able to stand up and fight for its freedoms when these are threatened. Still, it is concerning that people in authority wholly misunderstand the role of the media in democratic society and attempt to demonise journalists. The constant effort to encourage toadying under the guise of “patriotic” journalism is even more concerning. As we have seen in countries where democracy has been compromised or with repressive regimes, a kowtowing media cannot hide their failures and abuses from the rest of the world. All they do, perhaps, is temporarily hide the truth from some of their own citizens. South Africa will hopefully continue to reject any attempt to suppress information and insist that the truth, no matter how ugly, or disturbing, be told. History teaches us that, no matter what, the truth will always find the way out. It did on Marikana, it did on Nkandla, it will in many more situations, even when signal jammers and repressive legislation try to conceal it. South Africa’s troubles are plentiful, and the mission to tackle the fundamental problems is colliding with some people’s greed and ambition. As long there’s a free and intelligent media, there is a chance that these will be exposed and resources will be directed where they should be. Sunshine media will never be able to play that crucial role; PR can go only so far. The only reason those in power would want the truth concealed is because it would be an indictment on their leadership. It is not the country that “looks bad;” it is they who fail us. In so many ways. (c) 2015 Daily Maverick

“Afrophobia”? “Xenophobia”? “Black on black racism”? A “darker” as you can get hacking a “foreigner” under the pretext of his being too dark — self hate par excellence? Of course all of that at once! Yesterday I asked a taxi driver: “why do they need to kill these “foreigners” in this manner?”. His response: “because under Apartheid, fire was the only weapon we Blacks had. We did not have ammunitions, guns and the likes. With fire we could make petrol bombs and throw them at the enemy from a safe distance”. Today there is no need for distance any longer. To kill “these foreigners”, we need to be as close as possible to their body which we then set in flames or dissect, each blow opening a huge wound that can never be healed. Or if it is healed at all, it must leave on “these foreigners” the kinds of scars that can never be erased. I was here during the last outbreak of violence against “these foreigners”. Since then, the cancer has metastized. The current hunt for “foreigners” is the product of a complex chain of complicities — some vocal and explicit and others tacit. The South African government has recently taken a harsh stance on immigration. New, draconian measures have been passed into law. Their effects are devastating for people already established here legally. A few weeks ago I attended a meeting of “foreign” staff at Wits University. Horrific stories after horrific stories. Work permits not renewed. Visas refused to family members. Children in limbo in schools. A Kafkaian situation that extends to “foreign” students who entered the country legally, had their visas renewed all this time, but who now find themselves in a legal uncertainty, unable to register, and unable to access the money they are entitled to and that had been allocated to them by Foundations. Through its new anti-immigration measures, the government is busy turning previously legal migrants into illegal ones. Chains of complicity go further. South African big business is expanding all over the Continent, at times reproducing in those places the worse forms of racism that were tolerated here under Apartheid. While big business is “de-nationalizing” and “Africanizing”, poor black South Africa and parts of the middle class are being socialized into something we should call “national-chauvinism”. National-chauvinism is rearing its ugly head in almost every sector of the South African society. The thing with national-chauvinism is that it is in permanent need of scapegoats. It starts with those who are not our kins. But very quickly, it turns fratricidal. It does not stop with “these foreigners”. It is in its DNA to end up turning onto itself in a dramatic gesture of inversion. I was here during the last “hunting season”. The difference, this time, is the emergence of the rudiments of an “ideology”. We now have the semblance of a discourse aimed at justifying the atrocities, the creeping pogrom since this is what it actually is. An unfolding pogrom to be sure. The justificatory discourse starts with the usual stereotypes — they are darker than us; they steal our jobs; they do not respect us; they are used by whites who prefer to exploit them rather than employing us, therefore avoiding the requirements of affirmative action. But the discourse is becoming more vicious. It can be summarized as follows: South Africa does not owe any moral debt to Africa. Evoke the years of exile? No, there were less than 30,000 South Africans in exile (I have been hit with