Thursday, March 23, 2017

The Worst Retail Cataclysm Ever: Sears Warns It Is On The Verge Of Collapse As Payless Prepares To File For Bankruptcy

Go to Original
By Michael Snyder



More than 3,500 retail stores are going to close all across America over the next few months as the worst retail downturn in U.S. history gets even deeper.  Earlier this week, Sears shocked the world when it announced that there is “substantial doubt” that the company will be able to “continue as a going concern” much longer.  In other words, Sears has announced that it is on the verge of imminent collapse.  Meanwhile, Payless stunned the retail industry when it came out that they are preparing to file for bankruptcy.  The “retail apocalypse” that I have been warning about is greatly accelerating, and many believe that this is one of the early warning signs that the economic collapse that is already going on in other parts of the globe will soon reach U.S. shores.
I have repeatedly warned my readers that “Sears is going to zero“, and now Sears is officially saying that it might actually happen.  When you file official paperwork with the government that says there is “substantial doubt” that the company will survive, that means that the end is very near…
The company that operates Sears, the department store chain that dominated retail for decades, warned Tuesday that it faces “substantial doubt” about its ability to stay in business unless it can borrow more and tap cash from more of its assets.
“Our historical operating results indicate substantial doubt exists related to the company’s ability to continue as a going concern,” Sears Holdings said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Sears Holdings operates both Sears and Kmart stores.
In the wake of that statement, the price of Sears stock dipped 13.69% to $7.85 a share.
Personally, I am going to miss Sears very much.  But of course the truth is that they simply cannot continue operating as they have been.
For the quarter that ended on January 28th, Sears lost an astounding 607 million dollars…
The company said it lost $607 million, or $5.67 per diluted share, during the quarter that ended on Jan. 28. That compared with a loss of $580 million, or $5.44 per diluted share, a year earlier. It has posted a loss in all but two of the last 24 quarters, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence.
How in the world is it possible for a retailer to lose that amount of money in just three months?
As I have said before, if they had employees flushing dollar bills down the toilet 24 hours a day they still shouldn’t have losses that big.
This week we also learned that Payless is heading for bankruptcy.  According to Bloomberg, the chain is planning to imminently close at least 400 stores…
Payless Inc., the struggling discount shoe chain, is preparing to file for bankruptcy as soon as next week, according to people familiar with the matter.
The company is initially planning to close 400 to 500 stores as it reorganizes operations, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the deliberations aren’t public. Payless had originally looked to shutter as many as 1,000 locations, and the number may still be in flux, according to one of the people.
Of course these are just two examples of a much broader phenomenon.
Never before in U.S. history have we seen such a dramatic wave of store closures.  According to Business Insider, over 3,500 retail locations “are expected to close in the next couple of months”…
Thousands of mall-based stores are shutting down in what’s fast becoming one of the biggest waves of retail closures in decades.
More than 3,500 stores are expected to close in the next couple of months.
Once thriving shopping malls are rapidly being transformed into ghost towns.  As I wrote about just recently, “you might be tempted to think that ‘Space Available’ was the hottest new retail chain in the entire country.”
The demise of Sears is going to be an absolute nightmare for many mall owners.  Once “anchor stores” start closing, it is usually only a matter of time before smaller stores start bailing out…
When an anchor store like Sears or Macy’s closes, it often triggers a downward spiral in performance for shopping malls.
Not only do the malls lose the income and shopper traffic from that store’s business, but the closure often triggers “co-tenancy clauses” that allow the other mall tenants to terminate their leases or renegotiate the terms, typically with a period of lower rents, until another retailer moves into the anchor space.
Years ago I wrote of a time when we would see boarded-up storefronts all across America, and now it is happening.
Instead of asking which retailers are going to close, perhaps we should be asking which ones are going to survive this retail cataclysm.
In the past, you could always count on middle class U.S. consumers to save the day, but today the middle class is steadily shrinking and U.S. consumers are increasingly tapped out.
For instance, just look at what is happening to delinquency rates on auto loans…
US auto loan and lease credit loss rates weakened in the second half of 2016, according to a new report from Fitch Ratings, which said they will continue to deteriorate.
“Subprime credit losses are accelerating faster than the prime segment, and this trend is likely to continue as a result of looser underwriting standards by lenders in recent years,” said Michael Taiano, a director at Fitch.
The last time so many Americans got behind on subprime auto loans was during the last financial crisis.
We are seeing so many similarities to what happened just prior to the last recession, and yet most Americans still seem to think that the U.S. economy is going to be just fine in 2017.
Unfortunately, major red flags are popping up in the hard economic numbers and in the financial markets.
The last recession probably should have started back in late 2015, but thanks to manipulation by the Fed and an unprecedented debt binge by the Obama administration, official U.S. GDP growth has been able to stay barely above zero for the last year and a half.
But just because something is delayed does not mean that it is canceled.
All along, our long-term economic imbalances have continued to get even worse, and a date with destiny is rapidly approaching for the U.S. economy.

