Tag: United States
Letter: Buzzfeed try to claim that South Sudan’s National Courier and the Newspaper answers (16.01.2017)

South Sudan: Statement attributable to the Office of the Spokesperson The UN Mission denies accusations of bias (16.01.2017)

Continued Impunity Following Grave Human Rights Violations in July 2016 (16.01.2017)

In early January 2017, fighting in and around Yambio in Western Equatoria resulted in a further displacement of at least 7,000 civilians, mostly women and children.
GENEVA, Switzerland, January 16, 2017 -A UN report published today details the grave human rights violations and abuses – including killings and gang rapes – as well as serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in Juba during and after the fighting that occurred between 8 and 12 July 2016. Six months after the violence there remains widespread impunity, as violations continue unabated.
The report by the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) and the UN Human Rights Office found that throughout the fighting between the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army in Opposition (SPLM/A-IO), “the belligerents blatantly ignored international human rights law and humanitarian law.”
The July 2016 events in Juba demonstrated the extremely fragile political and security situation in South Sudan and the complete disregard of civilians by the SPLA and SPLM/A-IO, given the serious human rights violations and abuses that were perpetrated, including the direct targeting of civilians, along ethnic lines and the extreme violence against women and children, the report states.
“Information documented and verified by the Human Rights Division suggests that hundreds of people including civilians were killed and many more wounded during the fighting in various areas of Juba,” the report states. “Moreover, UNMISS documented 217 victims of rape, including gang-rape committed by SPLA, SPLM/A-IO and other armed groups during and after the fighting between 8 and 25 July. According to victims’ testimonies and witnesses’ accounts, most cases of sexual violence were committed by SPLA soldiers, police officers and members of the National Security Services (NSS).”
Testimony from victims interviewed by the Human Rights Division paints a horrifying picture of the violence that civilians were subjected to during the fighting. On one occasion, women and girls were ordered to cook for the soldiers at checkpoints when their friends or family members were raped. According to other testimony, Nuer men and women appeared to have been particularly targeted for attacks, including killings and arrests, during house-to-house searches, with Nuers with tribal markings on their foreheads particularly vulnerable. The whereabouts of some of those arrested remain unknown.
“The fighting that erupted in July 2016 was a serious setback for peace in South Sudan and showed just how volatile the situation in the country is, with civilians living under the risk of mass atrocities,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein said.
“In total, a staggering 1.38 million South Sudanese have fled to other countries and another 1.8 million are displaced in their own country. In the absence of any semblance of justice and accountability for the violations perpetrated – including possible war crimes – such unbridled outbursts of violence could quickly escalate civilians will continue to suffer immensely. Concrete steps to halt this downward spiral must be urgently taken, beginning with justice and accountability.”
The report emphasizes the need for accountability and justice for all human rights violations. It urges the Transitional Government of National Unity to take action to “break the cycle of violence and impunity” and take steps to fully support the prompt establishment and operationalization of the Hybrid Court for South Sudan by the African Union. The report also recommends that the State ensure that all victims of human rights violations and abuses, as well as violations of international humanitarian law, have access to an effective remedy, just and fair reparation, including compensation and rehabilitation.
The human rights situation remains grave in South Sudan. In Greater Equatoria, the UN Human Rights Office has received credible reports of serious human rights violations and abuses committed by SPLA and SPLM/A-IO in and around Yei, including killings, sexual violence, abductions and destruction of civilian property. As a result, thousands of civilians have fled Yei and surrounding towns. They have sought refuge in other regions and in neighboring countries. In early January 2017, fighting in and around Yambio in Western Equatoria resulted in a further displacement of at least 7,000 civilians, mostly women and children.
High Commissioner Zeid reminded the Government of its obligation to protect the rights of all South Sudanese and bring to an end the desperate suffering of the people.
UN mission in South Sudan confirms discussions on regional protection force continuing (16.01.2017)