this figure but I have no idea where it is coming from) and they were all scattered throughout the world — 4 in Ghana, 3 in Ethiopia, a few in Zambia, and many more in Russia and Eastern Europe! So we will not accept to be morally blackmailed by “those foreigners”. Well, let’s ask hard questions. Why is South Africa turning into a killing field for non-national Africans (to whom we have to add the Bengalis, Pakistanis, and who knows whom next)? Why has this country historically represented a “circle of death” for anything and anybody ‘African’? When we say “South Africa”, what does the term “Africa” mean? An idea, or simply a geographical accident? Should we start quantifying what was sacrificed by Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia and others during the liberation struggle? How much money did the Liberation Committee of the Organization of African Unity (OUA) provide to the liberation movements? How many dollars did the Nigerian state pay for South Africa’s struggle? If we were to put a price tag to the destructions meted out by the Apartheid regime on the economy and infrastructures of the Frontline states, what would this amount to? And once all of this has been quantified, shouldn’t we give the bill to the ANC government that has inherited the South African state and ask them to pay back what was spent on behalf of the black oppressed in South Africa during those long years? Wouldn’t we be entitled to add to all these damages and losses the number of people killed by Apartheid armies retaliating against our hosting South African combatants in our midsts, the number of people maimed, the long chain of misery and destitution suffered in the name of our solidarity with South Africa? If black South Africans do not want to hear about any moral debt, maybe it is time to agree with them, give them the bill and ask for economic reparations. Of course we all see the absurdity of this logic of insularity that is turning this country into yet another killing field for the darker people, “these foreigners”. But it would not be absurd, since the government of South Africa is either unable or unwilling to protect those who are here legally from the ire of its people, to appeal to a higher authority. South Africa has signed most international conventions, including the Convention establishing the International Penal Tribunal in The Hague. Some of the instigators of the current “hunting season” are known. Some have been making public statements inciting hate. Is there any way in which we could think about referring them to The Hague? Impunity breeds impunity and atrocities. It is the shortest way to genocide. If these perpetrators cannot be brought to book by the South African State, isn’t it time to get a higher jurisdiction to deal with them? Finally, one word about “foreigners” and “migrants”. No African is a foreigner in Africa! No African is a migrant in Africa! Africa is where we all belong, notwithstanding the foolishness of our boundaries. No amount of national-chauvinism will erase this. No amount of deportations will erase this. Instead of spilling black blood on no other than Pixley ka Seme Avenue (!), we should all be making sure that we rebuild this Continent and bring to an end a long and painful history — that which, for too long, has dictated that to be black (it does not matter where or when), is a liability. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2015 Africa is a Country

Rwanda is finalizing a deal to accept Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers deported by Israel, and Uganda will consider doing so, African newspapers have reported, citing Rwandan and Ugandan officials. Israel said last week that two African countries had agreed to accept asylum seekers, but Jerusalem declined to give the countries’ names. Israel is deporting asylum seekers even without their consent, but not to Eritrea or Sudan, where their lives could be in danger. Rwandan President Paul Kagame says his country is finalizing what newspaper The East African calls a “multimillion dollar” deal to receive asylum seekers from Israel. Rwandan immigration officials are reportedly handling the talks. “On Rwanda and Israel, yes, I know there has been this discussion and it has been a debate in Israel about these Africans who have migrated to Israel as they do to other European countries,” Kagame told a news conference in Kigali late last week, The East African reported. “Some of them are either there illegally or with different status.” According to Kagame, “I do not know the details this far … [but ] there is some package they [the Israelis] give them to leave, so we have been approached.” Meanwhile, Ugandan Foreign Minister Henry Oryem Okello said his country had to look into Israel’s offer to send it asylum seekers, The Daily Monitor reported. According to the Ugandan paper, even though no agreement between Uganda and Israel was in place, asylum seekers were slowly entering the country. An immigration official told the paper that asylum seekers arrive with one-way tickets and receive temporary visas upon entry. Featured Image: African asylum seekers at the Holot detention facility protest the expulsion from Israel of others, February 17, 2014. Copyright: Eliyahu Hershkovitz/Haaertz