World Bank claims 'sovereign immunity' to escape liability for its crimes against humanity

Go to Original
By Pete Dolack



World Bank projects have left a worldwide trail of evictions, displacements, rapes, murders, forest destruction, greenhouse-gas-belching fossil fuel projects, and destruction of farmland and water sources, writes Pete Dolack. But even as internal reports admit the Bank's wrongdoing, it is asserting its immunity from legal action as terrorised communities seek redress in the courts.

The World Bank has been declared the equivalent of a sovereign state, and in this context is placed above any law as if it possesses diplomatic immunity. But can it be argued that the lending organization uses its immense power wisely?
The World Bank has for decades left a trail of human misery.
Destruction of the environment, massive human rights abuses and mass displacement have been ignored in the name of 'development' that works to intensify neoliberal inequality.
In response to legal attempts to hold it to account, the World Bank has declared itself above the law.
At least one US trial court has already agreed that the bank can't be touched, and thus the latest lawsuit filed against it, attempting to obtain some measure of justice for displaced Honduran farmers, faces a steep challenge.
Regardless of the ultimate outcome of legal proceedings, however, millions of people around the world have paid horrific prices for the relentless pursuit of profit.
A relentless trail of evictions, displacements, gross human rights violations (including rape, murder and torture), widespread destruction of forests, financing of greenhouse-gas-belching fossil fuel projects, and destruction of water and food sources has followed the World Bank.
Holding the World Bank to account in the courts?
The latest attempt at accountability is a lawsuit filed in the US federal court in Washington by EarthRights International, a human rights and environmental non-governmental organization, charging that the World Bank has turned a blind eye to systematic abuses associated with palm oil plantations in Honduras that it has financed.
"Since the mid-1990s, the International Finance Corporation [a division of the World Bank] has invested millions of dollars in Honduran palm-oil companies owned by the late Miguel Facussé. Those companies - which exist today as Dinant - have been at the center of a decades-long and bloody land-grabbing campaign in the Bajo Aguán region of Honduras.
"For nearly two decades, farmer cooperatives have challenged Dinant's claims to sixteen palm-oil plantations ... that it has held in the Bajo Aguán region. On information and belief, Dinant's former owner, Miguel Facussé, took that land from the farmer cooperatives through fraud, coercion, and actual or threatened violence.
"The farmer cooperatives have engaged in lawsuits, political advocacy, and peaceful protests to challenge Dinant's control and use of the land. And Dinant has responded to such efforts with violence and aggression."
EarthRights International alleges that the World Bank has "repeatedly and consistently provided critical funding to Dinant, knowing that Dinant was waging a campaign of violence, terror, and dispossession against farmers, and that their money would be used to aid the commission of gross human rights abuses."
The lawsuit filing cites "U.S. government sources" to allege that more than 100 farmers have been killed since 2009. It also says that the International Finance Corporation's own ombudsman said the World Bank division "failed to spot or deliberately ignored the serious social, political and human rights context."
These failures arose "from staff incentives 'to overlook, fail to articulate, or even conceal potential environmental, social and conflict risk' and 'to get money out the door.' "
Despite this internal report, the suit says, the World Bank continued to provide financing and that the ombudsman has "no authority to remedy abuses." World Bank representatives did not respond to a request for comment.
Although not directly a party to the lawsuit, Dinant describes the allegations as "absurd". In a statement on its web site, the company said: "All allegations that Dinant is - or ever has been - engaged in systematic violence against members of the community are without foundation."
More recently the names of Dinant and several of its principals have come up in connection with allegations of drug trafficking to the USA in collusion with Honduran government officials. A  Dinant spokesperson said:
"We strongly condemn the use of our properties or any other property to carry out illegal activities related to drug trafficking. We continue to assist the competent authorities in their efforts to combat drug trafficking, immediately reporting any illegal activity that could be found to have occurred on our properties."
Federal court rules Bank is 'immune from suit and every form of judicial process'
EarthRights International's lawsuit faces an uphill challenge due to an earlier suit filed by it on behalf of Indian farmers and fisherpeople being thrown out by the same court when it ruled that the World Bank is immune from legal challenge.
The bank provided $450 million for a power plant that the plaintiffs said degraded the environment and destroyed livelihoods. The court agreed with the World Bank's contention that it has immunity under the International Organizations Immunities Act. The dismissal has been appealed.
The International Organizations Immunities Act provides that "International organizations, their property and their assets, wherever located, and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments."
However the same law gives the World Bank the right to "institute legal proceedings" against others.
The World Bank has been declared the equivalent of a sovereign state, and in this context is placed above any law as if it possesses diplomatic immunity. But the sovereign immunity is applied selectively.
For example, lawsuits against Cuba are not only allowed but consistently won by plaintiffs. These are not necessarily the strongest of cases, such as participants in the Bay of Pigs invasion winning judgments and a woman who was married to a Cuban who went back to Cuba winning $27 million because the court found that her marriage made her a "victim of terrorism"!
More than 3 million people displaced
Despite its immunity, a passport may not be needed to enter a World Bank office. But can it be argued that the lending organization uses its immense power wisely? That would be a very difficult case to make.
A 2015 report by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists found that 3.4 million people were physically or economically displaced by projects funded by the World Bank. Land was taken, people were forced from their homes and their livelihoods damaged.
Some of the other findings of the report, on which more than 50 journalists from 21 countries worked:
  • From 2009 to 2013, the World Bank pumped $50 billion into projects graded the highest risk for "irreversible or unprecedented" social or environmental impacts - more than twice as much as the previous five-year span.
  • The bank regularly fails to live up to its own policies that purport to protect people harmed by projects it finances.
  • The World Bank and its International Finance Corporation lending arm have financed governments and companies accused of human rights violations such as rape, murder and torture. In some cases, they continued to bankroll these borrowers after evidence of abuses emerged.
  • Ethiopian authorities diverted millions of dollars from a World Bank-supported project to fund a violent campaign of mass evictions, according to former officials who carried out the forced resettlement program.
One of the articles that is a part of this investigative report said the bank routinely ignores its own rules that require detailed resettlement plans and that employees face strong pressure to approve big infrastructure projects. The report says:
"The World Bank often neglects to properly review projects ahead of time to make sure communities are protected, and frequently has no idea what happens to people after they are removed. In many cases, it has continued to do business with governments that have abused their citizens, sending a signal that borrowers have little to fear if they violate the bank's rules, according to current and former bank employees.
"'There was often no intent on the part of the governments to comply - and there was often no intent on the part of the bank's management to enforce,' said Navin Rai, a former World Bank official who oversaw the bank's protections for indigenous peoples from 2000 to 2012. 'That was how the game was played.' ...
"Current and former bank employees say the work of enforcing these standards has often been undercut by internal pressures to win approval for big, splashy projects. Many bank managers, insiders say, define success by the number of deals they fund. They often push back against requirements that add complications and costs."
World Bank funding that facilitates global warming
Incredibly, one of the outcomes of the Paris Climate Summit was for leaders of the G7 countries to issue a communiqué that they would seek to raise funds "from private investors, development finance institutions and multilateral development banks."
These leaders propose the World Bank be used to fight global warming despite it being a major contributor to projects that increase greenhouse-gas emissions, including providing billions of dollars to finance new coal plants around the world. The bank even had the monumental hypocrisy to issue a report in 2012 that called for slowing global warming while ignoring its own role.
It is hoped you, dear reader, won't fall off your chair in shock, but the World Bank's role in facilitating global warming has since only increased!
Financing projects that facilitate global warming had already been on the rise. A study prepared by the Institute for Policy Studies and four other organizations found that World Bank lending for coal, oil and gas reached $3 billion in 2008 - a sixfold increase from 2004.
In the same year, only $476 million went toward renewable energy sources. Oil Change International (citing somewhat lower dollar figures) estimates that World Bank funding for fossil fuels doubled from 2011 to 2015.
Destructive logging projects across the Global South funded by the World Bank accelerated in the 1990s. Despite a January 2000 internal report finding that its lending practices had not curbed deforestation or reduced poverty, Southeast Asia saw a continuation of illegal logging and land concessions, and untimely deaths of local people blowing the whistle, as has Africa.
Similar to its report on curbing global warming that ignores its own role, the World Bank shamelessly issued a 2012 report calling for international law enforcement measures against illegal logging. Perhaps what is illegal are only those operations not funded by the bank?
Loans to pay debt create more debt. Repeat ...
Ideology plays a critical role here. International lending organizations, such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, consistently impose austerity.
The IMF's loans, earmarked for loans to governments to pay debts or stabilize currencies, always come with the same requirements to
  • privatize public assets (which can be sold far below market value to multi-national corporations waiting to pounce);
  • cut social safety nets;
  • drastically reduce the scope of government services;
  • eliminate regulations;
  • and open economies wide to multi-national capital, even if that means the destruction of local industry and agriculture.

