The Washington Post February 9, 2025   Trump supporters scaled the walls on the Senate side of the U.S. Capitol before gaining access to the building on Jan. 6, 2021. (Michael Robinson Chavez/The Washington Post)   By Ellen Nakashima  and  Warren P. Strobel Candidates for top national security positions in the Trump administration have faced questions that appear designed to determine whether they have embraced the president’s false claims about the outcome of the 2020 election and its aftermath, according to people familiar with cases of such screening. The questions asked of several current and former officials up for top intelligence agency and law enforcement posts revolved around two events that have become President Donald Trump’s litmus test to distinguish friend from foe: the result of the 2020 election and the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, according to the people, who, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity. These people said that two individuals, both former officials who were being considered for positions within the intelligence community, were asked to give “yes” or “no” responses to the questions: Was Jan. 6 “an inside job?” And was the 2020 presidential election “stolen?” These individuals, who did not give the desired straight “yes” answers, were not selected. It is not clear whether other factors contributed to the decision. The questions were posed in direct interviews conducted by personnel hiring for the new administration. One former official familiar with the questions posed to one of the candidates said: “He was not willing to compromise his integrity by saying things he knew weren’t true. He’s not losing any sleep over his decision.” Political fealty has been a prerequisite for positions at all levels of the new administration, including for current civil servants seeking new assignments. But former national security and other officials said it is especially important for the nation’s security that intelligence professionals be able to give the president accurate information, even if it does not align with his policy or political preferences. “It’s normal for a new administration to ask potential political appointees about their political views to assure that they align with the new administration,” said John Bellinger III, who served as the senior counsel for the White House National Security Council in the George W. Bush administration. “And it’s appropriate for a new administration to ask career officials if they are comfortable carrying out the new administration’s policies. But it’s not appropriate to condition jobs, especially in the intelligence and law enforcement community, on partisan political stances. We want career officials to interpret intelligence and enforce the laws in a neutral way without any partisan preference.” Separately, at least two individuals in FBI field offices outside Washington, who were being interviewed   for senior positions, were asked similar questions, said one U.S. official familiar with the incidents. The questions included: Who were the “real patriots” on Jan. 6? Who won the 2020 election? Who is your “real boss?” These agents have yet to hear the outcome of their interviews, according to the official. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) said in a letter last week to the acting FBI director, Brian Driscoll, that he received “credible information” that a “loyalty test is being implemented in the leadership hiring process, with candidates being asked about the 2020 election and January 6, 2021.” In a statement to The Washington Post, White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said: “It is entirely appropriate that candidates for national security positions in the Trump administration align with President Trump’s agenda to put America First.” Trump has repeatedly falsely claimed that he won the 2020 election and asserted that thousands of his supporters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, were patriots. Some right-wing voices have suggested the insurrection was an “inside job” organized by the FBI. The loyalty questions come amid an already tense atmosphere at the bureau and in the intelligence community. In recent days, interim Justice Department leaders appointed by Trump ordered the FBI to hand over a list of the thousands of personnel across the country who worked on Jan. 6. cases, forced out senior FBI leaders and transferred several senior Justice Department officials, and fired  prosecutors involved in a special counsel investigation of Trump. There have been no such actions at the CIA, National Security Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, though their civilian workforces have been offered buyouts. But personnel there are warily watching the actions of CIA Director John Ratcliffe and the statements of director of national intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard. Both are political allies of Trump, and Gabbard has at times suggested intelligence officials are part of a disloyal deep state. Ratcliffe and Gabbard pledged during their confirmation hearings not to politicize their agencies. “As the president’s principal intelligence adviser, I will begin with leading by example, checking my own views at the door, and committing to delivering intelligence that is collected, analyzed, and reported without bias, prejudice or political influence,” Gabbard told the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats asked Kash Patel, Trump’s nominee for FBI director, at his Jan. 30 confirmation hearing  about plans for agents who had worked on Jan. 6 cases, and he pledged no retribution, even as the removals of senior FBI officials were already underway. Asked to comment on the loyalty questions, an FBI spokeswoman declined. An FBI official said: “We have no knowledge of that.” One former senior intelligence official said that attesting to something you know to be untrue — as in the assertion that President Joe Biden stole the 2020 election — would violate the ethos of an intelligence officer. “I don’t understand how somebody could   [answer untruthfully] and do their job,” said the former official. By design, spy agencies have relatively few political appointees, and veteran intelligence officials say their role is to provide policymakers, no matter from which party, intelligence untainted by political considerations. There have been loyalty investigations of federal employees over the years, such as during the communist “witch hunts” of the McCarthy era, noted Yale University historian Beverly Gage. Those were problematic in their own right, Gage said, “but at least they were not about whether or not you’re loyal to a particular politician, but whether you’re loyal to the country.” The only time the country came close to being led by a president who insisted on personal and partisan loyalty within the intelligence agencies was during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon, said Gage, author of a major biography of the first FBI director, J. Edgar Hoover. Nixon “wanted to take all of these big government agencies and make them responsive to the White House, make them loyal to him in part, because he, like Trump, had this sense that the media and all the Democrats and the bureaucracy were arrayed against him,” she said. Recent polls indicate that perceptions of the intelligence community, and particularly the FBI, are highly polarized, following years of attacks by Trump and his allies. “There’s been a historical reversal,” said Jeffrey Rogg, an intelligence historian at the University of South Florida. “Whereas Democrats historically were suspicious of the FBI and intelligence organizations, now it’s Republicans who are. And it’s not accidental that it’s due to political events in the United States and the perception that intelligence organizations have taken sides.” The politically tinged loyalty questions are just one aspect of a broader screening campaign that includes reviewing candidates’ and current officials’ social media posts for any divergence from Trump’s views, and checking on past campaign donations and political activity . The application form for jobs in the Trump administration asks if applicants supported Trump in the 2024 election , and “What part of President Trump’s campaign message is most appealing to you and why?” according to the Associated Press . Some longtime intelligence professionals say that Trump and his billionaire ally Elon Musk’s drive to downsize and remake the government is not without merit. There are organizations within the intelligence community that need streamlining and mission priorities that should be reset, they said. The Trump administration and Senate Republicans have signaled they want the CIA to be more aggressive with human intelligence gathering and to downsize the ODNI, which was formed in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to better coordinate spy agencies. It now has more than 2,000 employees. Isaac Stanley-Becker, Cleve R. Wootson Jr. and Jeremy Roebuck contributed to this report.   By Ellen Nakashima Ellen Nakashima is an intelligence and national security reporter at The Washington Post. She's been a member of three Pulitzer prizewinning teams, for probing the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol, Russian interference in the 2016 election, and the hidden scope of government surveillance. Send her secure tips on Signal at Ellen.626 follow on X@nakashimae   By Warren P. Strobel Warren P. Strobel is a reporter at The Washington Post covering U.S. intelligence. He has written about U.S. security policies under seven presidents. He received numerous awards, and was portrayed in the movie "Shock and Awe," for his skeptical reporting on the decision to invade Iraq. Send him secure tips on Signal at 202 744 1312 follow on X@wstrobel Copyright 2025 The Washington Post

