Sri Lanka Guardian

Syria: Assad’s Final Stand — The Last Gambit of a Beleaguered Regime?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 8 Dec 2024 13:07:00 +0530

Assad’s survival, though remarkable, is increasingly precarious. He has weathered storms with the help of foreign allies who have sacrificed heavily to keep him afloat. Whether Iran and Russia will continue to bear this burden is unclear. But even if Assad falls, Syria’s agony is far from over.

This editorial was originally published in our edition on November 30

Editorial

The Syrian conflict has never been merely about territory—it is a profound struggle for the very identity of a nation, and a theatre for the ambitions of global powers. Assad’s survival or demise will not determine Syria’s future; the forces fracturing the country are far too entrenched for any single outcome to provide resolution. As an ancient Syrian proverb says, “He who digs a well for his brother, falls into it himself.” Every participant in this war—Assad, the rebels, the West, Russia, Turkey, and Iran—is digging wells of ambition and betrayal. The true question is not who will fall in, but how many will drown before it’s over.

This handout picture provided by the Saudi Press Agency (SPA) on November, 2023, shows Syrian President Bashar Assad attending an emergency meeting of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), in Riyadh.[Saudi Press Agency/AFP]

In a plea for survival, the Syrian regime has called on Iran for urgent military support. This request comes amid a decisive offensive by opposition forces under the “Deterrence of Aggression” operation, which has shattered the Syrian Arab Army’s (SAA) defences, sweeping through Aleppo and Idlib. For years, Assad has relied on foreign intervention to remain in power, and now, as the tide of battle turns, he turns once more to his closest ally. But this appeal reeks of desperation—and irony. Iran, already exhausted from years of proxy warfare, is itself near breaking point. The recent death of Iranian Brigadier General Keyomarth Pourhashemi in Aleppo and the ongoing Israeli airstrikes show that Tehran has already paid a heavy price in Syria. The question now is whether Iran can afford to sink deeper into this quicksand, or if Syria will become just another casualty in the age-old game of empire-building.

For Assad, the stakes could not be higher. The rebels are not only challenging his military dominance—they are undermining his legitimacy. As the opposition makes unexpected gains in western Aleppo, the SAA, once a symbol of Assad’s iron-fisted control, is faltering. The strength of the opposition exposes the fragility of the regime’s hold on power, revealing that the Syrian state, at least in its current form, has always been more mirage than reality. As opposition forces gain ground in areas thought secure, cracks in Assad’s facade grow wider, laying bare the vulnerability of a regime that has relied on violence, fear, and foreign backing to stay afloat.

The true irony, however, lies in Assad’s greatest strength—his ability to endure. Over the years, he has outlasted Western sanctions, uprisings, airstrikes, and even assassination attempts. As the Syrian proverb goes, “Patience is bitter, but its fruit is sweet.” Assad has weathered countless storms, knowing that each phase of crisis offers a new chance to survive. But this strategy, which has served him well in the past, is now facing its greatest test. With his foreign backers—Russia and Iran—stretched thin, the question is whether Assad can withstand a rising tide of opposition, one that is not merely threatening his rule but shaping a new order for Syria.

In this geopolitical contest, Syria is not merely the battleground for Assad’s regime; it is a pawn in a larger contest for power. The United States, despite its supposed mission to promote democracy and fight terrorism, has embedded itself in Syria’s oil-rich northeast. The fight against ISIS has become little more than a pretext for controlling vital resources and countering Russian and Iranian influence. Through its Timber Sycamore program, Washington through its CIA armed opposition groups, yet the disarray within those groups led to many of these weapons being co-opted by radical Islamists, undermining its goal of a stable Syria. The U.S. also collaborated with Kurdish-led forces to combat ISIS, despite the tensions this relationship created with NATO ally Turkey, which regards Kurdish factions as terrorists. Meanwhile, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Assad’s regime, and conducted missile strikes in 2017 and 2018 in retaliation for alleged “chemical weapons attacks.” Despite its military presence, American efforts often seem incoherent, leaving Syria fragmented, with U.S. interests shifting from one administration to the next.