“It may be recalled that the United Nations Security Council in its Resolution 2304 decided that UNMISS force levels should be increased to a ceiling of 17,000 troops, including 4,000 for a Regional Protection Force”.
NEW YORK, United States of America, January 16, 2017 – The United Nations peacekeeping mission in South Sudan has confirmed that it continues its discussions with the transitional national unity Government on a 4,000-strong regional protection force, which was authorized by the Security Council last August but has yet to be deployed.
The UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) “confirms that in preparation for the arrival of the Regional Protection Force, it continues to be engaged in discussions with the Transitional Government of National Unity as to the various modalities for the new Force, including where they will be deployed in Juba,” said a statement issued by the Mission’s Office of the Spokesperson. The confirmation followed various media reports, including those suggesting that the Government may have changed its position on the deployment of the Force.
The Mission’s attention has been drawn to recent statements reported in the media concerning the deployment of the Regional Protection Force, said the spokesperson’s statement.
“It may be recalled that the United Nations Security Council in its Resolution 2304 decided that UNMISS force levels should be increased to a ceiling of 17,000 troops, including 4,000 for a Regional Protection Force. This was reaffirmed by the Security Council in its recent Resolution 2327, renewing the United Nations Mission in South Sudan for one year,” the spokesperson’s statement added.
Further in the statement, the Mission noted that the Transitional Government of National Unity confirmed its “unconditional” consent to the deployment of the Regional Protection Force by communique to the Security Council on 30 November 2016, and in renewing the UNMISS mandate, including the deployment of the Regional Protection Force, the Council reaffirmed that the security situation in South Sudan remains fragile, with serious consequences for the civilian population.
In early July last year, close to the fifth anniversary of the country’s independence, the youngest nation was plunged into fresh violence due to clashes between rival forces – the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), loyal to President Salva Kiir, and the SPLA in Opposition, backing former First Vice-President Riek Machar. That led to deaths and injuries, including many civilians and several UNMISS peacekeepers, jeopardizing the peace agreement between the political rivals in August 2015, which formally ended their differences.
Rolling Stone: “TIP – Open Letter To Donald Trump” (Audio)
Statement attributable to the United Nations Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Sudan, Ms. Marta Ruedas, on the easing of US sanctions against Sudan (14.01.2017)

South Sudan: Statement attributable to the Office of the Spokesperson on the deployment of the Regional Protection Force (13.01.2017)

The United Nations Mission in South Sudan’s attention has been drawn to recent statements reported in the media concerning the deployment of the Regional Protection Force. It may be recalled that the United Nations Security Council in its Resolution 2304 decided that UNMISS force levels should be increased to a ceiling of 17,000 troops, including 4,000 for a Regional Protection Force. This was reaffirmed by the Security Council in its recent Resolution 2327, renewing the United Nations Mission in South Sudan for one year.
The Mission notes that the Transitional Government of National Unity confirmed its “unconditional” consent to the deployment of the Regional Protection Force by communique to the Security Council on 30 November 2016. In renewing the UNMISS mandate, including the deployment of the Regional Protection Force, the Security Council reaffirmed its determination that the security situation in South Sudan remains fragile, with serious consequences for the civilian population in South Sudan.
The Mission confirms that in preparation for the arrival of the Regional Protection Force, it continues to be engaged in discussions with the Transitional Government of National Unity as to the various modalities for the new Force, including where they will be deployed in Juba.
President-Elect Trump let’s his sons’ run the Trump Organization; still doubt that will clear their acts of impartiality; why because President-Elect Trump haven’t been transparent!