In Cambodian mine clearance, China Replaces USAID Newsweek February 8, 2025 A warning sign during a training session on demining in Cambodia on January 19, 2023. Photo by TANG CHHIN SOTHY/AFP via Getty Images China has provided a grant to help a Cambodian project clearing land mines and unexploded bombs days after the freeze on payments by USAID to its partners had forced it to suspend work, the head of the group said. Neither the U.S. State Department nor China's embassy in Cambodia responded to requests for comment. Why It Matters Critics of the decision by U.S. President Donald Trump 's administration to pause foreign aid for 90 days through the United States Agency for International Development had said it would open the way  for China to expand its influence around the world. The Southeast Asian country of Cambodia is already one of China's closest allies and had a strained relationship in recent years with the United States, which criticized it for alleged human rights abuses and lack of democracy. What To Know Days after saying that operations of the Cambodian Mine Action Centre had been brought to a temporary halt because of the USAID freeze in payments to partner groups, director general Heng Ratana said in a Facebook post on Feb. 5 that a $4.4 million grant from China would support a Cambodia Landmine Elimination Project for one year from March 1, 2025. "This is a 12-month project and will support over 400 CMAC technical experts," he wrote in a post on Facebook. He said the project would work in seven provinces of the country of 17 million people. Cambodia was devastated by war in the 1970s as a result of both U.S. bombing in a spillover from the war in Vietnam and by the takeover of the genocidal Khmer Rouge, which had Chinese backing. Millions of landmines remain scattered across the country. The Halo Trust, which campaigns against landmines and works to remove them, says over 18,800 have been killed by landmines since the fall of the Khmer Rouge in 1979 and a further 45,000 have been wounded. The U.S. Embassy in Cambodia said last year it expected to spend $12 million on demining and removing other unexploded ordnance in Cambodia in 2025. What Happened to USAID? Cambodia's government said in a statement on Friday that U.S. funding for demining operations came from the Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement of the U.S. State Department rather than directly from USAID. "Mine and cluster munition clearance, along with the removal of other explosive remnants of war, will continue with financial support from the Cambodian government and other donor countries outside of the US," it said, according to the Phnom Penh Post . USAID delivered tens of billions of dollars in foreign humanitarian aid . The Trump administration plans to merge it with the State Department and thousands of employees are set to lose their jobs . The changes are happening under the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) of Elon Musk . What People Are Saying Former USAID administrator Samantha Power in a New York Times oped:  "Future generations will marvel that it wasn't China's actions that eroded U.S. standing and global security, paving the way for Beijing to become the partner of choice around the world." President Donald Trump told reporters on February 2:  "USAID, run by radical lunatics, and we're getting them out, and then we'll make a decision." Seun Sam, a policy analyst at the Royal Academy of Cambodia, quoted in Kiripost :  "If China does not help, CMAC will not have enough funds to continue demining in Cambodia, making the support from China particularly important for the ongoing clearance efforts." What Happens Next While USAID decides which projects it will support, it is likely that China may see opportunities to step in where the United States has cut funding, but that does not necessarily preclude a later U.S. return. Copyright 2025 Newsweek

Crimes against humanity, a deepening hunger crisis and more than 2,600 rebel groups: Myanmar’s civil war is both brutal and bewildering. Here's a closer look. Andreas Babst     February 7, 2025 Myanmar’s junta leader, Min Aung Hlaing, at a military parade in the capital Naypyidaw in March 2021 – one month after orchestrating the coup that toppled Aung San Suu Kyi’s democratic government. © Reuters Summary    The military coup in Myanmar on Feb. 1, 2021, has sparked an ongoing civil war between the military junta and over 2,600 rebel groups. While civilian casualties have risen to over 6,000 and the country is threatened by famine, neighboring states like China are mostly pursuing their own interests in the region. Elections announced for 2025 could lead to further escalations of violence, and an overthrow of the junta could create a dangerous power vacuum.   Perhaps the most surreal video of a coup ever recorded dates back to Feb. 1, 2021 – the day Myanmar’s military seized power. A young influencer filmed herself performing aerobic exercises at a street intersection in the capital Naypyidaw. In the background, armored military vehicles can be seen rolling toward parliament; the young woman said later that she had thought nothing of it. The video went viral, bringing global attention to Myanmar’s latest military takeover – even among those with little interest in Southeast Asian politics. Four years ago, the military overthrew the elected government of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who had pledged to usher in a new democratic era in 2015. The coup was followed by mass protests, and just a few weeks later, the country spiraled into civil war – a conflict that has continued ever since. © Youtube «NZZ Pro» – Geopolitical briefing     The situation: Since the 2021 coup, Myanmar has been mired in a bloody civil war, with the military junta, rebels and ethnic militias locked in a battle for control.      Geopolitical dynamics: China, India and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are pursuing their own strategic interests while steering clear of direct intervention – leaving Myanmar a geopolitical tinderbox.      Looking ahead: The election scheduled for 2025 could trigger further violence, while the junta’s collapse risks creating a chaotic power vacuum. The situation in Myanmar is constantly shifting and remains largely overlooked in the West. The military junta is bombing civilian areas, while rebel forces have pushed their military opponents out of vast swathes of territory. More than 6,000 civilians have been killed, and over three million have been displaced. What is happening in Myanmar right now? And what lies ahead? Source: ACLED / NZZ / jum. The historical backdrop Understanding Myanmar’s civil war requires a look at its modern history. The country is one of Southeast Asia’s most ethnically diverse, home to roughly 135 distinct groups. Since gaining independence from the British in 1948, there have been repeated armed clashes between the various groups. This is partly due to promises made to various ethnic groups for a degree of autonomy when Myanmar gained independence. However, the state’s founders established a centralized system instead. Historian Thant Myint-U once described Myanmar  as an «unfinished nation» where identity struggles have fueled war, poverty and isolation. From the start, the country’s ruling elite has relied on military power to hold the fragile state together. After independence, their priority was strengthening the armed forces, leading to a stark imbalance between military dominance and weak civilian institutions, as political scientist Aurel Croissant has noted. In 1962, just two years after the initial establishment of a democratically elected government, the generals staged a coup and seized power. For decades, Myanmar’s military rulers controlled the country – sometimes overtly, sometimes from behind the scenes. In 1988, they executed those who took to the streets to protest for greater freedom. Beyond securing their political grip, the generals also took control of key industries and cemented their influence through structural reforms. In 2008, they altered the constitution to ensure that 25% of parliamentary seats were filled by the military, effectively giving the generals a right of veto. In 2015, the National League for Democracy, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won the elections. Cautious reforms followed, until the military seized power once again five years later, citing unproven allegations of electoral fraud. The rebels Recruits of the Bamar People's Liberation Army (BPLA) preparing for battle in a military camp in the middle of a bamboo forest in March 2024. © Reuters Tracking Myanmar’s myriad rebel groups is no easy task. According to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED), an initiative that collects data on various conflicts around the globe, more than 2,600 groups have emerged since the 2021 coup. Many were founded by local politicians, student activists and protesters who fled into the jungle to wage guerrilla warfare against the army. Ethnic armed organizations had been active in the country before 2021, already engaged in fighting the state and seeking autonomy within their territories. The most important of these are located in the regions of Rakhine, Kachin and in the north of Shan, but also in Kayin in the south of the country. Source: ACLED / NZZ / sro. These ethnic armed organizations have inflicted painful losses on the military in recent months. They now not only control larger areas, but also crucial border crossings – to China in the north and to Bangladesh in the west. Today, the military controls a smaller area of Myanmar than at any time since the 1960s. These ethnic groups have years of experience in financing their guerrilla warfare, whether through drug trafficking (methamphetamines have replaced heroin as Myanmar's top export) or the overexploitation of natural resources. Their cooperation with newly formed rebel groups has created communities of purpose, with the different groups benefiting from each other. These new groups supply the ethnic armies with an ongoing influx of fighters, and they are consistently attacking military bases together. In turn, the new rebel groups receive training from the ethnic armies and benefit from their combat experience. This cooperation is fragile, however, and there have been repeated battles between the various insurgents. The groups’ individual war aims diverge as well. Many of the new rebel groups have united under the National Unity Government (NUG), a Myanmar shadow government that has made it its goal to overthrow the junta. The ethnic armed organizations, however, are primarily concerned with controlling their own territories. This is evident from the only tentative advances into the junta-controlled interior of Myanmar, in which the ethnic armies have little interest – partly because they would be vulnerable to the military's airstrikes. Source: ACLED / NZZ / sro. The civilian population The U.N. estimates the civilian death toll in Myanmar at over 6,000. According to the U.N., 2,000 people alone were executed while in military custody. At least 365 people were shot in the head; 215 were burned alive. International observers are racing to document widespread atrocities – including torture, beheadings, rapes and other crimes against humanity. «Increasingly frequent and indiscriminate air strikes, artillery and drone attacks have killed civilians, driven survivors from their homes, and destroyed hospitals, schools and places of worship,» writes Nicholas Koumjian, head of the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, the U.N.'s investigative office for the region. «While most of the evidence the Mechanism has collected concerns crimes committed by the Myanmar military, we are also investigating disturbing reports of atrocities committed by other armed groups, including rape, killings and torture,» he continues. As if all this were not enough, the country is also on the verge of a famine. The local economy, including agriculture, has collapsed. Next summer 15 million people in Myanmar could be threatened by hunger,  warn analysts from IPC, a platform for mapping global hunger. The neighbors China plays an important yet undecided role in Myanmar. «China is supporting the junta, even though without enthusiasm, and continues to sell weapons to it. But it also supports to some extent some of the powerful ethnic groups operating along its borders,» says David Mathieson, a longtime Myanmar expert. In 2024, Beijing brokered a ceasefire, but it unraveled within five months. In January, the junta announced a new ceasefire  between the military and one of the ethnic armed organizations, with China acting as mediator once again. In November, junta leader Min Aung Hlaing traveled to China – not for a state visit, but for a regional summit, a move that could signal Beijing’s view of him as a key figure in efforts to