Russia’s role as Assad’s protector serves a broader agenda of securing its Mediterranean foothold and expanding influence in the West Asia. Yet even Moscow is growing weary of the Syrian quagmire. Its ties with both Turkey and Iran are strained, and Syria increasingly appears as a costly military and political deadlock. Each Russian strike is an attempt to preserve its influence, but the rewards of this costly engagement become less clear with time.

Turkey, hosting millions of Syrian refugees, has also carved out its own role in the conflict—but it is driven not by humanitarian concern, but by territorial ambitions. Its incursions into northern Syria, framed as efforts to create a “safe zone” for refugees, are aimed at eliminating Kurdish autonomy and securing strategic territory. Turkey has leveraged the refugee crisis to gain political leverage in Europe, while pushing its own agenda in Syria. Erdoğan’s pursuit of territorial gains is as much about consolidating domestic political power as it is about reshaping the region’s borders. In this endeavour, he has found common cause with Western powers that have long supported his ambitions, further complicating NATO-Russia relations.

Iran, too, is at a crossroads. Once Assad’s most steadfast ally, Tehran now finds itself caught in a conflict that is draining its resources. The cost of supporting Assad has been immense—financially, militarily, and in human lives. The deaths of top Iranian commanders, alongside the increasing frequency of Israeli strikes, highlight the toll on Tehran’s involvement. Yet, Iran cannot afford to abandon Assad. The collapse of his regime would be a blow to Iran’s regional strategy, but at what cost? This dilemma grows more urgent by the day. Will Iran continue to bleed for Assad’s survival, or will it begin to withdraw, leaving the regime to face its fate?

What is often overlooked in the analysis of foreign interventions is that Syria has always been a prize—not only for regional powers, but for empires throughout history. Positioned at the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and Africa, Syria has always held immense strategic value. Its rich history and cultural significance make it a coveted prize. The United States, Russia, Iran, Turkey—all have sought to carve out their place in Syria, each driven by different goals. The suffering of the Syrian people has always been collateral damage in this wider game of geopolitical chess.

In the end, the real tragedy of Syria lies not in the ambitions of foreign powers, but in the plight of its people. What began as a peaceful uprising in 2011, a cry for dignity and freedom, has devolved into a battlefield of competing foreign interests. The Syrian opposition, fragmented and often infiltrated by extremist factions, has failed to present any coherent vision for the country’s future. Armed by the West, only to be abandoned when convenient, the opposition has become as much a part of the problem as the regime it seeks to overthrow.

Meanwhile, the regime’s survival has become a matter of personal and political survival for its leaders. The prospects for rebuilding Syria under Assad’s leadership seem increasingly bleak. The very notion of a unified, secular Syria has been shattered by years of war, sectarianism, and foreign interference. Even if Assad manages to survive this crisis, it is hard to see how he can restore Syria to any semblance of the unity and stability it once knew. His rule has shattered the fabric of Syrian society, leaving a fragmented, war-torn state behind.

The insurgents’ capture of Aleppo is more than a tactical victory—it is a sign of the shifting power balance in Syria. For Assad, the loss of Aleppo is not merely a military defeat; it is a blow to his regime’s legitimacy. Aleppo, once Syria’s cultural and economic heart, has become a key prize in the contest for Syria’s future. Its fall may mark a turning point, but whether it signals Assad’s downfall or simply another chapter in his prolonged survival remains uncertain.

At this precipice, Syria’s future hangs in the balance. Will the country be rebuilt, and if so, on whose terms? Will the Syrian government evolve, or will the insurgents, having gained ground, seize control of the country? Assad’s survival, though remarkable, is increasingly precarious. He has weathered storms with the help of foreign allies who have sacrificed heavily to keep him afloat. Whether Iran and Russia will continue to bear this burden is unclear. But even if Assad falls, Syria’s agony is far from over. What follows will likely be a chaotic power struggle, where no faction can predict its place, and the Syrian people will once again bear the weight of a conflict they did not start.