This had to be an issue, as the Trump Organizations and businesses had to be obligated away from the Executive, the Commander-in-Chief as he ushers himself into the Presidency. The family seems to be picked to run his company, as they are already Executive Vice-President in the Cooperation, this being Eric Trump, Donald Trump Junior and Ivanka Trump. These have been behind their father, the President-Elect. This is important as the interest of Trump Organization should not be the sole purpose of the presidency, that should be as civil service and also guiding with good governance without having own personal gains by having the office. Therefore the nominees and the appointed government leaders in the Trump Organization has to go through not only sessions in the Senate before their appointments are getting accepted; as well as they have to give way to their business connection and positions in the boards in general.
That the international hotels and golf courses, the trademarked products in the portfolio of the Trump Organization that can implicate and create issues with both the foreign trade policies and also import regulations. The same can be seen in general with the regulation of banking, loans and all other fiscal regulation that can hurt the Trump Organization. Something Trump will already know before going to office, what he needs to create of legislation and what sort of economic stimulus or even economic framework that can absorb more profits on the business that are already owned by the Trump family.
Let’s take look at what a blind trust is and what sort of agreements that can happen when Trump gets into office in just days.
What is a Blind Trust?
“Blind trusts are often used when a wealthy individual is elected to a political office where his investment holdings could potentially put him in a conflict of interest with a regulatory issue or other sensitive exercise of political power. In this context, there are some obvious issues with blind trusts in that the beneficiary setting up the blind trust is at least aware of the investment mix going in and cannot realistically forget that information when weighing future decisions. The trustors may also set the rules under which the investments are managed and, of course, pick trustees that they are confident will act in a certain way in potential situations. So again, the efficacy of the blind trust in truly eliminating conflict of interest is far from proven. That said, politicians with a large amount of wealth or in high office use blind trusts to show that at least the effort is being taken to establish impartiality” (Investopedia).
Director of Government Ethics Shaub on 11th January on Blind Trust:
“I think Politico called this a “half-blind” trust, but it’s not even halfway blind. The only thing this has in common with a blind trust is the label, “trust.” His sons are still running the businesses, and, of course, he knows what he owns. His own attorney said today that he can’t “un-know” that he owns Trump tower. The same is true of his other holdings. The idea of limiting direct communication about the business is wholly inadequate. That’s not how a blind trust works. There’s not supposed to be any information at all” (…) “Here too, his attorney said something important today. She said he’ll know about a deal if he reads it in the paper or sees in on TV. That wouldn’t happen with a blind trust. In addition, the notion that there won’t be new deals doesn’t solve the problem of all the existing deals and businesses. The enormous stack of documents on the stage when he spoke shows just how many deals and businesses there are” (…) “The President-elect’s attorney justified the decision not to use a blind trust by saying that you can’t put operating businesses in a blind trust. She’s right about that. That’s why the decision to set up this strange new kind of trust is so perplexing. The attorney also said she feared the public might question the legitimacy of the sale price if he divested his assets. I wish she had spoken with those of us in the government who do this for a living. We would have reassured her that Presidential nominees in every administration agree to sell illiquid assets all the time. Unlike the President, they have to run the gauntlet of a rigorous Senate confirmation process where the legitimacy of their divestiture plans can be closely scrutinized. These individuals get through the nomination process by carefully ensuring that the valuation of their companies is done according to accepted industry standards. There’s nothing unusual about that” (…) “Back when he was working for the Justice Department, the late Antonin Scalia also wrote an opinion declaring that a President should avoid engaging in conduct prohibited by the government’s ethics regulations, even if they don’t apply. Justice Scalia warned us that there would be consequences if a President ever failed to adhere to the same standards that apply to lower level officials. The sheer obviousness of Justice Scalia’s words becomes apparent if you just ask yourself one question: Should a President hold himself to a lower standard than his own appointees?”(Shaub, 2017).
His sons will run the Trump Organization:
“President-Elect Trump will relinquish management of his investment and business assets for the duration of his Presidency. To accomplish this, all of President-Elect Trump’s investment and business assets, commonly known as The Trump Organization—comprised of hundreds of entities—have been or will be conveyed to a Trust, which will be managed for the duration of his Presidency by his sons, Don and Eric, and a Trump executive, Allen Weisselberg. Collectively—and unanimously—Allen, Don, and Eric will have the authority to manage The Trump Organization and have full decision-making authority for the duration of the Presidency, without any involvement whatsoever by President-Elect Trump. To implement this transfer, President-Elect Trump will resign from all official positions he holds with The Trump Organization entities” (…) “the Trust Agreement prohibits The Trump Organization from entering into any new transaction or contract with a foreign country, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including a sovereign wealth fund, foreign government official, or member of a royal family, the United States government or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any state or local government or any agency or instrumentality thereof, other than normal and customary arrangements already undertaken before the President-Elect’s election” (…) “President-Elect Trump is taking these extraordinary steps to ensure that the Office of the Presidency is isolated from The Trump Organization” (…) “the Constitution does not forbid fair-market-value transactions with foreign officials. To put to rest any concerns, however, the President-Elect is announcing he will donate all profits from foreign governments’ patronage of his hotels and similar businesses during his presidential term to the U.S. Treasury. Historically, when federal officers received a gift or emolument from a foreign state, they surrendered possession of it to the federal government, though they were permitted to retain amounts necessary to offset their business expenses. Although the Constitution does not require the PresidentElect to do the same for profits from his businesses’ fair-market-value transactions, he wants to eliminate any distractions by going beyond what the Constitution requires” (Morgan Lewis, 2017).