manage the crisis. China has no interest in a civil war on its border, and certainly not one with broader geopolitical consequences. Yet the ethnic armies along the Chinese border hold significant leverage over their neighbor. They control infrastructure and mines built by China that are located in China's sphere of influence. According to Mathieson, China keeps reminding the leaders of these ethnic armies that they should not seek support from the West. China wants to maintain control over conflict mediation along its border and for now, Western peace initiatives are ineffective, he says. China recognizes that it has influence over Myanmar, says Mathieson, «but it doesn’t want the burden of having to solve a civil war.» It just wants to influence the trajectory of such a war so that it can prioritize its investments and strategic interests. Meanwhile, the regional powers – the states forming the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) – have struggled for years to find a unified strategy for Myanmar. The only clear consensus appears to be maintaining their economically focused, cooperative union without letting the Myanmar issue cause division. Malaysia has held ASEAN’s annually rotating chairmanship since the start of the year. At an early meeting, the Malaysian foreign minister issued a call for peace, stating somewhat helplessly: «Malaysia wants to know what Myanmar has in mind.» India, which also shares a border with Myanmar, continues to sell weapons to the junta, despite well-documented human rights violations. The road ahead  National, state and regional flags line a street in Yangon ahead of a holiday in February. © Nyein Chan Naing / EPA Myanmar’s military junta has announced an election for 2025, but critics argue it is little more than a bid to legitimize its rule. Only parties that have been vetted by the junta are allowed to take part in the election. In addition, only half the country is likely to vote – voter lists could only be drawn up in 145 out of 330 municipalities. But the election is nonetheless set to move forward. Observers warn that violence could escalate in the coming months as the vote approaches. Rebel groups might attack voters and politicians, while the military could seek quick territorial gains to generate success stories ahead of the election. Beyond domestic control, the junta is also seeking international validation, says Mathieson, particularly from China, the ASEAN states and India. How Western governments will respond remains unclear, in his view. They could view the election as an opportunity to reestablish contact with the junta, which has so far refused any diplomatic mediation. Mathieson calls this a «folly,» pointing to the West’s lack of a clear plan for Myanmar. The junta is unlikely to collapse anytime soon. It appears to be strong enough to hold off the rebels, at least within its strongholds in the country's interior. Internal divisions are also unlikely to bring it down – outwardly, the junta shows few signs of fracturing, and little is known about its internal dynamics. A prolonged civil war in the heart of Asia appears the more probable outcome. And even if the junta were to fall, then what? The ethnic armed organizations would likely maintain control over their own territories, Mathieson says, «but violent anarchy would probably break out in Myanmar's interior.» © 2025 Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

US President Donald Trump (R) and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu take questions during a press conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on February 4, 2025. (ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP) Trump’s Feral Fantasies By Genocide Watch   In a press conference on February 4, at the end of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States, President Trump shocked the world by proposing that all Palestinians should be expelled from Gaza. Palestinians would be relocated to Egypt and Jordan .   In a real estate developer’s approach to foreign policy, Trump imagined that the U.S. would take control of the territory, clear it of rubble, and build “ the Riviera of the Middle East . ” As an afterthought, Trump supposed that some Palestinians might move back to Gaza after it is rebuilt.   Only far-right Israeli parties, and maybe Netanyahu, support the imperialism underlying Trump’s proposal. Trump had earlier revealed the dark shadows beneath his thinking by using the genocidal language of  “ cleansing ” Gaza of  Palestinians. The deadly euphemism “ethnic cleansing”  was first used by Milošević in Bosnia to cover up forced deportation and Serbian genocide. “Cleansing” Gaza is a telltale indicator of Stages 4 and 8 in the genocidal process, dehumanization  and   persecution   of a targeted population.    In Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza, Israeli Defence Forces refuse  to distinguish civilians from enemy combatants. The IDF’s rules of engagement tolerate twenty civilian deaths   for the death of every Hamas combatant. It is the deadliest civilian to combatant ratio in any war since 1945. The result has been carpet bombing of entire apartment buildings, hospitals, and refugee camps . Over seventy percent of Gaza dwellings have been reduced to rubble. Between 46,000 and 64,000 Palestinians have been killed, over half of them women, children, and the elderly .   Israel has blocked   eighty percent   of food and medicine  for civilians. Israel claims it has allowed in plenty of food, but Hamas stole it. The ICC has charged Netanyahu and Gallant with the war crime of starvation.   Genocide Watch has concluded that Israel’s intentional destruction, in part, of the Palestinian ethnic group constitutes genocide .  Israel has also committed war crimes and crimes against humanity .   Now President Trump proposes that the U.S. should annex Gaza. Palestinians will be forcibly deported. Then the U.S. will build a new “ Riviera ”. Or will it be built by the Trump Organization?   Trump’s proposals to buy Greenland,   “take back” the Panama Canal , and incorporate Canada as the 51st  American state , are the fantasies of a nineteenth century imperialist. No wonder Trump’s hero is President William McKinley,  the sponsor of the Spanish-American War that annexed Puerto Rico, Guam, and Hawaii, and made the Philippines an American colony.    Forced deportation is an international war crime   and crime against humanity . It is not the opposite of genocide. It nearly always accompanies genocide.   Annexation of the homeland of a displaced people is open imperialism. Trump’s proposal to annex Gaza is not just further proof that Donald Trump may be a pathological narcissist . It is proof that Donald Trump is a threat to international peace and security.

By Peter Baker, Michael D. Shear, and Isabel Kershner Trump promises to turn Gaza into ‘the Riviera of the Middle East.’ The president met with the Israeli prime minister at the White House, meeting in person with another world leader for the first time since returning to power. President Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at a news conference at the White House on Tuesday. Eric Lee/The New York Times President Trump declared on Tuesday that the United States should seize control of Gaza and permanently displace the entire Palestinian population of the devastated seaside enclave, one of the most brazen ideas that any American leader has advanced in years. Hosting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at the White House, Mr. Trump said that all two million Palestinians from Gaza should be moved to countries like Egypt and Jordan because of the devastation wrought by Israel’s campaign against Hamas after the terrorist attack of Oct. 7, 2023. “The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it too,” Mr. Trump said at a news conference Tuesday evening. “We’ll own it and be responsible” for disposing of unexploded munitions and rebuilding Gaza into a mecca for jobs and tourism. Sounding like the real estate developer he once was, Mr. Trump vowed to turn it into “the Riviera of the Middle East.” While the president framed the matter as a humanitarian imperative and an economic development opportunity, he effectively reopened a geopolitical Pandora’s box with far-reaching implications for the Middle East. Control over Gaza has been one of the major flash points of the Arab-Israeli conflict for decades, and the idea of relocating its Palestinian residents recalls an era when great Western powers redrew the maps of the region and moved around populations without regard to local autonomy. The notion of the United States taking over sovereign territory in the Middle East would be a dramatic reversal for Mr. Trump, who first ran for office in 2016 vowing to extract America from the region after the Iraq war and decried the nation-building of his predecessors. In unveiling the plan, Mr. Trump did not cite any legal authority giving him the right to take over the territory, nor did he address the fact that forcible removal of a population violates international law and decades of American foreign policy consensus in both parties. He made the proposal even as the United States was seeking to secure the Israel-Hamas cease-fire’s second phase, which is designed to free the remaining hostages in Gaza and bring a permanent end to the fighting. Negotiators had described their task as exceptionally difficult even before Mr. Trump announced his idea of ousting Palestinians from their homes. Hamas, which has ruled in Gaza for most of the past two decades and is re-establishing control there now, immediately rejected mass relocation on Tuesday, and Egypt and Jordan have rejected the idea of taking in a large influx of Palestinians , given the fraught history, burden and destabilizing potential. Sami Abu Zuhri, a senior Hamas official, said that Mr. Trump’s proposed relocation was “a recipe for creating chaos and tension in the region.” “Our people in Gaza will not allow for these plans to come to pass,” he said in a statement distributed by Hamas. “What is needed is the end of the occupation and the aggression against our people, not expelling them from their land.” Mr. Trump waved aside the opposition from Arab countries like Egypt and Jordan, suggesting that his powers of persuasion would convince them. “They say they’re not going to accept,” Mr. Trump said during an earlier meeting with Mr. Netanyahu in the Oval Office. “I say they will.” Mr. Netanyahu, sitting at Mr. Trump’s side, smiled with satisfaction as the president first outlined his ideas. Later, during the joint news conference, the Israeli prime minister heaped praise on Mr. Trump. “You cut to the chase,” Mr. Netanyahu told Mr. Trump. “You see things others refuse to see. You say things others refuse to say, and after the jaws dropped, people scratch their heads and they say, ‘you know, he’s right.’” “This is the kind of thinking that will reshape the Middle East and bring peace,” he added. In his remarks, Mr. Trump insisted that Palestinians would quickly warm to his idea. “I don’t think people should be going back to Gaza,” Mr. Trump said. “I heard that Gaza has been very unlucky for them. They live like hell. They live like they’re living in hell. Gaza is not a place for people to be living, and the only reason they want to go back, and I believe this strongly, is because they have no