This results in more debt, which then gives multi-national corporations and the IMF, which enforces those corporate interests, still more leverage to impose more control, including heightened ability to weaken environmental and labor laws.
The World Bank compliments this by funding massive infrastructure projects that tend to enormously profit deep-pocketed international investors but ignore the effects on local people and the environment.
The World Bank employs a large contingent of scientists and technicians, which give it a veneer of authority as it pursues a policy of relentless corporate plunder. Noting that the bank possesses "an enormous research and knowledge generation capacity", The environmental and social-justice organization ASEED Europe reports:
"The World Bank is the institution with one of the largest research budgets globally and has no rival in the field of development economics. ... A number of researchers and scholars have questioned the reliability of the World Bank-commissioned research.
"Alice Amsdem, a top scholar on East Asian economies, argues that since the World Bank continually fails to scientifically prove its conclusions, its policy justifications are 'quintessentially political and ideological.'
"Regarding the World Development Report (WDR) series, for example, Nicholas Stern, an Oxford professor in economics and former World Bank chief economist says that many of the numbers used by the Bank come from highly dubious sources, or have been constructed in ways which leaves one sceptical as to whether they can be helpfully applied." (citations omitted.)
Markets our masters? Or our servants ?
Capitalist ideology rests on the concept of 'markets' being so efficient that they should be allowed to work without human intervention. But what is a market? Under capitalism, it is nothing more than the aggregate interests of the most powerful and largest financiers and industrialists.
No wonder that 'markets' 'decide' that neoliberal austerity must be ruthlessly imposed - it is those at the top of vast corporate institutions who benefit from the decisions that the World Bank, and similar institutions, consistently make.
Markets do not sit in the clouds, beyond human control, as some perfect mechanism. They impose the will of those with the most who can not ever have enough. Markets are not been ordained by some higher power - everything of human creation can be undone by human hands.