Syria’s fate, like its history, is wrapped up in the power struggles of empires. Whether it rises from the ashes or remains buried under foreign ambitions will not depend on the strength of its people but on the will of the external powers that control its future. And as the cycle of destruction continues, the real question remains: how many more will suffer before Syria finds peace—if such a thing is even possible?

Breaking: Rebels Claim Control of Damascus, Announce Fall of Assad Regime

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 8 Dec 2024 13:02:00 +0530

With Assad’s regime in freefall, the future of Syria remains uncertain as regional powers and rebel factions vie for influence in the aftermath of the regime’s collapse.

by Our Correspondent in Doha

In a dramatic televised address, opposition rebel factions in Syria declared that they had taken control of Damascus and overthrown President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The announcement marked a decisive shift in the Syrian conflict, with rebels asserting victory in the capital after years of resistance.

Opposition rebel factions in Syria declared that they had taken control of Damascus and overthrown President Bashar al-Assad’s regime

According to Reuters, the Syrian army command informed officers that Assad’s rule has come to an end. The situation escalated further when Syria’s Prime Minister confirmed to Al Arabiya TV that the government was engaged in negotiations with Syrian militant leaders. Amid the turmoil, reports circulated suggesting that Assad may have fled to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on the same day as an IL-76T aircraft crash in Al-Suwairy, though nothing has been definitively confirmed.

Click here to read the latest updates on Syria and other issues on our main website.

The fall of Damascus represents a major milestone in the Syrian Civil War, with the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) reportedly surrendering to rebel forces. Rebel factions are now focused on taking control of the remaining government-held areas along the Mediterranean coast.

The HTS-led Command Military Operations Room revealed that key officials within Syrian government intelligence had reached agreements with the rebels to facilitate their control over the capital. Meanwhile, the Syrian National Army (SNA) launched further attacks on the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in northern Syria.

As the situation evolves, the United States is closely monitoring the developments. White House National Security Council spokesperson Sean Savett affirmed that the U.S. is staying in contact with regional allies but is refraining from direct interference. U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan emphasized efforts to prevent any potential ISIS resurgence.

In the Golan Heights, Israeli forces have begun tightening security. Israeli tanks entered Al-Hamdiyah in Quneitra, and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) set up checkpoints along the border, declaring agricultural areas as closed military zones. The Israeli Home Front Command also imposed restrictions on schools and work in the Druze villages of the region.

Click here to read the latest updates on Syria and other issues on our main website.

From Kane Ella to Baba’s Place: The Rise of SMEs by Young Entrepreneurs in Sri Lanka

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 12 Nov 2024 15:26:00 +0530

The rise of SMEs in Sri Lanka’s tourism sector marks an exciting new phase in the industry’s development. Entrepreneurs such as Akila Malith Silva and Malindu Abeygunasekara are showing how young locals can tap into the growing tourism market by creating innovative, high-quality businesses that cater to the diverse needs of tourists.

by Our Economic Affairs Editor

“Tourism is about making connections—connections between people, between cultures, and between a traveller and a place.” — Rosita Missoni

The tourism sector in Sri Lanka has long been a significant driver of economic growth, providing employment opportunities and helping to promote the island’s rich cultural heritage. With its exceptional natural beauty, diverse culture, and vibrant history, Sri Lanka is home to many globally sought-after tourist destinations. However, it is the rise of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the tourism and hospitality sector, particularly those founded by young local entrepreneurs, that is providing new avenues for economic development in the post-pandemic landscape.