That Trump Organization can be run by his family it is acceptable by looking at the trust, but the initial issues with the way it gets done and that he shall not be reported on the way of the trade or business, is hard to believe as the business and family is very connected, hence with the campaign where all of the older kids we’re taking part more or less. Therefore the Vice-Executives of the Trump Organization, his kids are now taking charge and taking his position in his company. That he owns and has controlled over decades. That needs to be clear that the family members cannot tell or say him company secrets as long as he is the Executive of the Republic. If they do than their doing illegal information and destabilizing the interests of the government, why is it so? That is so because the President is the head of the government and has to serve all the citizens, not just the ones that are working in his owned company. That is why the nominees for positions in the Trump Administration have to leave their boardrooms and their former businesses. This is done because they will not have other interests than serving the Republic, if not they should be back in the corporate office instead of being civil servants. If they serve Exxon or other businesses while they are serving as ministers or secretaries of departments, than they are opening up for corrupt and illegal trading from the top and stealing from the bottom. That is what we can worry about when we know how close the President is still connected with his businesses, without a clear line of procedure for how the transactions and creation of future business inside Trump Organization is not known.
The President-Elect have not delivered his IRS Tax Returns, neither proven his real value or what he owns, if it is in Missouri or Mississippi, because for all we know he could own a lobster-shack in Louisiana. Even than he should open the door so he could explain why he hasn’t been through the process of showing his true colours and trade. The real honest profits and the expenditure of his companies, the facts of his royalties and the tax rate on his businesses as well. There are many open questions as to where he does business, what sort of people are he connected with abroad and what sort of agreements does the Trump Organization have and own outside of the United States. If he has a dungeon in St. Petersburg or has a palace in India, we don’t really know, but if he was accountable or transparent. Then we could know what sort of conflicts and interests the President-Elect have. This is the missing picture in a flawed Presidential-Elect who doesn’t’ trust anybody, but himself.
Why does I say that is because he cannot be transparent with his own and therefore why would he be that with the public coffers? Are the public coffers safe when we have no idea about how he used his own private funds? Will the public coffers be used to function and give contracts to businesses close to him or to cronyism in the new Trump Administration? Peace.
Reference:
Investopeida – ‘Blind Trust’ link: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blindtrust.asp
Remarks of Walter M. Shaub, Jr., Director, U.S. Office of Government Ethics, as prepared for delivery at 4:00 p.m. on January 11, 2017, at the Brookings Institution (11.01.2017)
Morgan Lewis – ‘WHITE PAPER Conflicts of Interest and the President Background for President-Elect Trump’s January 11, 2017 Press Conference Prepared by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP’ (11.01.2017)