Our current world system is no exception.

Why Spend $54 Billion More on the Pentagon? To Start a War, Obviously.

The president apparently wants to put the U.S. on a permanent war footing to sustain his unpopular presidency.

Go to Original
By 



So, let me see if I’ve got this right.
North Korea has been pushing its ally China to rein in the United States. Pyongyang is worried that Washington is about to launch a preemptive attack, so it has tried to use whatever minimal amount of influence it has to persuade China to use its considerable economic leverage with the United States to get those knuckleheads inside the Beltway to listen to reason.
Or maybe I misheard the report on the radio.
How about this: As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump promised to stop reckless U.S. military interventions overseas, like the one he so disliked (after it failed) in Iraq. So, as president, he is withdrawing all troops from Syria, reducing U.S. military presence in Asia, and pulling the United States out of NATO. Oh, and he’s going to cut the military as part of his overall promise to downsize government.
Perhaps I misheard that report as well.
During the Obama administration, the comic duo of Key and Peele famously introduced the “anger translator” who could give voice to what President Obama was really thinking as he provided measured responses to all manner of nonsense lobbed in his direction. Ah, those were halcyon days when we made fun of the American president for not giving voice to his true feelings.
What kind of translator do we need for the Trump era? Perhaps a “reality translator” that reveals the simple, id-like intentions behind the current president’s Tweet-rants and policy proposals.
Type in “Obama bugged Trump Tower” and out comes: “Hey, hey, stop looking at my links to Russia, okay!?” Type in “2017 budget proposal” and out comes: “I’m gonna destroy every potential source of resistance to me and my ambitions.” Type in “Trumpcare” and out comes “I’m going to rob poor Peter to pay propertied Paul.” (To quote just one example: Trumpcare would encourage health care companies to pay their overpaid CEOs even more money!)
I’ve come to the conclusion, after about 60 days of presidential antics, that the problem is not “fake news.” The problem is a fake administration.
It’s no surprise that Donald Trump, as president, just makes things up. He’s been doing that all his career. But now an entire government is being re-engineered around the pathological dishonesty of the executive and his advisors. This is bait-and-switch on a level never seen before in the United States.
It would all be rather amusing if millions of lives weren’t at stake — both domestically through the self-destruction of the federal government and internationally through the very real prospects of war.
This president, with his insuperable ambition to score some “wins,” is in search of some missions to declare accomplished. North Korea and the Islamic State are at the top of the list. But don’t be surprised if the $54 billion that Trump wants to add like an enormous cherry on top of the Pentagon’s over-rich sundae will translate into even more conflicts around the world.
Let’s Go to the Numbers
If Trump’s proposed Pentagon increase of $54 billion were the military budget of a distinct country, it would come in fifth on the list of global military expenditures. Basically, Trump wants to add an entire annual British military budget on top of what the United States already spends — which already towers above any imaginary coalition of potential rivals.
With the rest of his deplorable budget request, Trump will encounter pushback from Congress and cities and major constituencies like the over-65 set. Some of his own voters might finally come to their senses when they realize that Trump the Great is waving his magic hand in the air to distract them from seeing the other hand pick their pockets.
But on the military side, Trump has, if anything, underbid. Congressional hawks are complaining that Trump is not throwing enough money at the Pentagon. They say that he’s only offering a 3 percent increase over what the Obama administration estimated for 2018, that Trump the candidate made even grander promises, that the Pentagon should get at least another $37 billion. If Congress comes back with this figure, it would increase the increase to $91 billion. Trump’s boost alone would then rise to number three on the list of global spenders, after the United States and China.
What does Trump want to spend all this extra money on? He wants a 350-ship navy — even though the Navy is already undertaking a 30-year program to raise the number of ships from the current 272 ships to 308. He has hinted at pulling out of the New START treaty with Russia — once he found out what it was — so that he could build more nukes. There would be more soldiers, including as many as 60,000 more in the Army.
But all of this is just skirting the real issue. Donald Trump wants to spend more money on the military because he wants to go to war.
First: Islamic State
As a candidate, Donald Trump focused most of his martial fury on the Islamic State. He promised to “bomb the hell” out of ISIS and, within 30 days in office, come up with a plan to defeat the entity. When he was elected, radical jihadists predictably rejoiced: Bring it on, they effectively said.
Within 30 days, Trump indeed published a memorandum on defeating ISIS. Bottom line: We need to come up with a plan.
In the absence of a strategy, what Trump has done is chilling enough. He has unleashed the CIA to conduct drone strikes, reversing an Obama administration order. He has continued to sanction B-52 strikes, like the one this month in the Syrian village of Al Jinah that killed dozens of civilians. He’s sending 1,000 troops to join the fight against ISIS in Syria. He wants to rely more on Special Forces in raids like the one in Yemen in January that went so spectacularly wrong, leaving one Navy SEAL and several civilians dead.