Inside the Bab’s Place, Matara and Kane Ella, Ella [ Photos: Sri Lanka Guardian]

Entrepreneurs like Akila Malith Silva, the founder and owner of KANE ELLA, and Malindu Abeygunasekara, the visionary behind Baba’s Place in Madiha, are at the forefront of this movement. Their ventures, located in popular tourist hotspots such as Ella and Matara, represent an exciting shift in Sri Lanka’s tourism industry—one that combines innovation, local culture, and the entrepreneurial spirit to create lasting impacts on both the local economy and the national tourism scene. Their businesses are not only contributing to the national economy but also providing valuable lessons in the importance of supporting SMEs in the tourism sector.

The Boom in Sri Lanka’s Tourism Sector

Sri Lanka’s tourism industry has seen a steady growth trajectory in recent years, with the island nation being recognised globally for its scenic landscapes, pristine beaches, and historic ....

Click Here to Read the Complete Article in our main website

Snake Pit Diplomacy: The Bitter Truth Behind Recalling ‘Political Appointees’

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 6 Nov 2024 17:36:00 +0530

by Luxman Aravind

Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has become synonymous with corruption, betrayal, and political cronyism. A retired high-ranking official described the Ministry as “one of the biggest cans of disgusting worms,” a “pit of snakes” where treachery reigns supreme. This is not hyperbole; it’s a stark indictment of an institution that should embody national loyalty but instead epitomises self-serving ambition. Career diplomats and political appointees alike have transformed Sri Lanka’s diplomatic corps into a feeding ground for personal gain, with the interests of the nation falling by the wayside.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sri Lanka [File Photo]

The selfish greed festering within the Ministry is staggering. Career diplomats, ostensibly appointed to serve the nation, have instead used their positions to bolster their private fortunes. Many have manoeuvred to establish their families comfortably overseas, raising an important question: how do government officials, on relatively modest salaries, afford luxurious lifestyles in Western countries? Their children thrive abroad, enjoying lives bankrolled by public funds, while these diplomats, whose contributions are minimal at best, continue to reap rewards. For them, public service is not a duty—it’s a loophole to secure privilege.

Recent events illustrate the deeply political nature of these foreign appointments. A list of “political appointees” has recently surfaced in the media, revealing the Ministry’s bias. Numerous ambassadors, high commissioners, and heads of missions have been instructed to return to Colombo by December 1, mere two weeks after the upcoming parliamentary elections. Interestingly, some distinguished military officers and other government officials, who have honourably served the country, have been recalled, while certain politically secure figures—such as Sri Lanka’s ambassador to the United States—are conspicuously absent from the recall list. This glaring inconsistency screams of cronyism and raises an urgent question: who prepared this list? How were these individuals chosen, and what kind of vendetta fuelled this purge?

The answer is dishearteningly clear: personal vendetta and political calculations, not merit or service to the country, dictate the Ministry’s decisions. Among those recalled are highly respected military figures whose dedication to the country is unquestionable.

Consider the case of the Sri Lankan mission in Islamabad, for instance. Generals Anton Muthukumaru, H.W.H. Wijekoon, G.H. de Silva, and Srilal Weerasooriya each served with distinction, were honoured during their diplomatic postings, and allowed to complete their terms. Alongside figures like Air Chief Marshal Jayalath Weerakkody and Major General Jayanath Lokukatagoda, they were appointed for their expertise, not political affiliations. Most recently, Vice Admiral Mohan Wijewickrama, former Navy Chief of Staff and Eastern Province Governor, served as High Commissioner from 2020 to 2023, demonstrating exceptional integrity. None of these officials endured the humiliation of an early recall. For successive governments, retaining retired military commanders in Islamabad has been a deliberate, strategic choice aligned with critical national interests.

