The website President Putin doesn't want you to see Saturday, 02 March 2013 On Monday - the one-year anniversary of Pussy Riot's arrest - we're headed to the Russian Embassy with a special delivery of our Pussy Riot world map. We're honestly not sure how the Russian authorities are going to react to our Pussy Riot world map. The Russian authorities recently banned Pussy Riot's videos as "extremist". And last August, the Russian Embassy in Washington tossed Amnesty's petitions to the curb - literally - and refused to hear our concerns about human rights in Russia. But on March 4, the one-year anniversary of Pussy Riot's arrest, we will not be silent. Two Pussy Riot members, Maria "Masha" Alyokhina and Nadezhda "Nadya" Tolokonnikova, remain behind bars in notoriously brutal prison camps. Last Wednesday we danced outside the Russian Embassy to commemorate Pussy Riot's We only have a few more days left to add as many names as possible to our map. Stand for Pussy Riot and free speech in Russia -- get on the map! It's been a whirlwind year since Pussy Riot's iconic "punk prayer" performance at Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow. Arrests, courtrooms, lawyers, political posturing by the Russian authorities and President Putin -- all culminating in Masha and Nadya's outlandishly harsh two-year sentences, at prison camps far from their families and young children. But the women of Pussy Riot were never alone. From Twitter to rock shows to handwritten letters, hundreds of thousands have called on the Russian authorities to #FreePussyRiot. More than 100 of Russia's best-known actors, directors and musicians signed a letter calling for their release. Madonna played a Moscow concert with "Pussy Riot" emblazoned across her back. Amnesty activists threw a full-fledged punk concert steps from the Russian Embassy in Washington DC. Star musicians like Sting and Anti-Flag added their names to our Pussy Riot world map in solidarity -- along with thousands of other activists like you. One year later, Pussy Riot needs us to speak out -- more than ever. Why now? Because Pussy Riot continues to be a symbol of the Russian authorities' unreasonable crackdown on freedom of expression in Russia -- and the attacks on free speech in Russia are only getting worse with some disturbing new laws. Did you know that: Conducting public protests in Russia could cost you up to U.S. $32,000 in fines? Human rights and political activism could potentially be treated as "treason" in Russia, thanks to a broad new legal definition? Foreign and domestic NGOs -- including those doing vital human rights work -- face increasingly severe restrictions on their operations in Russia? Pussy Riot's harsh prison sentences are a draconian response to peaceful dissent. "This is cruelty on purpose, cruelty for propaganda purposes," said Ekaterina Samutsevich, a member of Pussy Riot who was arrested with Nadya and Masha but later conditionally released on appeal. "...We need to fight it somehow." And fight it we will! We will never give up our campaign to defend human rights and free speech in Russia. On Monday, we'll be headed to the Russian Embassy, map in hand. -Amnesty International USA- In the Defence Sector Opacity as a security threat

2013-03-02 Opacity in the defence sector is a security threat itself. It is self-defeating as unjust enrichment of few demoralizes many within the sector. Based on data from the World Bank and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Transparency International (TI) estimates that the global cost of corruption in the defence sector to be a minimum of US$ 20 billion per year. This equates to the total sum pledged by the G8 nations in 2009 to fight world hunger. The total amount involved is only an indicator of how much it could undermine the public trust vested with the sector. If powerful segments within the military could act with impunity, it poses a large threat to the security of the people in the country. This is a living truth for a multi-ethnic country like Sri Lanka where Tamil minorities feel controlled in many ways by the war-winning government. The recent ranking conducted by Transparency International UK branded 82 countries in the world based on five risks areas: political, personnel, procurement, finance and operations. Each of these corruption risk areas were analyzed based on a number of sub categories. For example the corruption risk area of finance was analyzed based on asset disposal, secret budgets, military owned businesses and illegal private enterprises; the risk area of personnel was analyzed by taking into consideration leadership behaviour, payroll, promotions, appointments, rewards, conscription, salary chain, values, standards and small bribes. The whole analysis placed countries under six brands, 'the Brand 'A' being the least corrupt to Brand 'E', recognizing the most corrupt.' Disappointing Unfortunately, only two countries in the world are ranked within the coveted Brand 'A'. Many countries, statistically 69% out of 82 countries, are categorized under Brand, 'D', 'E' or 'F'. The countries in this 69% include 20 of the largest 30 arms importers in the world and 16 of the largest 30 arms exporters included in the study. Therefore, the results are disappointing. It indicates that defence risks in most countries are poorly controlled with corresponding high vulnerability to corruption. Sri Lanka is ranked within the 'E' category signifying a 'Very High' level of corruption risk within the sector. Over the years, there is a low institutional political activity to stem corruption in the national defence and security establishment. There was much political interference which undermined the impartiality and independence of the Bribery Commission of Sri Lanka. The President enjoys a strong control over the State Intelligence. Overall, the strong presidential system centred on the President's family, creating an executive power that undermines the potential for effective scrutiny or transparency, limits any kind of open discussion about the sector. In the field of finance, Sri Lanka shows no transparency on asset disposals or on information classification. The latter is connected to the risk of being overly centralized following a history of Emergency Regulations. There is no detail of money spent on secret items while the financial regulations of the government enable 'secret payments' that are effective only under presidential control. Meanwhile, the defence sector's development of commercial business in the post-war period has been extensive and faces the amalgamation of UDA with the defence budget, worsening the risks. In the field of personnel corruption risk, whistle-blowing is considered potentially treacherous in Sri Lanka. The President wields control over recruitment of personnel at the most senior levels, and there is a high risk of favouritism and politicization in recruitment processes at other senior levels. While pay-rates of personnel are lacking in transparency, on a more positive note, the pay system is evidently robust: there is no indication of ghost soldiers on the military payroll or of untimely pay. It is unclear if a Code of Conduct exists and prosecutions for disciplinary matters are vulnerable to politicization. The problem of facilitation payments is reported to be widespread. With regard to operations-related corruption risks, there is no codified military doctrine in which anti-corruption provisions are covered, and acts pertaining to the armed services do not include anti-corruption aspects either. There is no evidence of anti-corruption training, monitoring, or guidelines on contracting that relate to operations. There is a lack of transparency regarding the extent of the operations of Private Military Contractors (PMCs) and whether they are regulated or scrutinized. Procurement corruption Finally, in the field of procurement-related corruption risk it is noted that the Joint Operations Headquarters under the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is responsible for procurement, but legislation is not public and has limited application under the official remit of 'national security'. There is little or no transparency on purchases, pre-bid standards for companies to meet, or on a strategy guiding procurement (if one exists). In terms of competition in defence procurement, the principle of open competition is likely to be undermined in practice, while tender boards or anti-collusion efforts are lacking in effectiveness. There is no transparency at all regarding control of agents or sub-contractors, or financing packages. Finally, political factors are assessed to influence defence procurement. Overall, Sri Lankan defence sector supported with public money is largely challenged with many corruption risks. This is an uneasy subject to deal with. It is possible for those who raise these issues to be branded a traitor, but it is true patriotism that makes the critical mass to raise these issues, in good faith, on behalf of the citizenry.