The scale of civilian deaths in Gaza during the 2014 war with Israel puts Israel’s adherence to international law in doubt, a UN official has said. In his annual report, the special rapporteur also said many children were left traumatised by the 50-day conflict. Israel and its ally the US were both absent from the debate at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva. Israel has previously accused the body of being biased against it. It has insisted it did everything possible to avoid causing civilian casualties, and has accused Palestinian militants of putting non-combatants in harm’s way. At the meeting, special rapporteur Makarim Wibisono criticised Israel’s conduct during the July-August conflict. “The ferocity of destruction and high proportion of civilian lives lost in Gaza cast serious doubts over Israel’s adherence to international humanitarian law principles of proportionality, distinction and precautions in attack,” he told the council. He lamented “acute” needs in Gaza, warning that Israel’s continued “blockade keeps Gaza in a stranglehold which does not even allow people to help themselves”. Israel says its tight restrictions over Gaza’s northern and eastern borders and coastline are vital to protect it from attacks by militants. Also under discussion at the session is a report from the UN’s secretary general, which highlights the continued building of settlements in the West Bank, and alleged human rights abuses against Palestinians in the area. About 500,000 Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel’s 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. The report cites alleged incidents of settler violence and access of Palestinians to agricultural land as particular areas of concern. In Israel, the foreign ministry told Reuters that the UN’s annual debate about human rights in Gaza and the West Bank “negatively singles out Israel and Israel every year asks its friends on the council not to express themselves”. Inquiry postponed The Palestinians and Israel each accuse the other of committing war crimes during the 2014 conflict. The war left more than 2,100 Palestinians dead, the majority civilians, according to the UN. Tens of thousands of homes in Gaza were also destroyed or badly damaged. On the Israeli side, 67 soldiers and six civilians were killed by militant attacks, which also caused damage to homes and other buildings. Israel says the offensive was aimed at ending rocket fire and preventing militants attacking it via tunnels. A UN inquiry into possible war crimes committed during the war was removed from the agenda of the current session of the UNHRC after the head of the team quit amid questions over his suitability to lead the investigation. Canadian legal expert William Schabas had a “clear and documented bias”, Israel said, since he had previously done paid work for the Palestine Liberation Organisation. The inquiry, now headed by former New York judge Mary McGowan Davis, will report back in June, although Israel says it should be disbanded altogether. Featured Image: Special rapporteur Makarim Wibisono took up his role in June 2014. Copyright: Getty Images

JERUSALEM — Israeli forces shot and killed a 19-year-old Palestinian man when clashes broke out during a military raid on a refugee camp in the Bethlehem area of the West Bank early on Tuesday, the military and local Palestinians said. Palestinian officials identified the dead man as Jihad Jaafari, a resident of the Deheishe refugee camp. A spokeswoman for the Israeli military said the forces “encountered a violent crowd that was hurling stones, blocks and firebombs at them.” After attempts at crowd dispersal failed and the forces felt their lives were in danger, she said, they “fired towards an instigator.” An Israeli soldier was wounded during the disturbances. The Palestinian Authority governor of the Bethlehem area, Jibreen al-Bakri, said that the Israeli soldiers had come to arrest a camp resident and denied that Mr. Jaafari had been involved in the violence, accusing the Israeli troops of killing him without provocation. “This 19-year-old young man was asleep in his house, but when he heard the noise, he went to his roof to see what was happening,” Mr. Bakri told Voice of Palestine radio. “Israeli snipers immediately opened fire and shot him in cold blood,” he said. Tensions between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have been rising in recent weeks. Israel last month began to withhold more than $100 million in monthly tax revenue it collects on behalf of the authority in response to the Palestinian leadership’s move to join the International Criminal Court. Against the background of the worsening financial crisis in the authority, Israel’s state-owned electricity company briefly reduced the power supply to two Palestinian districts in the northern West Bank on Monday because of ballooning debt. There has also been a wave of attacks against Israelis in recent months by Palestinians using knives, guns and vehicles as weapons. On Sunday, the mayor of Jerusalem, Nir Barkat, helped his bodyguard subdue an 18-year-old Palestinian youth who had just stabbed and wounded an Israeli man near City Hall. Featured Image: Copyright: INTERNATIONAL JAAFAR ASHTIYEH / AFP / GETTY IMAGES