The case of Admiral Ravindra C. Wijegunaratne, however, is an exception—and a shameful one at that. Admiral Wijegunaratne, a former Navy Commander and Chief of Defence Staff who earned the prestigious Nishan-e-Imtiaz medal from Pakistan, was recalled after only ten months. In stark contrast to his predecessors, who were allowed to complete their terms, he was abruptly pulled back, a slap in the face for a man whose service to Sri Lanka is unmatched. His recall is not just an insult; it’s a blatant display of political vendetta. Unlike his predecessors, who enjoyed the respect they deserved, Admiral Wijegunaratne has been treated with contempt, his dignity trampled by bureaucrats and politicians acting out of sheer malice.

Adding to the outrage, this recall list omitted certain diplomats with questionable records but strong political ties. The Ministry’s decision to remove some ambassadors while sparing others reeks of cronyism. The embassy in the United States, for example, remains untouched, its politically favoured ambassador secure in a post protected by backroom deals. Meanwhile, Admiral Wijegunaratne, whose appointment strengthened ties with Pakistan—a crucial ally—has been sacrificed on the altar of petty politics. It is an act of disgrace, illustrating the Ministry’s systemic corruption and utter disregard for merit or service.

This political vendetta extends beyond Admiral Wijegunaratne and permeates Sri Lanka’s diplomatic corps. In Cuba and Nepal, for instance, former military leaders, individuals with rich experience in defence and security, serve as ambassadors. These are not political appointments but strategic placements of individuals who understand the intricacies of security, an invaluable skill in regions where Sri Lanka has critical strategic interests. Both countries have benefitted from these appointments, as the former Air Force and Navy leaders posted there bring unparalleled expertise. However, these positions are precarious in a Ministry that views all non-career diplomats with suspicion and contempt.

Sri Lanka’s foreign missions have long been tainted by political interests, and this manipulation only deepens the crisis. Political appointees treat their posts as personal assets, exploiting public funds for private gain with shameless audacity. But the issue goes further: many so-called “career diplomats” are equally complicit, using their paper qualifications to climb the ranks without ever serving the nation’s interests. They may submit token reports to Colombo for annual appraisals, but their true contributions are virtually nil. In host countries, they engage minimally with the local community, foster no strategic ties, and build no beneficial networks. They are diplomats in title alone, filling their time with personal indulgences rather than advancing Sri Lanka’s interests.

The Foreign Ministry’s decision to recall non-career diplomats is not only short-sighted but self-sabotaging. History has shown that, in times of national crisis, non-career diplomats have stepped in to achieve what their career counterparts could not. Figures like Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka, who represented Sri Lanka during the civil war, understood the nuances of his role and advocated effectively for the nation on the world stage. Non-career diplomats often bring a level of expertise, pragmatism, and integrity sorely lacking among many career diplomats. The Ministry’s dismissal of these appointees is nothing short of suicidal; it’s as if they would rather protect their insular circle than allow capable outsiders to contribute.

The global norm supports the strategic use of non-career diplomats. Nations like India routinely appoint non-career professionals, providing them the freedom and authority necessary to serve effectively. In Sri Lanka, however, the Ministry’s bureaucratic elitism resents such appointments. Career diplomats, many of whom are unfit for their roles, view non-career appointees as threats to their privileged positions. This resentment breeds hostility, making it impossible for Sri Lanka’s foreign missions to operate as cohesive units. Instead, the Ministry is rife with scheming and backstabbing, leading one official to describe it as a “vicious pit of snakes” where personal vendettas are prioritised over national duty.

These early signs of immaturity and vindictiveness in the government’s foreign policy approach are alarming. The Ministry’s bias, its political patronage, and its continuous failure to prioritise competence over connections all signal a looming crisis for Sri Lanka’s foreign relations. If this government persists in manipulating the diplomatic corps to advance short-term political goals, it will jeopardise the nation’s stability and security. As Sun Tzu aptly stated, “In war, the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.” By treating diplomacy as a mere tool for political games, the Ministry is setting Sri Lanka up for failure on the international stage. Their petty battles may bring fleeting wins, but the cost will be borne by the Sri Lankan people, who deserve a foreign service that protects and represents their interests—not one that feeds off their sacrifice.

