From rt.com 

Dutch pension giant divests millions from Israeli banks involved in settlement construction

Published time: January 08, 2014 11:33

http://on.rt.com/fd0wz0

The largest Dutch pension fund company, PGGM, has reportedly chosen to withdraw all its investments from the five largest Israeli banks, whose branches are involved in financing construction in the settlements in the West Bank.

Over the past few months the Dutch pension giant has informed some of Israel’s top banks, such as Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot, the First International Bank of Israel and Israel Discount Bank, that their ties with the settlements, and/or companies involved in construction there, were an obstacle from the standpoint of international law, a source told Haaretz. 

PGGM’s stance is based on an International Court of Justice ruling, which in 2004 concluded that the barrier being built around the West Bank was illegal and should be pulled down, with the “security wall” violating the rights of Palestinians. 

The Israeli law doesn’t allow local banks to stop providing their services to parties connected to the settlements, however. Even if it did, as things stand now it would be highly impractical. With the situation unlikely to improve in the near future, the Dutch giant said it had decided to divest from the banks. According to the Israeli daily, this decision took effect on January 1. 

PGGM manages over 140 billion euros in pension assets on behalf of five pension funds representing some 2.6 million people and is one of the leading such companies in the world. Last year the company said it takes a new step in “responsible investment”. According to PGGM’s advanced policy, “the aspects of people, the environment and society are all included in investment decisions, and dialogue is sought with companies on corporate social responsibility.” 

”PGGM does not invest its clients’ funds in companies that produce or deal in controversial weapons. Nor are funds invested in companies that violate human rights or labor rights and who are unwilling to discuss making improvements,” the Dutch pension fund provider stated on the company’s website.

Therefore, investing in the Israeli banks’ involved in financing construction in the settlements in the West Bank would go against the Dutch company’s fastidious policy. 

Last year PGGM stopped investing in the world’s largest retailer, the American supermarket group Walmart. PGGM has repeatedly spoken against the policy pursued by Walmart in the US, which restricts employees’ opportunities to organize themselves into trade unions. Walmart, however, was “not prepared to take PGGM’s concerns about the company’s tense labor relations in its domestic market into consideration.” In the long run, PGGM added Walmart to its exclusion list. 

It’s not the first time a Dutch company has pulled out of Israel. In December, the Netherland’s largest drinking water supplier, Vitens, decided to cut ties with Israel’s national water corporation, Mekorot, also citing alleged violations of international law. An Amnesty International 2009 report claimed that Israel was denying the West Bank and Gaza access to adequate water supplies through a “discriminatory” control that enables its own people to consume four times as much as the Palestinians; Israel argued the shortages are caused by Palestinians stealing water. Vitens, which is part owned by the Dutch state, signed the co-operation deal with Mekorot only two months ago. The company had a near-monopoly on water supplies in Israel and the Palestinian territories, including Israeli settlements on the West Bank.

Vitens came to the conclusion that the provision of water in the Palestinian territories became too politicized. The company’s spokesman said the firm had decided to cut ties because it “preferred to remain neutral”. The decision was announced during Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s official visit to Israel. Foreign Ministry spokesman called the decision “absurd”, pointing out that the Palestinians will cooperate with Mekorot, while the Dutch firm has refused. 

”It is more than strange that this Dutch company should boycott an Israeli peer that works with the World Bank on a very important regional cooperation project, which includes the Jordanians and Palestinians,” Yigal Palmor said. “This only shows that by caving in to boycott pressures, one makes absurd decisions that result in a topsy-turvy situation.” 

Israeli officials believe that the recent series of boycotts is part of a new policy adopted by the Dutch government, which allegedly recommends local businesses to avoid commerce with the controversial settlements.

From The HIndu, December 31, 2013

Victims of climate change can now make the West pay

CHRIS HUHNE

Science is increasingly pointing a finger at human actions as being responsible for the perils of climate change. This is an ineluctable consequence of improving the computer models of climate change. Of course, there are still large uncertainties. But it is clear the human hand is indispensable in understanding what has happened.

The more certain is the attribution for blame, the more justified many developing countries will feel in protesting about the impact of rising sea levels on small island states such as the Maldives and Fiji or low-lying delta cultures such as Vietnam and Bangladesh. Fair-minded democracies will find the call for compensation hard to resist at home.

The science also opens up the possibility that the victims of climate change could begin to take international legal action against the countries responsible, particularly the early industrialisers, such as Britain, Belgium and Germany, whose carbon continues to warm the planet a century after it was emitted. Legal action is not a substitute for politics, but it could highlight the evidence in an uncomfortable way.