Executive Summary On 5 January, the first anniversary of the deeply contested 2014 elections, the most violent in Bangladesh’s history, clashes between government and opposition groups led to several deaths and scores injured. The confrontation marks a new phase of the deadlock between the ruling Awami League (AL) and the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) opposition, which have swapped time in government with metronomic consistency since independence. Having boycotted the 2014 poll, the BNP appears bent on ousting the government via street power. With daily violence at the pre-election level, the political crisis is fast approaching the point of no return and could gravely destabilise Bangladesh unless the sides move urgently to reduce tensions. Moreover, tribunals set up to adjudicate crimes perpetrated at the moment of Bangladesh’s bloody birth threaten division more than reconciliation. Both parties would be best served by changing course: the AL government by respecting the democratic right to dissent (recalling its time in opposition); the BNP by reviving its political fortunes through compromise with the ruling party, rather than violent street politics. With the two largest mainstream parties unwilling to work toward a new political compact that respects the rights of both opposition and victor to govern within the rule of law, extremists and criminal networks could exploit the resulting political void. Violent Islamist factions are already reviving, threatening the secular, democratic order. While jihadi forces see both parties as the main hurdle to the establishment of an Islamic order, the AL and the BNP perceive each other as the main adversary. The AL and its leader, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajid, emphasise that the absence from parliament of former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and her BNP make them political non-entities. Yet, concerned about a comeback, the government is attempting to forcibly neutralise the political opposition and stifle dissent, including by bringing corruption and other criminal cases against party leaders, among whom are Zia and her son and heir apparent, Tarique Rahman; heavy-handed use of police and paramilitary forces; and legislation and policies that undermine fundamental constitutional rights. The BNP, which has not accepted any responsibility for the election-related violence in 2014 that left hundreds dead (and saw hundreds of Hindu homes and shops vandalised), is again attempting to oust the government by force, in alliance with the Jamaat-e-Islami, which is alleged to have committed some of the worst abuses during that period. The party retains its core supporters and seems to have successfully mobilised its activists on the streets. Yet, its sole demand – for a fresh election under a neutral caretaker – is too narrow to generate the public support it needs to overcome the disadvantage of being out of parliament, and its political capital is fading fast as it again resorts to violence. The deep animosity and mistrust between leaders and parties were not inevitable. Despite a turbulent history, they earlier cooperated to end direct or indirect military rule and strengthen democracy, most recently during the 2007-2008 tenure of the military-backed caretaker government (CTG), when the high command tried to remove both Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia from politics. Rather than building on that cooperation, the two leaders have resorted to non-democratic methods to undermine each other. In power, both have used centralised authority, a politicised judiciary and predatory law enforcement agencies against legitimate opposition. Underpinning the current crisis is the failure to agree on basic standards for multiparty democratic functioning. While the BNP claims to be the guardian of Bangladeshi nationalism, the AL has attempted to depict itself as the sole author and custodian of Bangladesh’s liberation. The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), established by the AL in March 2010 to prosecute individuals accused of committing atrocities during the 1971 liberation war, should be assessed in this context. While the quest to bring perpetrators to account is justifiable, the ICTs are not simply, or even primarily, a legal tool, but rather are widely perceived as a political one, primarily for use against the government’s Islamist opposition. In short, the governing AL is seen to be using the nation’s founding tragedy for self-serving