The Ministry’s toxic culture and the government’s disregard for meritocracy threaten not just Sri Lanka’s diplomatic reputation but its future. By prioritising personal vendettas and party loyalty over genuine talent and service, the Ministry has betrayed the public trust. Incompetent career diplomats and politically connected appointees will continue to squander public funds, indulge in self-promotion, and exploit their positions while the nation’s true interests are left to languish. The latest unjust recall and the humiliation endured by numerous dedicated non-career diplomats highlight the betrayal within the Ministry—a betrayal that poisons Sri Lanka’s future with each new act of political retribution.

Until the Foreign Ministry undergoes a drastic overhaul and shifts its focus to genuine merit, integrity, and national service, it will remain what it is today: a cesspool of corruption, manipulation, and incompetence. Without immediate reform, Sri Lanka’s diplomatic corps will continue to function as a private club for the well-connected, where public funds are squandered, and the nation’s reputation is tarnished. The Foreign Ministry, a “viper’s nest” as it stands, will keep poisoning Sri Lanka’s future one corrupt decision at a time, while the people pay the price of their leaders’ insatiable greed.

Trump Resurrection: America Just Produced the Most Dangerous President Ever

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 6 Nov 2024 17:33:00 +0530

Trump’s victory is the death knell for the republic. Trump’s return is not a comeback for a man wronged, nor is it a second chance for a reformed leader. This is something far darker. What we are witnessing is the rise of a man who has learned from his first failed attempt and emerged even more dangerous, more determined, and more unhinged.

by Luxman Aravind

Donald Trump is back, and with him comes the most dangerous, divisive, and unpredictable presidency in modern American history. His re-election, which has defied every expectation, has paved the way for a president who, after two near-death experiences — both literal and political — is returning with an unquenchable thirst for revenge and a blueprint to dismantle the nation as we know it.

Trump’s second term will not be an echo of his first — it will be a radical overhaul of American society, government, and, most terrifyingly, its democratic institutions. In his own words, it will be “nasty a little bit at times, and maybe at the beginning in particular.” And given the agenda he’s already outlined, we can only expect chaos, authoritarianism, and devastation for the United States and the world beyond. The story of Trump’s political comeback isn’t just a tribute to his tenacity; it is a chilling indictment of the nation’s descent into chaos and a disturbing reflection of the failure of democracy itself.

After the historic victory

Trump’s return is not a comeback for a man wronged, nor is it a second chance for a reformed leader. This is something far darker. What we are witnessing is the rise of a man who has learned from his first failed attempt and emerged even more dangerous, more determined, and more unhinged. The nightmare that America faced during his first tenure—the corruption, the lies, the embrace of authoritarianism, the fuel of racial animus—is back, but this time, it’s more polished, more refined, and more threatening. His rise from the ashes of defeat in 2020 is not simply a return to power. It is a heralding of America’s future, one where democracy stands on its last legs, clinging to a fragile existence, and where the will of the people is replaced by the will of one man—Donald Trump.

The fact that we are even discussing a second Trump presidency speaks volumes about the decay of American democracy. After two impeachments, multiple criminal investigations, and an assault on the Capitol that shook the world to its core, the American people are once again giving Trump the power to reshape the nation in his image. His return is a grotesque symbol of how low the political discourse has sunk and how willing the nation is to embrace authoritarianism in the name of misguided populism. Trump is not a man who respects the rule of law, but a man who has weaponized it for his own benefit—transforming the judiciary into a tool of political retribution, and bending every system of governance to his whims. The fact that he remains a popular figure after all of this, that he can ride a wave of populist rage into the White House once again, is a reflection of just how far we have fallen.