In some ways, Trump is merely continuing Obama-era practices. But it promises to be a no-holds-barred version of the last administration counter-terrorism program.
Even our allies in the region are getting concerned. Trump met this week with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, pledging to stand side-by-side with Iraq in the campaign to defeat ISIS.
But after the meeting, Abadi apparently had second thoughts. “Committing troops is one thing. Fighting terrorism is another thing,” he said at the U.S. Institute of Peace. “You don’t defeat terrorism by fighting it militarily. There are better ways.” Perhaps Abadi was thinking of the Trump administration’s initial inclusion of Iraq among the seven countries on the “Muslim travel ban” list. Or maybe he was thinking of Trump’s alarming pledge to seize Iraqi oil now under ISIS control.
Or perhaps the “better ways” simply referred to all the non-military parts of U.S. foreign policy — diplomacy, food aid, cooperation with international organizations — that Trump wants to ax from the federal budget. Even stalwart Trump supporters like Bob Dole are up in arms about humanitarian programs — like the Dole-McGovern initiative that provides school meals to 40 million children around the world — that are now on the chopping block.
What better way of creating the next generation of America haters?
Next: North Korea
Rex Tillerson, the empty suit that Trump has installed in the now supererogatory position of secretary of state, is trying to get back in on the action. On a recent trip to Asia, Tillerson sat down with Chinese premier Xi Jinping to plot the further isolation of North Korea.
Tillerson pointed out that the “strategic patience” approach toward North Korea had failed over the last eight years. That’s obviously true. The alternative, however, was much worse: Tillerson said that all options, including military ones, were on the table.
All of the military options come with unacceptable risks of retaliation and escalation to full-scale war. The United States could try to destroy a single missile launch, take out as much of North Korea’s nuclear complex as possible, or attempt a full regime change a la Iraq. “North Korea would perceive even a limited strike as the start of a war,” Max Fisher points out in The New York Times, “and respond with its full arsenal.”
Given the relatively crude ICBM capability that North Korea currently possesses, the people who would suffer from an escalation would be Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese.
Perhaps Trump is simply trying to scare the Chinese into doing more to rein in its erstwhile ally. But China doesn’t have that kind of influence in Pyongyang (just as it doesn’t have that kind of influence in Washington to change the Trump administration’s policies).
Or perhaps the Trump administration will go to war simply out of a general attitude of un-strategic impatience.
Beyond ISIS and Pyongyang
Building the Navy up to 350 ships and inducting another 60,000 people into the Army have little to do with dealing with either ISIS or North Korea, unless the Trump administration anticipates sending another large occupation force to the Middle East or Asia. Even Trump knows that dispatching tens of thousands of American troops to a warzone is a political mistake.
Partly Trump’s moves are about ensuring that the military is on his side. Partly it’s about tilting government in general away from soft power and toward hard power. Partly it’s about Trump’s personal vulnerability on military matters given his decision not to fight in Vietnam. It wouldn’t be the first time that a guy stocked up on weapons as part of a grand scheme of compensation.
There’s been speculation that Trump is really bulking up for a showdown with China. Given Trump’s phone call with Taiwan, his threats to impose tariffs on Chinese imports, and his bellicose rhetoric about China’s role in the island dispute in the South China Sea, there does seem to be some good evidence for this possibility. But the Trump administration has recently dialed back the hostility. Trump himself assured Chinese leader Xi Jinping of U.S. commitment to the “one-China” policy. Tillerson followed with a visit in Beijing that emphasized “mutual respect.”
The uncomfortable truth is that Trump probably doesn’t have any specific war-fighting scenario beyond laying waste to ISIS territory and declaring mission accomplished over the smoking ruins. Rather, he wants to put the United States on a permanent war footing as a way to sustain his unpopular presidency.
Until a challenger emerges that can focus U.S. national security concerns, Trump will let fire at range of targets such as terrorists, journalists, and Germans. Perhaps his provocative rhetoric and actions will encourage some small country to stand up suicidally against the United States and allow Trump to declare a Grenada-like or Panama-like victory.
Like the $19.5 billion that the Trump administration is giving NASA for its Mars program, Trump’s war plans are a long shot. Casinos know that once a gambler wins on a long shot, they’ll go bankrupt trying to reproduce that once-in-a-lifetime event. Unfortunately, bankruptcy in Trump’s case means collective ruin for the rest of us.
Any chance we can convince NASA to send Trump on its first manned mission to Mars — so that he can return to the planet that birthed him?

Paul Manafort is at the center of the Trump-Russia investigation — here's what you need to know about him

Go to Original
By  Eliza Relman and Natasha Bertrand


Paul Manafort, President Trump's former campaign chairman, is under fire amid new reports that he secretly worked to advance Russian interests for years before he joined Trump's presidential campaign last April.
Manafort's ties to foreign oligarchs and dictators have raised questions for decades, but his work for the Trump campaign likely has him under FBI investigation.