The UN framework may not be ideal, precisely because it is dominated by the historic five powers, who have their own interests. But the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea may be a forum that would hear the matter.

It is not a defence that we did not know what we were doing, nor does a case have to target everyone who might have historic responsibility: countries are jointly and severally liable.

The historical emitters can argue that the global political processes underway since 1992 are proof that the need for action has been responded to and preclude the need for lawsuits. But that implies that such processes must hold out a real possibility of delivering change. — © Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2013

 FromThe Hindu

ISLAMABAD, December 31, 2013

MEENA MENON

A few months ago journalist Ali Chishti was kidnapped outside his office in Karachi and tortured for many hours. But he lived to tell the tale though he had to leave the city.

Abdul Razzaq, a Balochistan-based journalist was killed in the most brutal manner. Razzaq lived in Karachi’s Lyari area, and was missing since March. His body was found in August, and it was so badly mutilated that his family could not identify him when they first saw it. In the end, only his arms and legs were sufficiently intact to enable identification, according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

While Syria remains the most dangerous place for journalists, according to a new report by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), there are continuing dangers to journalists in Pakistan. While CPJ says the number of deaths in 2013 is five in Pakistan, a report by the Media Monitoring Cell of the Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors (CPNE) puts the number at eleven.

The number includes five journalists killed while covering bomb blasts, while six were murdered. According to news reports, on January 11 a bomb blast claimed the lives of Samaa TV reporter Saifur Rehman and cameraman Imran Shaikh in Quetta. Two news agency photographers also lost their lives when a second bomb exploded while they were covering the earlier blast. Tariq Aslam, a sub-editor of Daily Pakistan was killed in a bomb blast during a political party meeting in Peshawar in April.

Karachi remains volatile for journalists with two brazen attacks on the office of Express News this year in which some people were injured. In February the report says that Shaikh Ali Mohsin, a journalist, was shot dead near his house in Karachi. The chief reporter of Associated Press of Pakistan Khushnood Ali Shaikh was fatally hit by a car while crossing the road outside his house.

The death was suspicious because he had received extortion demands after he bought a new house and he refused to pay up. The Karachi Union of Journalists had demanded an inquiry since it was no ordinary hit and run accident.

In February, Geo TV reporter Malik Muhammad Mumtaz was killed in North Waziristan and in May Ahmed Ali Joya of Express Tribune was fatally targeted by gunmen in Bahawalnagar district in the Punjab province.

In Karak in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Ayub Khattak who worked for a local channel was killed outside his house. The Media Cell also referred to various incidents of threats and other attacks on journalists. The report demanded that those responsible for the deaths of journalists be brought to book.

108 journalists killed in 2013, Syria deadliest: IFJ

DAWN.COM

2013-12-31 12:23:35

BRUSSELS: Some 108 journalists and media professionals were killed around the world doing their jobs this year, with conflict-torn Syria the deadliest country ahead of Iraq, the International Federation of Journalists said Tuesday.

The death toll is down 10 per cent from 2012 but the IFJ said governments still need to do more to “stem the bloodbath in the media”.

“Levels of violence are still unacceptably high and there is an urgent need for governments to protect and enforce journalists’ basic right to life,” it said in a statement.

The group issued what is said was a “desperate appeal for governments across the world to end impunity for violence against journalists and media staff”.

The IFJ listed Syria as the most dangerous country with 15 journalist deaths, followed by Iraq on 13, Pakistan, the Philippines and India with 10 each, Somalia seven and Egypt six.

By region, the Asia-Pacific was the worst, accounting for 29 per cent of the deaths, and the Middle East and Arab world 27 per cent.

The IFJ, which represents more than 600,000 journalists in 134 countries according to its website, said female journalists were facing increased levels of violence.

Six were killed in 2013 and many others were the victims of sexual violence and intimidation, it said.

Earlier this month, media rights watchdog Reporters Without Borders said 71 journalists were killed in 2013, down slightly, but kidnappings rose sharply.

The IFJ figures include media workers such as film crew and presenters.

Separately, the Vienna-based International Press Institute put the number of killed journalists so far this year at at least 117, making 2013 the second deadliest year on its Death Watch since it started counting work-related journalist deaths in 1997.

It said the Middle East and North Africa were the deadliest regions, with 38 deaths overall.

The worst year was 2012, with 132 journalists killed, 39 of them covering the Syrian conflict, the IPI said.