alternative.” He suggested that nations in the region could finance the resettlement of Gazans to new places — perhaps “a good, fresh, beautiful piece of land” — that would provide better living conditions, either as a single territory or as many as a dozen. “It would be my hope that we could do something really nice, really good, where they wouldn’t want to return,” he said without offering details of what that would entail. Asked how many Palestinians he had in mind, he said, “all of them,” adding, “I would think that they would be thrilled.” Pressed repeatedly on whether he would force them to go even if they did not want to, Mr. Trump said, “I don’t think they’re going to tell me no.” Mr. Trump’s hosting of Mr. Netanyahu was his first in-person meeting with another world leader since his return to power two weeks ago. Eric Lee/The New York Times Gaza has a long and tortured history of conflict and crisis. Many Gazans are descendants of Palestinians who were forced out of their homes during the 1948 war after Israel’s independence, an event known around the Arab world as the Nakba, or catastrophe. Now Mr. Trump is suggesting that they be displaced again, even though the Geneva Conventions — international agreements that the United States and Israel both ratified — bar forcible relocation of populations. Egypt captured Gaza during the 1948 war and controlled it until Israel seized it, along with other Palestinian territory, in a 1967 war against a coalition of Arab nations seeking to destroy the Jewish state. Palestinians in Gaza waged violent resistance for years afterward, and Israel eventually withdrew from Gaza in 2005. But within two years, Hamas, an avowed enemy of Israel that the United States and other nations have designated a terrorist group, took control of the enclave and used it as a base for war against Israel. For years, Israel blockaded Gaza while Hamas fired rockets and staged terrorist attacks, culminating in the October 2023 operation that killed 1,200 people and led to the capture of 250 more. Israel retaliated with an unrelenting military operation that killed more than 47,000 people, according to Gazan health officials, whose count does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. In the weeks since a cease-fire that President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s administration negotiated and that Mr. Trump pushed came into effect, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were repeatedly displaced throughout the war have returned to their homes in Gaza to find them and their communities demolished. Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump’s Middle East envoy, visited Gaza last week and said it would take 10 to 15 years to reconstruct. “If you had damage that was one-hundredth of what I saw in Gaza, nobody would be allowed to go back to their homes,” Mr. Witkoff told reporters on Tuesday. “That’s how dangerous it is. There’s 30,000 unexploded munitions. It is buildings that could tip over at any moment. There’s no utilities.” Picking up on the theme later in the day, Mr. Trump said it was not realistic to have Palestinians return to Gaza. “They have no alternative right now” but to leave, Mr. Trump told reporters before Mr. Netanyahu’s arrival. “I mean, they’re there because they have no alternative,” he said. “What do they have? It is a big pile of rubble right now.” He added: “I don’t know how they could want to stay. It’s a demolition site. It’s a pure demolition site.” Mr. Trump suggested the resettlement of Palestinians would be akin to the New York real estate projects he built his career on. “If we could find the right piece of land, or numerous pieces of land, and build them some really nice places with plenty of money in the area, that’s for sure,” he said. “I think that would be a lot better than going back to Gaza.” “I do see a long-term ownership position” for the United States, Mr. Trump said, adding that “everybody I’ve spoken to loves the idea of the United States owning that piece of land, developing and creating thousands of jobs with something that will be magnificent.” Mr. Trump’s summit with Mr. Netanyahu was his first in-person meeting with another world leader since his return to power two weeks ago. It was part of a multiday visit to Washington by Mr. Netanyahu that was meant to demonstrate the close ties between the two leaders. Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu forged a close partnership during the president’s first term but fell out toward its end over a number of issues, including the Israeli leader’s willingness to congratulate Mr. Biden on his victory in the 2020 election, which Mr. Trump insists he won. Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu have since sought to smooth over their rift. But Mr. Netanyahu went into his meeting at odds with Mr. Trump on several important issues, according to analysts, likely including how to confront Iran’s nuclear ambitions and how quickly to end the war in Gaza. The Trump administration has made clear that it wants to see all of the hostages held by Hamas returned and then move on to a grand bargain involving Saudi Arabia that formalizes relations with Israel. Advisers to Mr. Trump told reporters on Tuesday morning that the president and Mr. Netanyahu were united behind the idea that Hamas should not be allowed to remain in power. With Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing government in jeopardy if the war ends with Hamas still in control in Gaza, and with no other plan for the area in place, analysts expect the Israeli prime minister to try to delay moving toward a permanent cease-fire. “Netanyahu made this salami deal,” said Shira Efron, the senior director of policy research at the Israel Policy Forum, a New York-based research group, referring to the three-phased agreement with Hamas. “He’s always playing for time and kicking the can down the road.” Adding to the anxiety in the region were reports on Monday that U.S. intelligence officials believe Iran is seeking to build a cruder atomic weapon that could be developed quickly if the leadership in Tehran decided to do so. It remains unclear whether that decision has been made, and Iran’s new president has indicated that he would like to begin a negotiation with Mr. Trump’s administration even as the country’s nuclear scientists push ahead with their efforts. Mr. Trump on Tuesday signed an order directing a return to the policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran through sanctions, but avoided hostile language and refused to say whether he would support an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, an indication of his interest in reaching an agreement. “This is one I’m torn about,” he said as he signed the order. “Hopefully, we’re not going to have to use it very much.” © 2025 The New York Times Company

Clashes break out days before Rwandan and Congolese presidents attend crisis summit. By Agence France-Press in Bukavu Wed 5 Feb 2025 Residents survey damage from fighting between M23 rebels and Congolese forces in Goma. Photograph: Arlette Bashizi/Reuters Rebels of the M23 armed group and allied Rwandan forces have launched a new offensive in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, days before the Rwandan and Congolese presidents are due to attend a crisis summit. The UN meanwhile said the battle for the key city of Goma, which the M23 and Rwandan troops seized last week, had left at least 2,900 people dead – far higher than the previous death toll of 900. Breaking a ceasefire they had declared unilaterally – and which had been due to come into effect on Tuesday – M23 fighters and Rwandan troops seized a mining town in South Kivu province, resuming their advance towards the provincial capital, Bukavu. Intense clashes broke out at dawn on Wednesday around Nyabibwe, about 100km (60 miles) from Bukavu and 70km from the province’s airport. The M23 had said in declaring the ceasefire that it had “no intention of taking control of Bukavu or other localities”. “This is proof that the unilateral ceasefire that has been declared was, as usual, a ploy,” Congolese government spokesman Patrick Muyaya told AFP. In more than three years of fighting between the Rwanda-backed group and the Congolese army, half a dozen ceasefires and truces have been declared, before being unceremoniously broken. Local and military sources said in recent days that all sides were reinforcing troops and equipment in the region. Last week’s capture of Goma was a major escalation in the mineral-rich region, scarred by relentless conflict involving dozens of armed groups over three decades. As Goma counted its dead, Vivian van de Perre, deputy chief of the UN peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO), gave an updated toll from the battle for the city. “So far, 2,000 bodies have been collected from the Goma streets in recent days, and 900 bodies remain in the morgues of the Goma hospitals,” she told a video news conference, saying the toll could still rise. International criminal court prosecutors said in a statement they were “closely following” events in the eastern DRC, “including the grave escalation of violence over the past weeks”. In Bukavu, a city of one million people that residents fear will become the next battleground, a crowd gathered for an ecumenical prayer service for peace, organised by local women. “We are tired of the non-stop wars. We want peace,” one attendee, Jacqueline Ngengele, told AFP. DRC President Félix Tshisekedi and his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame are due to attend a joint summit of the eight-country East African Community and 16-member Southern African Development Community in the Tanzanian city of Dar es Salaam on Saturday. A day earlier, the UN Human Rights Council will convene a special session on the crisis, at Kinshasa’s request. Fears the violence could spark a wider conflict have galvanised regional bodies, mediators such as Angola and Kenya, as well as the UN, EU and other countries in diplomatic efforts for a peaceful resolution. But the DRC’s top diplomat accused the international community of being all talk and no action on the conflict. “We see a lot of declarations but we don’t see actions,” foreign minister Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner told journalists in Brussels. Several neighbouring countries have already said they are bolstering their defences, wary of the crisis spilling over. A UN expert report said last year that Rwanda had up to 4,000 troops in the DRC, seeking to profit from its vast mineral wealth, and that Kigali has “de facto” control over the M23. The eastern DRC has deposits of coltan, a metallic ore that is vital in making phones and laptops, as well as gold and other minerals. Rwanda has never explicitly admitted to military involvement in support of the M23 and alleges that the DRC supports and shelters the FDLR, an armed group created by ethnic Hutus who massacred Tutsis during the 1994 Rwandan genocide. © 2025 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. (dcr)