Raised in politics and business

Manafort was born in 1949 and raised in New Britain, Connecticut, a majority Democratic town where his father served three terms as a popular Republican mayor.
Like Trump, Manafort comes from a real-estate family. Alongside his political work, his father also ran the family construction company, Manafort Brothers Inc., founded by his Italian immigrant father.
Instead of taking over the family business, Manafort decided to pursue his interest in politics and moved to Washington, DC, where he earned both an undergraduate business degree and a law degree at Georgetown University.

A Republican operative and international 'gun for hire'

While working at a private law firm two years after graduating from law school, Manafort began advising Republican president Gerald Ford's 1976 campaign. Since the 1970s, he has established deep and sometimes murky, connections in Washington and around the world, serving as political lobbyist, adviser, and an international political consultant for leaders around the world, including dictators Mobutu Sese Seko of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines.
Manafort's international work has long raised eyebrows among Democrats in Washington. In 2004, he became a top adviser to Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, a pro-Russian strongman whom Manafort is widely credited with helping win the presidency in 2010.
Yanukovych was ousted in 2014 after widespread demonstrations again this decision to back out of a deal with the EU that would have distanced Ukraine from Russia and fostered closer ties with the West. On February 20, 2014, Ukrainian riot police opened fire on thousands of demonstrators who had gathered in central Kiev. Fifty-three protesters were killed that day, and dozens more over the next few days.
Ukrainian prosecutors have said Yanukovych ordered the security forces' attack on protesters, and at least one human-rights lawyer representing the victims is investigating what role, if any, Manafort played in encouraging Yanukovych's crackdown. Yanukovych fled to Russia amid the protests and is now living under the protection of the Kremlin.

Manafort's Trump connections

In March 2016, Trump hired Manafort to manage the Republican National Convention and wrangle delegates into supporting Trump. Manafort had experience convincing delegates to support Gerald Ford in 1976 — the last time the Republican Party began a convention without having selected its presidential nominee.
In May 2016, Manafort was promoted to the position of campaign chairman and chief strategist. He became the campaign's de facto manager after Trump fired Corey Lewandowski in late June. Manafort served in this senior role until August 2016, when he resigned over reports about his legally questionable work mixing politics and business in Ukraine.
The New York Times, citing ledgers uncovered by an anticorruption center in Kiev, reported on August 16 that $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments from Yanukovych's pro-Russia Party of Regions had been earmarked for Manafort for his work with the party from 2007 to 2012.
According to a Politico report, Trump's family was also unhappy with changes made to the Republican Party platform that many saw as pro-Russian and in which they believed Manafort played a role.

Why is Manafort under fire now?

On March 22, the Associated Press reported that Manafort was paid $10 million between 2006 and 2009 to lobby on behalf of Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally, using a strategic "model" that would "greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success."
AP reporter Jeff Horwitz told Fox News that Manafort was "a gun for hire" who was willing to work explicitly "on behalf of Russian interests."
Manafort's name had been connected to Deripaska's before the AP reported on their lucrative contract. The two were involved in a partnership that went south, and wound up with Deripaska accusing Manafort of "disappearing" with nearly $19 million intended for investments. Deripaska filed a lawsuit against Manafort in the Cayman Islands in 2014, and was still trying to get his money back in August 2015, according to documents obtained by Politico.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer denied on March 22 that Trump had been aware that Manafort had lobbied on behalf of Deripaska.
On top of this, Ukrainian member of parliament has accused Manafort of accepting nearly $1 million from Ukraine's pro-Russia Party of Regions, and then laundering it through a company that claims to sell computers. Ukrainian lawyers also want to question Manafort about what role he played, if any, in the 2014 police killings of protesters in Kiev.
In another bizarre twist, late last month, hackers broke into Manafort's daughter's iPhone and published four years' worth of purported text messages — roughly 300,000 messages — on the dark web.
In a series of texts reviewed by Business Insider that appear to have been sent by Andrea to her sister, Jessica, in March 2015, Andrea said their father had "no moral or legal compass."
"Don't fool yourself," Andrea wrote to her sister, according to the texts. "That money we have is blood money."
"You know he has killed people in Ukraine? Knowingly," she continued, according to the reviewed texts. "As a tactic to outrage the world and get focus on Ukraine. Remember when there were all those deaths taking place. A while back. About a year ago. Revolts and what not. Do you know whose strategy that was to cause that, to send those people out and get them slaughtered."
In another text to her cousin, who was also her father's business partner, Andrea called Manafort "a sick f---ing tyrant."

Are Trump and Manafort still aligned?