To understand the significance of Trump’s return, one must examine the state of the nation that has embraced him once more. America in 2024 is a deeply fractured country, one that has been torn apart by polarization, economic instability, and the breakdown of social cohesion. The middle class, long considered the backbone of American society, is crumbling under the weight of inflation, wage stagnation, and the erosion of opportunity. The political establishment, with its elite connections and detachment from the concerns of the average citizen, is no longer seen as a vehicle for change but as the enemy of the people. Enter Trump—whose entire political brand is built on the rejection of the elite establishment and the promise of a new order where the concerns of “real” Americans are front and center. His political language is one of grievance and resentment, and his message is clear: the elites have failed, and only a strongman like Trump can restore order.

This rhetoric resonates with millions of voters who feel left behind and unheard. Trump speaks to their anger, their frustration, and their sense of disillusionment. His promise to “Make America Great Again” was never just about policy; it was about validation. It was about telling people that their anger, their sense of abandonment, and their need for retribution were justified. In a country where economic inequality has reached new heights and political representation seems more like a charade, Trump becomes a beacon of hope for those who feel that their voices have been silenced by a corrupt system. This is not a vision for a more just society. It is a vision for revenge—against the elites, against minorities, and against the very idea of democracy itself.

Trump’s victory in 2024 will not be a victory for American democracy—it will be its undoing. His campaign has been marked by divisiveness, vitriol, and the exploitation of America’s worst impulses. The promises he has made to his base—mass deportations, a crackdown on dissent, the dismantling of social safety nets, and a return to a time when American identity was defined by whiteness and nationalism—are all aimed at consolidating his power, stoking fear, and further fragmenting the nation. His strategy has always been to divide, to pit Americans against each other, and to exploit their differences for political gain. And it is working.

Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ chosen candidate to carry the mantle of progressivism and a more inclusive future, has utterly failed to match the energy, the drive, or the vision of her opponent. Harris’s campaign in 2024 was a disaster from the start. Rather than offering a bold vision for America’s future, she played it safe with empty platitudes and weak promises of progress. Her candidacy lacked fire, lacked the urgency needed to combat Trump’s populist fervor, and lacked the understanding of the real fears and frustrations plaguing the country. Her inability to rise above the noise, to offer concrete solutions for America’s economic pain, and her reluctance to confront the forces of racism, xenophobia, and extremism allowed Trump’s vision to dominate.

Kamala Harris’s loss is not just the loss of an individual politician; it is the failure of an entire political establishment. It is the failure of a system that has become so entrenched in its own power that it no longer understands the needs of the people. Harris’s inability to face the reality of her defeat, her refusal to acknowledge the depth of the political crisis facing her party, reflects the broader inability of the Democrats to evolve and address the very issues that Trump has so expertly exploited. Her defeat is not an isolated failure—it is the culmination of a political system that has long since lost touch with the electorate. The Democrats’ focus on identity politics, on appeasing a vocal minority, and on maintaining the status quo has cost them the election, and more importantly, it has cost the country its future.

In the aftermath of Trump’s victory, the United States will be forced to reckon with the consequences of its choices. The institutions of democracy, from the judiciary to the media to the civil service, will come under assault as Trump embarks on his plan to reshape America in his image. His promises to purge the government, to silence dissent, and to root out “radical leftists” from all positions of power will lead to an era of political repression unlike anything America has seen since the darkest days of the McCarthy era. The Constitution, once a symbol of democracy and freedom, will be trampled underfoot in the name of “law and order.” The rule of law will mean whatever Trump says it does.

The world will be forced to watch as America’s experiment in democracy comes to a close. The international order that has been built on the ideals of freedom, democracy, and human rights will be imperiled as Trump’s authoritarian vision spreads beyond America’s borders. What we are witnessing is not just the rebirth of a single man’s political career. It is the death of democracy itself. The global order will tremble as Trump’s message of hate, division, and nationalism infects other countries. The rise of right-wing populism will not be confined to the United States. It will spread like a disease, infecting democracies around the world, leading to a dark new age of authoritarianism.