MICT rejects former Drina Corps commander's request for early release, saying his expressions of remorse for the 1995 Srebrenica genocide do not go far enough. Lamija Grebo, February 4, 2025 Radislav Krstic in the courtroom at the ICTY. Photo: EPA/PAUL VREEKER The Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, MICT, has again rejected a request for early release by former Bosnian Serb Army commander Radislav Krstic, who was sentenced to 35 years in prison for aiding the 1995 Srebrenica genocide. In her decision, the Mechanism’s president, Judge Graciela Gatti Santana, stated that although Krstic fulfills early release conditions, she still believed his request should be rejected. She said the gravity of Krstic’s crimes influenced the denial of his early release, and that the more serious the criminal conduct in question was, the more convincing any demonstration of rehabilitation should be. “I welcome the fact that Krstic has made positive progress and I consider that his public acknowledgment that genocide happened in Srebrenica, and that he took part in it, reflects a level of rehabilitation and is significant, given the rise of historic revisionism and genocide denial in the region,” Gatti Santana stated. But she added that she was still not convinced that Krstic had demonstrated a sufficient degree of rehabilitation to reach an “elevated threshold” – and saw no compelling humanitarian reasons that could overpower a negative assessment. Last year, Krstic filed a request for early release as well as a letter in which he accepted responsibility for his crimes, about which Detektor reported. In his letter, Krstic welcomed the UN adoption of the Resolution on Srebrenica, which has designated July 11 as an annual Day of Remembrance for the genocide victims. “I accept the [Hague] Tribunal’s verdicts from 2001 and 2004, which established that the forces of the army to which I belonged committed genocide against Bosniaks in Srebrenica in July 1995, and that I aided and abetted the genocide by knowing that some members of the [Bosnian Serb] General Staff intended to commit genocide,” Krstic wrote. Krstic wrote that he aided and abetted crimes against humanity through participation in a joint criminal enterprise to forcibly remove Bosniak civilians from Potocari near Srebrenica and participated in the creation of a humanitarian crisis that preceded the forced transfer of women, children and the elderly from Srebrenica, knowing, he stated, that civilians were being subjected to murders, rape, beating and abuse. He said he knew the Bosnian Serb General Staff lacked the forces to carry out the executions without using his Drina Corps forces. “I would like to find myself in Potocari once again in my life, to bow before the victims and ask for forgiveness,” Krstic wrote, explaining that he would do so if the families of the victims allowed him to do so. But Judge Gatti Santana said she did not consider his expressions of remorse entirely sincere, and not solely motivated by his desire for early release. She noted that many families of missing genocide victims are still waiting for information about their loved ones. Given that the Drina Corps participated in the executions, burials and relocation of bodies, “it is reasonable to conclude that Krstic, as the commander of the Drina Corps, had access to extensive information about their operations”, the decision stated. “Krstic could show sincere remorse by revealing all relevant information he has got or by convincingly and transparently explaining why he does not possess such information that could help in the search for the missing mortal remains,” Gatti Santana said. She added that such an act would convince her more that Krstic was not indifferent to the victims of his crimes and to the tragedy of the missing persons. In 2004, the Hague Tribunal sentenced Krstic to 35 years in prison for aiding and abetting the Srebrenica genocide. Later that year, he was sent to England to serve his sentence but was attacked in the prison, after which he was returned to the Hague and then sent to Poland to serve his sentence. He was later sent back to the Detention Unit in the Hague. So far he has filed several requests for early release, which the Mechanism has rejected. Copyright BIRN 2015

In Indonesia, it is legally required to specify a religion on official documents. Nonbelievers say they are being discriminated against. By David Hutt 6 February 2025 Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim-majority nation A rare legal effort to secure rights for atheists and nonbelievers was quashed last month by Indonesia's Constitutional Court, which ruled that a citizen must profess a faith, even a minority one, on official documents, and that marriage must conform to religion.   Indonesia , the world's largest Muslim-majority nation, officially recognizes six religions: Islam , Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism. While adherents of minority faiths can face discrimination , atheists and nonbelievers are not even recognized under the law.  In 2012, Alexander Aan, a civil servant, was sentenced to 30 months in prison for blasphemy after sharing atheist content on Facebook. Indonesia's criminal code punishes blasphemy and the spread of atheism, although technically, it does not criminalize the absence of religious belief itself. However, non-believers argue that existing laws are selectively enforced to deny them equal protection under the law.  In January 2024, the Constitutional Court allowed individuals from minority religious groups not among the officially recognized six to register as non-specified "believers" on their identity cards.   Campaigners hoped this would pave the way for the inclusion of a "no religion" option. However, that hope was dashed after two agnostic activists, Raymond Kamil and Teguh Sugiharto, unsuccessfully petitioned the Constitutional Court in October to allow non-believers the right to leave the religion field blank on official documents.  Court shuts down non-believer petition Constitutional Court Justice Arief Hidayat ruled against the petition last month, stating that religious belief is "a necessity" under "Pancasila" and mandated by the constitution. Pancasila is Indonesia's founding ideology and enshrines belief in a single, supreme deity. Justice Hidayat, a former chief justice, argued that requiring a religious confession constituted a "proportional restriction" and was not arbitrary or oppressive.  The Constitutional Court also slapped down another petition filed by Kamil and Sugiharto which argued that a provision of the Marriage Law, which stipulates that a marriage is valid only if conducted according to the laws of the relevant religion and belief, was discriminatory.   According to local media, Justice Hidayat said in his ruling that the "absence of provisions for Indonesian citizens to choose not to adhere to a religion or belief," validating marriages according to individual religion or belief "does not constitute discriminatory treatment." "The court essentially ruled that there is 'no room' for the freedom to be irreligious," Ignatius Yordan Nugraha, a scholar at the Hertie School in Berlin wrote on Verfassungsblog , a Germany-based outlet about international constitutional matters.  How common is atheism in Indonesia? Although atheism is heavily stigmatized, research suggests that non-belief is not uncommon in Indonesia. A study by academic Hanung Sito Rohmawati estimated that around 3.5 million Indonesians are atheists in a population of more than 270 million. The real number is unknown since many non-believers conceal their lack of faith to avoid discrimination, harassment, or prosecution, activists say.    Andreas Harsono, a researcher for Human Rights Watch (HRW), told DW that he was not surprised by the Constitutional Court's ruling.   Indonesia has seen a rise in Islamic fundamentalism since the fall of authoritarian President Suharto in 1998, and "the nine judges at the court are not immune from Islamic fundamentalism," Harsono said.    In a 2010 ruling that upheld laws that criminalize blasphemy, the Constitutional Court stressed "the principle of all-one divinity as the main principle" of the law, meaning that religiosity is "a yardstick … to determine constitutional or unconstitutional law." Rights of non-believers mostly go unnoticed The Constitutional Court's ruling against non-belief has drawn little international attention. The rights of minority faiths in Southeast Asia have become a hotly contested issue in recent years, particularly since Myanmar's military began its attempted genocide of the Muslim-minority Rohingya population in 2016. The US government and the German Parliament have been particularly evocative in criticizing the governments of communist Vietnam and Laos for repressing religious minorities.   But agnostics and atheists say they receive little international advocacy. A report from NGO Humanists International, "Humanists At Risk: Action Report 2020," documented "lack of separation between state and religion, as well as an array of tactics used against humanists, atheists and non-religious people" in several Southeast Asian states, including Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines .   Pope Francis did not raise a voice for non-believers during his much-publicized tour of Indonesia last September.   A  European Union (EU) spokesperson who spoke to DW would not specifically comment on the court ruling.   "The EU promotes and supports the right of all individuals to have a religion, to hold a belief, or not to believe, as well as the right to manifest and to change or leave one's religion or belief without fear of violence, persecution, or discrimination," the spokesperson said. "We regularly discuss the importance of guaranteeing freedom of religion or belief — including the right not to believe — in appropriate fora such as the EU-Indonesia Human Rights Dialogue," the latest edition of which was held in July, the spokesperson added. Despite the legal setbacks, Harsono from HRW believes that progress is still achievable. "It's possible to challenge the ruling," he said, referring to the latest Constitutional Court decision, although he admitted that it may take time. "We need to educate people to understand the principle of religious freedom and belief in Indonesia," he noted.   However, scholar Nugraha reckons that Hidayat's ruling last month "opens the door to more constitutional petitions against laws that are not in line with pan-religious values." © 2025 Deutsche Welle