Manafort and Trump have been connected since the 1980s when Trump hired Manafort's lobbying firm to help the Trump Organization. Trump became close with Manafort's business partner at the time, Roger Stone, a self-proclaimed "dirty trickster" who served as an early adviser to Trump's presidential campaign.
Earlier this month, Stone said he had exchanged private messages on Twitter with a hacker implicated in a massive cyberattack that targeted the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election.
In 2006, Manafort and his wife bought a Trump Tower apartment, which Manafort still owns and resides in when he's in Manhattan.
Manafort has denied all the allegations against him. In February, Manafort said he had "never knowingly spoken to Russian intelligence officers, and I have never been involved with anything to do with the Russian government or the Putin administration."
The White House appears to be creating as much distance between Manafort and the Trump campaign as possible. On Monday, Spicer told reporters that Manafort "played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time" in the campaign, despite having spent five months on the campaign and nearly three of those months as the chairman.
Others close to Trump have made opposing claims about Manafort's influence.
"We couldn't be more happy with the work that he's doing, the way he's tackling these things, the way he's handling the organization of everything going forward," Donald Trump Jr. told the AP last July.
In August, former House Speaker and Trump loyalist Newt Gingrich told Fox News host Sean Hannity that "nobody should underestimate how much Paul Manafort did to get this campaign to where it is right now."

Manafort under FBI investigation?

The revelations about Manafort's work with a Russian oligarch come amid reports that the FBI has evidence to suggest that Trump campaign associates colluded with Russia during the presidential election to undermine Hillary Clinton.
During a hearing before Congress on Monday, FBI Director James Comey said publicly for the first time that the bureau was conducting a counterintelligence investigation that included an examination of whether Trump associates worked with Russian officials to influence the election.
Comey declined to say whether Manafort was under investigation, but it has been reported that he and Roger Stone are both subjects of FBI scrutiny. Trump's former national-security adviser and top campaign surrogate, Michael Flynn, is also reportedly under FBI investigation. Flynn was paid $35,000 to speak at a gala celebrating state-sponsored news agency Russia Today in December 2015. A few months earlier, he was paid $11,250 to speak at an event hosted by Russia's top cybersecurity firm, Kasperky Lab.
In response to the AP's latest report about Manafort's dealings with Deripaska, House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Jackie Speier said that the Trump-Russia investigation is no longer a "drip, drip, drip. This is now dam-breaking with water flushing out with all kinds of entanglements."

The voices missing from Syria's peace talks

As negotiations on the war in Syria resume in Geneva, civil society groups say their voices are not being heard.


Go to Original
By 




Syrian activist, Haytham alHamwi, recalls how in 2003 he decided to join forces with the young men and women of his hometown Daraya, in the southern suburbs of the Syrian capital Damascus, to organise a public cleaning campaign.
At 27, alHamwi hit the streets with dozens of youth, sweeping the roads and picking up trash. The campaign was a project of the Daraya Community Group, which al Hamwi and his friends established two years prior. They handed out posters warning against smoking and bribery in their town, and opened a library, which they called "Ways of Peace".
Little did alHamwi know that he and his friends would end up in prison cells for the community work they were doing. "We did not have any political motives [at the time]," alHamwi told Al Jazeera. "The only political event we organised was a silent march against the US occupation of Iraq."
At the time, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had just assumed office, after his father Hafez al-Assad, who had ruled Syria since 1971, died in 2000.
"When I was in prison, during the interrogation period, the officer asked me: What is your field of study? I replied, 'preventive medicine'. He said: 'Aha! There you go. I know your group isn't a political party but if we leave you alone, you will become a political party. So, we're going to imprison you from now as a preventive measure,'" alHamwi recalled.
In Syria, civil society groups, which are non-profit, non-governmental organisations working in the interest of citizens, like the one alHamwi helped set up, have long been targeted by the government. Under the 1958 Association Law, civil society is legally subject to supervision and requires approval of the security services. 
In a period dubbed the "Damascus Spring", after Bashar al-Assad inherited power, Syria saw the beginnings of a rise of civil society and calls for reform, but that was quickly crushed, with members of such groups facing arrests and bans.
"Civil society became a dangerous concept, which many associations shied away from by pursing non-political goals," Rana Khalaf, an expert on Syrian civil society with the Chatham House, a UK-based policy institute, told Al Jazeera.
In 2000, Mutasem Syoufi, a native of Damascus, was one of the students who took part in establishing a political discussion forum called the Committee for the Revival of Civil Society. He called for reforms like many at the time.
Our first priority is to save souls. We want the Syrian case to stay alive. We're not hopeful of any [political] settlement being reached any time soon, but we want to achieve something on the humanitarian front.
Mutasem Syoufi, director of Istanbul-based NGO
"Other than the fact that the government was sending people to prison for this, the regime outlawed the use of the term 'civil society'. Civil society was being likened to Zionism and Masonry. There was a complete criminalisation of the term," Syoufi told Al Jazeera.
In 2011, when the Syrian uprising against Assad broke out, the civil society scene in Syria flourished. As the war shifted from peaceful protests to a civil war between government forces and armed opposition groups, made up of army defectors and ordinary civilians, local peaceful activists mobilised to respond to the violence and human rights violations.
With the war entering its seventh year, hundreds of civil society organisations have developed both inside and outside of Syria, amid a security vacuum and harrowing bloodshed, to fill the role of state institutions meant to protect and inform civilians.
At least half a million Syrians have been killed in the war, and another one million injured so far. Hundreds of thousands are living in besieged areas with extremely restricted access to basic survival necessities, while at least 12 million - half of the country's prewar population - have been forced to flee their homes. 
Civil society activists are first-responders, doctors, lawyers, engineers, journalists, teachers, among others. On the one hand, they provide relief aid and medical assistance to the millions who have been severely affected by the war. On the other, they are communicating the voices of Syrians on the ground by pressing for justice and democracy, a halt to the targeting of civilians, unhindered humanitarian access, and holding violators of human rights law accountable. 
"Our first priority is to save souls. We want the Syrian case to stay alive. We're not hopeful of any [political] settlement being reached any time soon, but we want to achieve something on the humanitarian front," said Syoufi, who is now the executive director of The Day After, an Istanbul-based organisation working to help Syrians formulate a vision for democratic governance.