political gains. The AL needs to realise that the BNP’s marginalisation from mainstream politics could encourage anti-government activism to find more radical avenues, all the more so in light of its own increasingly authoritarian bent. Equally, the BNP would do well to abandon its alliances of convenience with violent Islamist groups and seek to revive agreement on a set of basic standards for multiparty democracy. A protracted and violent political crisis would leave Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia the ultimate losers, particularly if a major breakdown of law and order were to encourage the military to intervene; though there is as yet no sign of that, history suggests it is an eventuality not to be dismissed. The opportunities for political reconciliation are fast diminishing, as political battle lines become ever more entrenched. Both parties should restrain their violent activist base and take practical steps to reduce political tensions: the AL government should commit to a non-repressive response to political dissent, rein in and ensure accountability for abuses committed by law enforcement entities, reverse measures that curb civil liberties and assertively protect minority communities against attack and dispossession of properties and businesses; the AL should invite the BNP, at lower levels of seniority if needed, to negotiations aimed at reviving the democratic rules of the game, including electoral reform. It should also hold mayoral elections in Dhaka, a long-overdue constitutional requirement that would provide opportunities to begin that dialogue; and the BNP should commit to non-violent political opposition; refrain from an alliance with the Jamaat-e-Islami that is enhancing the Islamist opposition’s street power with little political return for the BNP; and instead demonstrate willingness to engage in meaningful negotiations with the AL to end a crisis that is undermining economic growth and threatening to subvert the political order. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2015 International Crisis Group

In its recent ruling neither Croatia or Serbia committed genocide, the UN’s highest court showed how high the bar is set to prove genocide. Intent is an important factor, as well as the numbers killed, The Post’s Steven Gelis reports: What’s the definition of genocide? The UN’s convention says it must be “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” This was not proved in either Serbia or Croatia in the war that led to the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the International Court of Justice said. “[While] there is evidence of crimes by Serbia and Croatia of atrocities that are consistent with genocide, [the judges] are saying that they do not find specific intent to destroy substantial portions of the target groups,” notes Adam Jones, a genocide scholar at the University of British Columbia Okanagan. So what counts? In the Serbia/Croatia cases, the court “would have expected to see more systematic, physical killing and corralling and exterminating of populations to more clearly meet the intent requirement,” says Mr. Jones. Adds political scientist David B. MacDonald at the University of Guelph, “It’s not enough to kill people, or move them around and steal their land. You have to be able to prove that [the perpetrators] had this bigger motivation to destroy the group in whole or in part.” Some clear examples Intent is unmistakable in cases such as Rwanda, Cambodia and Srebrenica genocide, when Serbian paratroopers killed more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys in the Bosnian War. Canada also considers the Holocaust, Ukrainian famine in 1930s Soviet Russia and the Ottoman empire killings of Armenians as genocide. What sort of numbers? In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge under dictator Pol Pot is estimated to have killed as many as two million people in 1975-79. In Rwanda, up to 800,000, mainly ethnic Tutsis, perished in a matter of 100 days in 1994, killed by ethnic Hutu extremists. What about Canada? Some scholars argue Canada has its own history of genocide. They point to residential schools and continuing violence against First Nations’ peoples, especially women. “The residential school system in Canada, and certainly the structural extermination of Native peoples in many other parts of the colonized world, qualifies because of the mortality involved,” says Mr. Jones. Local pushback Electronic music group A Tribe Called Red pulled out of performing at the opening festivities for the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg because they felt the museum misrepresented and downplayed “the genocide that was experienced by Indigenous people in Canada by refusing to name it genocide.” Featured image: The war victims cemetery is seen in Vukovar, Croatia. The United Nations’ top court ruled Feb. 3, 2015 that Serbia and Croatia did not commit genocide against each other’s people during their bloody 1990s wars. Copyright: Associated Press