President Donald Trump...credit: Fulton County Sheriff's Department Mass deportations violate U.S. and international law. They’re also crimes against humanity. By Dr. Gregory H Stanton Founding President Genocide Watch President Trump’s order to arrest and deport millions of undocumented immigrants, including hundreds of thousands of refugees, violates US obligations under the 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees. The US Senate ratified that treaty unanimously in 1968. 147 nations are States Parties to the treaty. The US adopted the Refugee Protocol into US law in the United States Refugee Act of 1980 , passed unanimously by the Senate and signed by President Jimmy Carter, who noted, “The Refugee Act reflects our long tradition as a haven for people uprooted by persecution and political turmoil.” The 1967 Protocol and the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees Article 1 defines “refugee” as any person who is outside the country of his or her nationality owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and who is unable or, owing to such fear is unwilling to return to his or her country. Refugees seeking asylum who cross borders illegally are not to be considered criminals. Article 31 says states shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees coming from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened. They must promptly present themselves to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. Article 33 , the heart of the Refugee Convention, says: “No Contracting State shall expel or return ( “refouler” ) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” Convicted criminals are not eligible to be protected as refugees. Article 1 F denies refugee status to anyone against whom there is evidence of a war crime, crime against humanity, or a serious non-political crime. However, Article 32 holds that States Parties shall not expel a refugee from their territory except in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Massive ICE roundups and forced deportations without trials fall far short of that standard. Refugees who have sought asylum are lawfully present in the US under both US and international law. They are not criminals for entering without visas. So, too, are persons granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) by Presidential Order. Venezuelans, Haitians, Cubans, Salvadorans, and others fleeing dictatorships or countries controlled by criminal gangs were granted protected status by President Biden. The US might invoke Article 9 and claim that the smuggling of fentanyl by undocumented migrants is a grave and exceptional circumstance that threatens US national security and requires their expulsion. The fatal flaw in this rationale is that many of the people being deported are already in the US and pose no more threat to national security than ordinary American citizens. Two-thirds of undocumented immigrants in the US have lived in the US for ten years or more. Countries expected to resettle deportees are not legally obligated to accept the return of their citizens. They may invoke Article 4 of the Refugee Protocol and dispute any US “national security” claim in the International Court of Justice. Refugee Protocol Article 9 requires a State Party to give one year’s notice to the UN Secretary-General to withdraw from (denounce) the Protocol before the denunciation takes effect. Mass deportations are crimes against humanity. At Nuremberg, Nazi leaders were tried for crimes against humanity that included forced deportations of Jews. Today, forced deportations are outlawed by many decisions of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. In 2002, the International Criminal Court became a permanent world tribunal to try such crimes. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article (7(1)(d)) makes deportation or forcible transfer of a population a crime against humanity. The Rome Statute defines deportation as “forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area where they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law.” The US is not a State Party to the Rome Statute. The ICC cannot try US citizens unless they commit a crime against a citizen or on the territory of a country that is a State Party to the ICC. 125 nations are States Parties to the ICC Statute. If the US deports a citizen of El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Colombia, Guatemala, Afghanistan, Brazil, Bosnia, DR Congo, Nigeria, Ukraine or 114 other ICC States Parties, those countries could ask the ICC Prosecutor to bring charges against a US official who participated in the deportation of their citizens. There is no immunity in the ICC for crimes against humanity committed by heads of state or government officials. Though it is politically unlikely, even President Trump himself could be charged for these mass deportations and put on trial. President Trump has now rescinded Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans and wants to deport 600,000 Venezuelans back into the tyranny run by the Marxist dictator Maduro of Venezuela. President Trump’s Proclamation revoking their Temporary Protected Status was arbitrary and capricious. The ACLU filed a lawsuit February 3 to vacate Trump’s Proclamation. The US Supreme Court should block these deportations because they violate both US and international law. Universal Jurisdiction Crimes against humanity, like genocide, torture, and war crimes, are crimes of universal jurisdiction. Like piracy, they can be prosecuted no matter where the crime was committed and regardless of the defendant’s nationality. Such crimes constitute peremptory norms ( jus cogens ) and violate duties owed to all of humanity ( erga omnes .) Fifteen countries enforce universal jurisdiction in their courts: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Mexico, Netherlands, Senegal, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The US has universal jurisdiction for torture and genocide. US officials who order or carry out mass deportations are committing crimes against humanity. In the future, they may travel for business or vacation. If they travel to a country with universal jurisdiction, their identities are verified, and evidence is prepared against them, they could be arrested and charged as soon as they step off their flights in Paris, Barcelona, Mexico City, or Copenhagen. They could be put on trial there for crimes against humanity. It would not be an auspicious way to begin a vacation. Dr. Gregory H. Stanton is the Founding President of Genocide Watch and the Alliance Against Genocide. He founded the Cambodian Genocide Project. He was a Professor in Genocide Studies at George Mason University and was the James Farmer Professor in Human Rights at the University of Mary Washington. He was a law professor at Washington and Lee University. He wrote the UN Resolutions in the State Department that established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. He wrote the rules of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. He holds degrees from Oberlin, Harvard Divinity School, Yale Law School, and a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Published under Creative Commons copyright 2025 Genocide Watch, Inc. May be republished with credit to author and without edits.

The six-month extension is intended to buy time for the military’s long-promised election, but conditions in the country are not propitious. Credit: Depositphotos The military junta in Myanmar has extended its state of emergency for another six months, in order to prepare for an election that it has promised to hold sometime later this year. According to a report in the state-run Global New Light of Myanmar, the decision was made at a meeting of the military-controlled National Defense and Security Council (NDSC) on Friday, at which coup leader Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing said that more time was needed to restore “stability” before polls could be organized. “The election must be systematic, free and fair fully and it must be prestigious,” the Global New Light reported, paraphrasing Min Aung Hlaing’s comments. To achieve this, it added, it is “essential” to restore “peace and stability in relevant regions.” In announcing the extension on its Telegram channel, the state-run broadcaster MRTV said that there were “still more tasks to be done to hold the general election successfully,” again citing the need for “stability and peace,” Reuters reported . The extension of the state of emergency came a day ahead of the fourth anniversary of the military coup that overthrew the country’s civilian government in 2021. The extension is the seventh that the junta has announced since, as it has struggled to put down a nationwide uprising against its deeply repressive rule. During Friday’s meeting, Min Aung Hlaing cited the widespread “acts of terrorism” and the “coordinated efforts… to incite widespread acts of violence” throughout the country. These have “cause[d] delays in progress,” he added. Indeed, over the past 18 months, the regime has lost considerable territory to the loose coalition of ethnic armed groups and anti-regime militias seeking its overthrow. The losses have been especially dramatic in Rakhine State, where the Arakan Army (AA) has succeeded in corralling the Myanmar military into small areas, including in the state capital Sittwe, and in northern Shan State, where the AA’s allies in the Three Brotherhood Alliance have captured large swathes of territory and control key trade routes with China. At the same time, the United Nations estimates that Myanmar’s conflict has now displaced more than 3 million people, while around a third of the population is in need of humanitarian assistance. In a report published last month, the U.N. Development Programme said that Myanmar now faces a “polycrisis” characterized by “political instability… entrenched conflict, economic disruptions, severe human rights violations, and worsening environmental degradation.” This polycrisis “has pushed millions into poverty, with half of the population living below the poverty line and a further one third just barely above it.” In its coverage of the fourth anniversary  of the coup, The Irrawaddy wrote that Myanmar “has become a battleground, with millions suffering the consequences.” While nobody expects the elections to be anything approaching free and inclusive – in 2023, the junta dissolved 40 political parties, including the former ruling National League for Democracy – even mounting a sham theatrical poll will be challenging in these circumstances. Since 2021, the regime has been forced repeatedly to delay its election plans due to the deteriorating security situation – something that has worsened markedly since the end of 2023. For one measure of the challenge, the junta’s pre-election census, which it held late last year, could only be conducted in full in 145 of the country’s 330 townships , according to the military’s own accounting. In addition, it was able to conduct partial counts in 127 townships, and was unable to collect any data at all in 58 townships. As Reuters reported last week , citing “a source with knowledge of discussions in Naypyidaw,” the regime is currently planning to hold the election in 160-170 of the country’s townships, with an election date likely to fall toward the end of the year. “They want to go ahead,” the source added. In its plan to hold an election, the junta has a strong partner in China, which has supported the polls as a possible prelude to a comprehensive political settlement and an end, or at least a containment, of the current conflict. To this end, it has pushed major rebel groups in northern Shan State close to the Chinese border to cease their offensives against the junta and return to the negotiating table – with some success. Last month, the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), which last year seized the major city of Lashio, the location of the military’s Northeast regional Command, agreed to a ceasefire . According to some reports, this will involve its eventual withdrawal from Lashio, presumably in advance of the junta’s planned election. The MNDAA’s allies, the Arakan Army (AA) and Ta’ang National Liberation Army, have also announced   their willingness  to take part in China-brokered ceasefire talks. Even with Beijing’s support, however, it is likely that the junta will struggle to administer an election. Last week’s extension of the state of emergency is a sign that the military authorities lack the confidence