Political representation

But as major stakeholders in the war in Syria convene for political negotiations in the Swiss city Geneva this week to decide on the fate of millions of Syrians, those closest to the ground say their voices are not being heard.
As part of their advocacy and lobbying work, civil society activists have slowly pushed for representation in the ongoing political negotiations aimed at finding a solution to the war in Syria. They have played a majorly advisory role throughout the Syrian peace process by participating in the Civil Society Support Rooms (CSSR) at the UN headquarters in Geneva, set up by Staffan de Mistura, the chief UN mediator for Syria, and his team.
In such rooms, they meet De Mistura and conflict experts to discuss ways of implementing civil society demands. "We meet with experts who have knowledge about how civil society was able to impact similar conflicts in other countries. But the situation in Syria is different," said Mazen Kewara, an Istanbul-based vascular surgeon with the Syrian American Medical Society, the largest medical association in northern Syria, outside of areas under government control.
"The things we're asking for are basic human rights. No leader starves his population to death - there are nations that starve other nations - but no leader besieges his own people, and starves them to death, or forcibly expels them," Kewara told Al Jazeera, alluding to the multiple areas in Syria where civilians were evacuated after government forces imposed airtight sieges blocking the entry of basic supplies such as food and water. 

As the conflict becomes increasingly complicated, and as both sides prove complicit in committing war crimes and targeting civilians, civil society activists say they should be present on the negotiating table as monitors to the political process. One precedent was the direct participation of civil society, particularly women's groups, in Northern Ireland's peace process in the 1990s.
"After all these rounds [of peace talks], now is the time for civil society to play an active and legal role in monitoring the negotiations," said Kewara. "This is what we're pushing for now."
Kewara and Syoufi, are among several activists who have attended numerous rounds of political negotiations as representatives from Save Our Syria, a platform for 15 of the largest civil society groups based inside and outside of the country to pursure Syrian-led solutions to the war. They say the UN has expressed reluctance to include them in the negotiating process due to legal constraints. 
"We're speaking as outsiders to the political divide. This is the crux of the issue. Our suggestions should be taken into account and we should be able to apply pressure on the negotiating sides," said Syoufi.
The issue with the inclusion of civil society in the negotiating process, said Khalaf, is that most decision-makers do not believe civil groups can have an impact. "Civil society is already pressuring the UN system. The bigger problem is with the international governance system and global actors and government power players taking the process away from the locals and peaceful actors in Syria."

'I believed in this message from the start'

On the ground, civil society groups are also constantly being sidelined and targeted. They were among the first victims of arrest, abductions and targeted killings during the uprising. In the battle for Aleppo between July and December 2016, the Syrian government, backed by the Russian airforce, bombed every single hospital in the former rebel-stronghold of east Aleppo.
Aid workers were also targeted and killed on numerous occasions. 
The Syrian government largely restricts the operation of such organisations in areas under its control, which, activists say, has led many to accuse them of being "close to the Syrian opposition".
"We criticise the opposition just as much as we criticise the regime when they are unjust to people and negatively impact them," said Kewara. "These organisations are not linked to the opposition or the factions. These organisations found people who fled without homes, so they built shelters. They found people without hospitals, so they built hospitals. They found unvaccinated people, so they vaccinated them. The regime forbids these organisations and sees them as terrorist organisations," he added.
In opposition-held areas, such groups have also been routinely persecuted, particularly by hardline armed groups such as the previously al-Qaeda affiliated Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS).

"There are large scale arbitrary detentions taking place in areas under opposition control, and there are violations against public freedoms […] There is not one area under opposition control where they showed us an encouraging example of respect for public freedoms," said Syoufi.
As negotiations resume this week, civil society will again be present, to convince politicians to prioritise civilian needs in the peace process, but say there is little hope for any solution in Syria in the near future.
"There is no international willingness to help this country accomplish what that the boys of Deraa asked for in the revolution," said Kewara. "I am a doctor who participated in peaceful activism in Syria, treated patients, I was exposed to government oppression, and forcibly expelled from my own country. I cannot see my mother and my siblings who are still in Damascus. I hope that one day I would return to a government for all Syrians, that believes in freedom and justice."
"What pushes me to continue is that I believed in this message from the start."