to announce a definitive date, which might catalyze renewed military operations by resistance groups. Even the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which would probably have no opposition to an election if it could help bring Myanmar’s conflict to an end, has counseled caution. At a meeting late last month, ASEAN foreign ministers told the junta  that an election should not be its priority, instead urging it to start dialogue and “stop the violence.” In comments to Reuters , David Mathieson, an independent analyst of Myanmar’s politics, said that any attempt to hold an election would likely be staunchly opposed by the resistance, many parts of which have already expressed their intention to prevent the polls from going ahead in territories under their control. “There is a very real danger these elections could turn into a bloodbath if revolutionary forces decide to attack polling stations, election officials, and party candidates,” Mathieson said. © 2025 Diplomat Media Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The delays, denials and obfuscations in the investigation into the Sri Lankan editor’s murder reveals continued impunity around the killing of journalists in Sri Lanka By Raisa Wickrematunge 31 January 2025 Lasantha Wickrematunge’s gravesite during a memorial service on 8 January 2025. Sixteen years since the Sri Lankan editor’s murder, there has been little progress in the investigation in the case. ON THE MORNING of 8 January 2009, Lasantha Wickrematunge, my uncle and the editor of the Sunday Leader , was on his way to work when he noticed black-clad men on motorcycles following him. He had cause to be alarmed, having received death threats – including one just weeks before, scrawled in red ink, which warned, “If you write, you will be killed.” Wickrematunge made several calls, including to family and friends, but ultimately decided to continue the drive to the office of his weekly newspaper.  As a family, we have mentally retraced that journey many times, wondering if there was something he could have done that would have prevented what happened next. Around the corner from the newspaper’s office, on Templars Road in the Colombo suburb of Mount Lavinia, the motorcyclists forced Lasantha’s vehicle off the road near a primary school. One of them delivered what would prove to be a fatal wound. Onlookers rushed Lasantha to Colombo South Teaching Hospital, but it was too late.  In the aftermath of my uncle’s murder, one image was transmitted over and over again on television news channels – that of his car with a single, perfectly round hole in the wind screen, a spiderweb of cracks surrounding it. When a judicial medical officer wrote that Lasantha had been killed with a firearm, no one questioned it, even though there were no shell casings found at the crime scene, nor any bullets, and notes from the emergency surgeon who tended to him said that his wounds had not been caused by bullets. From the beginning, the investigation by the Sri Lankan government, then headed by Mahinda Rajapaksa, was flawed and beset by delays. Lasantha travelled everywhere with phone firmly clamped to ear and a notebook that contained jottings from interviews, often detailing corruption at the highest levels. It was soon discovered that both his notebook and phone had disappeared. Later, it was found that his phone had been stolen. What happened to the notebook was more mysterious, particularly as the police had collected it from the crime scene. The officer-in-charge of crimes at the Mount Lavinia police, Tissa Sugathapala, made a two-page log entry about the contents of the notebook, which included two vehicle license-plate numbers scrawled on the front and back pages. Sugathapala then handed the notebook over to the deputy inspector general Prasanna Nanayakkara, who said he would hand it over to the inspector general of police. After that, the notebook disappeared. Early on, questions were raised as to what Lasantha’s notebook might have contained. My uncle was best known for his exposés, which went all the way back to the 1980s, when he penned a column for the Sunday Times under the nom-de-plume Suranimala while working as a secretary for the former prime minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike. Among his scoops as Suranimala was one about Ranasinghe Premadasa’s proposals as president for the devolution of certain powers to provincial governments so as to resolve tensions between the Sinhalese and Tamils – detailed down to the different colours of ink used to write the proposals. At the time, my uncle was a whistleblower. But soon, in his role at the Sunday Leader , he would display a talent for digging up uncomfortable truths through investigative reporting.  Part of this was down to his charm. He would greet everyone with a smile and a joke. His cheery voice would precede him when he visited our house, where he would stop first in the kitchen and poke his fingers into whatever was bubbling on the stove before making his way around the building to chat to each of us. As a shy child, I usually had my nose in a book, but my uncle would always find a way to draw me into conversation in a way that was never condescending.  Lasantha cultivated a wide array of contacts on both sides of the political aisle, giving him access to inside information that few other journalists could match. While he was fun-loving, he was also committed to his work, regularly appearing at the office with a sheaf of mysterious papers that would later form the backbone of his latest exposé, and frequently disappearing into his office to frantically type up his weekly column. Around the time Lasantha was killed, he had been reporting on a deal between the Sri Lankan Air Force and Ukrinmash, a Ukrainian state-owned arms firm. The deal involved the procurement of bombers manufactured by the Russian Aircraft Corporation, commonly known as MiG, to the tune of over USD 14 million. As Lasantha reported, the price was suspiciously high – twice the price paid for similar aircraft in 2000 – and the procurement was billed as a government-to-government deal, bypassing a tender process. In a series of articles, Lasantha unveiled how the deal was brokered by Udayanga Weeratunga, a cousin to the ruling Rajapaksa family. He showed that a Singaporean middleman had paid Ukrinmash just USD 7 million, with at least some of the remaining money wired to Rajapaksa relatives to Weeratunga – seeming evidence of kickbacks. In November 2007, armed men stormed the Sunday Leader office, held the staff at gunpoint and set the paper’s printing press on fire. No one was ever charged for the attack. In February 2008, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, then the secretary of defence, filed a defamation case against the Sunday Leader over the MiG stories. The case was ongoing when Lasantha was killed. Lasantha was reporting in a fraught climate for journalists. In 2009, Sri Lankan media outlets faced increased restrictions, particularly when reporting on the country’s civil war. Journalists faced  both verbal and physical attacks. Keith Noyahr, the deputy editor of The Nation , was abducted and beaten in 2008; Paranirupasingham Devakumar, the Jaffna correspondent for NewsFirst , was stabbed to death after his critical reporting on the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam; and the freelance defence writer Namal Perera was assaulted. Days before Lasantha’s death, an armed group set fire to the office of the channel MTV-MBC, with the Sri Lankan government describing the attack as “an inside job”. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, at least 16 journalists had been killed in pursuit of their work over the course of the civil war up to January 2009, either murdered, caught in the crossfire, or while pursuing dangerous assignments.  The motive for Lasantha’s killing was almost certainly to silence him. The grieving Sunday Leader editorial team went straight to the office and pushed out the new issue. That weekend, the newspaper’s readers opened the editorial section to see a column titled “And then they came for me”. It began, “No other profession calls on its practitioners to lay down their lives for their art save the armed forces, and in Sri Lanka, journalism.” The blistering editorial would be reprinted all around the world, keeping interest in Lasantha’s case alive. A portrait of Lasantha that hangs in our family living room. Lasantha was reporting in a fraught climate for journalists. In 2009, Sri Lankan media outlets faced increased restrictions, particularly when reporting on the country’s civil war. FOR NEARLY A YEAR after the killing, until my family petitioned to have the investigation handed over to the Criminal Investigations Department (CID), there was no progress in the case. By December 2009, a court granted that request.  The CID made several key breakthroughs. One of them was the identification of a specific group of military intelligence officers, known as the Tripoli Platoon, who were implicated in the killing. This discovery came thanks to eyewitness testimony, and the eventual tracing of cell phones linked to five SIM cards believed to have been used by those who had followed Lasantha that day. The CID also found that members of the same platoon were linked to attacks on other journalists, including Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon. Just as this discovery was made, in 2010, the inspector general of police ordered the CID to transfer the case to the Terrorism Investigation Department (TID). Around the same time, the commanding officer of the Tripoli Platoon was given a diplomatic post at the Sri Lankan embassy in Thailand.  In February that year, the TID arrested 17 military officers suspected of involvement in Lasantha’s killing. All 17 were eventually released without charges. A member of the Tripoli Platoon was detained by the TID for questioning, but was later released after an eyewitness who had pinpointed him died while in police custody. While in detention, the Tripoli Platoon member was promoted, paid his salary and allowed to apply for loans. In June 2010, the journalist Stephen Sackur interviewed Gotabaya on his BBC show, HardTalk . In one clip, now infamous, Sackur questions him about Lasantha’s case. Gotabaya grows visibly angry at the mention of my uncle’s name and splutters, “Who is Lasantha Wickrematunge? He is just another person. There are so many murders everywhere, in the whole world there are murders. Why are you asking about Lasantha?” There was little more progress until 2015, when the Rajapaksas were defeated at the polls and a new government, headed by Maithripala Sirisena, was voted into power. One of its key campaign promises had been moving forward the investigation.  In July 2016, an intelligence officer named Premananda Udalagama was taken into detention in connection with the case and charged with abduction of an eyewitness, assault and conspiracy. That September, one year into the new government, a second autopsy of Lasantha was ordered due to discrepancies in the original medical and post-mortem examination reports.  The process of the exhumation was extremely painful for our family. Ahimsa Wickrematunge, my cousin and Lasantha’s daughter, pleaded for privacy, but journalists gathered outside the cemetery on the day of the exhumation and jostled to get photos of the grave. One journalist went so far as to fly a drone over the open grave in order to get a photo of my uncle’s remains. As a member of the family, I was asked if I wanted to be present to witness the exhumation. I declined: I wanted to preserve my memory of my uncle as he was.  In October, a retired intelligence officer was found dead in his home after apparently taking his own life. A note in his pocket contained a confession that he had killed Lasantha and a claim that Udalagama was innocent. His death was treated as suspicious, and his body was exhumed a week after his death for further investigation. The police arrested five intelligence officers in 2017 in connection with Lasantha’s case. They also indicted investigators for concealing information on the case. It was revealed that the deputy inspector general of police at the time had issued instructions that the pages containing the license-plate numbers of the motorcycles that followed Lasantha to be removed from his notebook. It was also around this time that details on the tracking of the cell phones used by the men who had followed Lasantha, and the links with the Tripoli Platoon, were first publicly reported.  In 2018, media reports revealed that an anonymous tip-off soon after Lasantha’s death had led the CID to a motorcycle said to have been used in the murder and then dumped in a marsh. The CID’s investigations traced the motorcycle to two Tamil youths who had disappeared – seemingly after being abducted, according to eyewitness testimony. Their bodies were later discovered in Anuradhapura, some 200 kilometres from Colombo, and identified through DNA tests. A former senior superintendent of police testified in court in March 2018 that their killings had been part of an attempt to attribute Lasantha’s murder to the LTTE. In January 2019, the magistrate’s court at Mount Lavinia ordered the channel Derana TV to hand over to the CID unedited footage of an interview it had conducted with Gotabaya in 2007, more than a year before Lasantha was killed. In the interview, Gotabaya refers to journalists writing “filth” about him and then driving around alone in their cars – believed to be a reference to Lasantha. That April, Ahimsa, Lasantha’s daughter, filed a lawsuit against Gotabaya, accusing him of playing a role in her father’s death.  By November, Gotabaya had been elected the country’s president, voted in by a public looking for reassurance after the Easter Sunday bombings earlier that year. Since, as the head of state, he now had immunity from prosecution, my cousin was forced to withdraw her suit. Gotabaya’s presidency saw the case again stalled, with judicial hearings delayed. Within days of the 2019 election, the director of the CID, Shani Abeysekara, was demoted and transferred to serve as personal assistant to the deputy inspector general of the Southern Province. The CID officer Nishantha Silva later fled the country for fear of retribution for his role in the case. His departure was met with much controversy, with rumours swirling as to where he had fled and with whose help. In 2020, the CID arrested Abeysekara for allegedly concealing evidence in another case. He was detained for over ten months before being released. Posters of killings, abduction and torture of journalists, lined the front of the Presidential secretariat during the 2022 protests around Sri Lanka’s economic crisis, highlighting continued impunity in their cases. Wickrematunge’s face was displayed alongside that of Dharmaratnam Sivaram, Poddala Jayantha and others ULTIMATELY, GOTABAYA’S PRESIDENCY was cut short. In 2022, Sri Lanka was plunged into crisis due to the Rajapakas’ economic mismanagement, including sweeping tariff cuts that Gotabaya had introduced as president.. Angry citizens took to the streets and the Galle Face Green in Colombo, near the presidential secretariat, became one of the main protest sites. Early on in the protests, I saw a photo of a protester holding up a banner bearing my uncle’s face. “Who is Lasantha? Look around. He is everywhere,” the banner said. It was a powerful reminder that it was not just his family, his former colleagues at the Sunday Leader and other journalists who remembered him.  Screenshot of a post on X (formerly Twitter) showing a protester holding a poster saying 'Who is Lasantha? Look around. He is everywhere' referencing an interview with Stephen Sackur from 2010 on BBC HardTalk. @Thedmdvbd ver the next few months, my uncle’s name and face would appear again at the Galle Face Green protest site. A string of posters showing killed journalists adorned the fence in front of the presidential secretariat, and a similar memorial was set up in front of the nearby Shangri-La hotel. At the peak of the protests, the names of Sri Lankan journalists killed in the pursuit of their work were projected directly onto the presidential secretariat. I saw my uncle’s name alongside the names of many others, along with a call for justice – a call met with cheers from watching protesters.  Seeing so many people remember not just my uncle but also many others unjustly killed, including Tamil journalists, moved me deeply. Around that time, at an annual vigil held in my uncle’s memory, I had begun calling attention to the continued impunity around the killing of journalists in Sri Lanka. I often felt that I was speaking into an uncaring camera lens to be fodder for the evening’s primetime news, or writing into a void repeating the same names year after year, but it seemed that people had been listening.  The protests finally forced Gotabaya out and he was replaced as president by Ranil Wickremesinghe. In 2019, when Wickremesinghe was the prime minister under the Sirisena government, my cousin had written a letter to point out that he often invoked my uncle’s name in his rhetoric but showed no interest in seeing the investigation into his murder through. While there had been incremental progress in the investigation during Sirisena’s regime, which revealed cover-ups by the police and military intelligence, there was scant investigation into who had given the orders to the officers of the Tripoli Platoon. Now, as Sri Lanka scrambled to find its feet after the economic crisis, “emblematic” cases, including my uncle’s, were shunted aside by the Wickremesinghe administration. In May 2022, Lasantha’s case was taken up by the People’s Tribunal on the Murder of Journalists, a joint initiative by the international groups Free Press Unlimited, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders, alongside cases from Mexico and Syria. In September, the tribunal found the Sri Lankan state guilty of “grave violations” in the case. I watched as several people came forward to testify about the media landscape in Sri Lanka and the threats that the Sunday Leader had faced, including the burning of its press and the frequent death threats to its journalists. It was cathartic to hear the judgment, even if the People’s Tribunal has no authority to hold the Sri Lankan state to account and the government did not respond.  The call of the protesters in 2022 was for “system change”. Last year, Sri Lanka voted in a new government, headed by the National People’s Power (NPP), hoping for an end to the corruption, nepotism and violence embedded in our political culture. The new president, Anura Kumara Dissanayake, has promised to pursue investigations in several key cases, including my uncle’s. But his government has also already begun backtracking on key campaign promises. For instance, the NPP now says that the Prevention of Terrorism Act, used in the past to silence journalists, will not be repealed as it promised but rather replaced with other legislation to curb extremism.  Time will tell whether Dissanayake will move on my uncle’s case. And it must be said that there are also other cases that deserve attention but have languished unresolved – the cases of Aiyathurai Nadesan, Dharmaratnam Sivaram, Mylvaganam Nimalarajan, Prageeth Eknaligoda, and Isaipriya, among many others.  The Committee to Protect Journalists lists 19 Sri Lankan journalists among its list of those killed in the pursuit of their work across the world. The Journalists for Democracy database, which records killings of journalists and media workers, has recorded 43 names from Sri Lanka. Today, we are barely any closer to justice and accountability for their deaths. In the 16 years since my uncle’s death, I have seen the crowds gathering at his grave every January grow and shrink, and seen politicians arrive and depart, bowing and offering platitudes to waiting cameras. In truth, there has been little movement towards uncovering real answers. My uncle’s case alone shows a concerted effort to delay, deny and obfuscate when it comes to seeking justice for the killing of journalists in Sri Lanka. What little progress there has been has come only when there is a change in power, and when rival politicians see opportunity for gain. Along the way, there have also been many deaths of key witnesses in the case, with even members of military intelligence or the CID under threat. I believe, sadly, that the system of political patronage that has enabled so much corruption and covered up so much past violence in Sri Lanka remains very much alive. I risk disappointment to hope that the current president, Dissanayake, will prove me wrong.  © Himal Southasian 2024

Denitsa Koseva, February 2, 2025 Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik says a new law will target "scum who use foreign funds". Milorad Dodik, the separatist leader of Bosnia & Herzegovina’s Republika Srpska, said that a new law on ‘foreign agents’ will be introduced in the entity, claiming that this time a positive signal has been sent by US President Donald Trump, who suspended financing for NGOs. Republika Srpska, where Dodik’s SNSD party has ruled for decades, adopted a similar law last year but it was banned by the state-level constitutional court. The law was similar to those in Russia and Belarus. Dodik said that Trump’s decision was “a signal to Republika Srpska to adopt its own law on these organisations”, which, he said in an interview for state broadcaster RTRS, are using foreign funds to harm the Serb entity and its people. “This will no longer be possible and will not work, because a rigorous law will be adopted,” Dodik said. “There are all sorts of scum here who use foreign funds and do everything to smear the Serbian people and Republika Srpska. We shall not take revenge, but we shall only say one thing – you will not be able to do that anymore,” Dodik said. He added that the law will be adopted at the first session of Republika Srpska’s parliament. “It will be more rigorous than the one we have proposed when we wanted to make a compromise, and since you did not want a compromise but thought that you could govern, now you will get a law that will be rigorous,” Dodik said referring to the state-level authorities. Bosnia comprises two autonomous entities – the Muslim-Croat Federation and Republika Srpska. Each of them has its own institutions and there are also state-level bodies. Dodik added that the adoption of the law will be made even at the price of Bosnia’s EU membership path. “We are not interested in the EU’s opinion on this. If that is the end of the path, that’s fine. You will not tell us what to do here,” Dodik said. © 2025 bne IntelliNews Emerging Markets Direct company