Trump’s victory is the death knell for the republic. As he ascends to the presidency once again, “Democracy: Your Fire; Now Go and Die.” The flames of freedom are about to be extinguished, and the world will witness the end of an era. Mors tua vita mea. Your death is my life. The revolution has begun. Will you survive the fallout, or will you too fall into the ashes?

Top German Spy Warns: Putin’s Russia Poses an Unprecedented Threat to the West

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:31:00 +0530

German intelligence leaders fear that Putin's strategies could destabilize Europe and challenge democratic values.

On October 14, 2024, Germany’s Parliamentary Control Committee (PKGr) convened for a rare public hearing, marking the eighth such instance in its history. The event served as a critical platform for the heads of Germany’s federal intelligence agencies—the Federal Intelligence Service (BND), the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), and the Federal Office for Military Counterintelligence (MAD)—to address the increasingly precarious security landscape, particularly in relation to Russia’s actions under President Vladimir Putin.

[BND President Bruno Kahl during the hearing]

At the hearing, BND President Bruno Kahl, BfV President Thomas Haldenwang, and MAD President Martina Rosenberg painted a stark picture of the escalating threats posed by Russia. Kahl articulated a deep-seated concern that the Kremlin views Germany as an adversary, primarily due to its staunch support for Ukraine amid Russia’s ongoing aggression. This perception of Germany as an enemy is compounded by Russia’s broader strategic aim to realign the global order, a theme echoed throughout the testimony.

Kahl warned of “direct kinetic measures” initiated by Russia against Western nations, asserting that Russian intelligence agencies are operating with impunity and a state mandate to execute hybrid warfare against the West. He elaborated on the Kremlin’s extensive military rearmament and reorganizational efforts, predicting that by the end of the decade, Russia could mount a substantial military offensive against NATO. “Putin will test the West’s red lines,” Kahl stated, indicating a calculated strategy aimed at fracturing NATO solidarity before any direct conflict could ensue.

BfV President Haldenwang elaborated on the “influence operations” orchestrated by Russian intelligence. He described disinformation campaigns designed to undermine Western support for Ukraine and destabilize democratic processes in Germany. Notably, he highlighted the emergence of manipulated media outlets that masquerade as reputable sources to spread false narratives. This manipulation is not merely an information war; it is a strategic endeavor to sway political discourse and foster pro-Russian sentiment among European lawmakers.

The intelligence leaders expressed heightened alarm over increasing espionage efforts targeting Germany’s military and critical infrastructure. Rosenberg, as the MAD president, highlighted concerns over drone reconnaissance activities aimed at military installations, warning that these operations could swiftly escalate into acts of sabotage. The intelligence community is now confronted with a dual threat: not only are they tasked with identifying and neutralizing espionage, but they must also prepare for potential sabotage operations that could disrupt national security.

Kahl’s commentary underscored the simultaneous challenges Germany faces on multiple fronts. Beyond Russian threats, he mentioned rising tensions in the Middle East, particularly the escalating conflict involving Iran and its regional allies. This complexity extends to security issues arising from climate change, migration, and energy security, presenting a multifaceted challenge that demands an agile and well-resourced intelligence apparatus.

In their testimonies, the intelligence chiefs also touched upon domestic security concerns. Haldenwang highlighted the resurgence of Islamist terrorism in Europe, exacerbated by the ongoing crises in the Middle East. He noted that social media serves as a conduit for radicalization, posing a significant risk of self-radicalized individuals executing attacks within Germany. The alarming rise in anti-Semitic incidents, driven by the current geopolitical climate, further complicates the security landscape. Moreover, Haldenwang pointed to right-wing extremism as an ongoing threat to democratic processes in Germany, illustrating the urgent need for vigilant oversight and intervention in politically charged environments.

In light of these evolving threats, both Kahl and Rosenberg implored parliamentarians not to further restrict the operational capabilities of intelligence services. They argued that the proposed security legislation should enhance rather than hinder the ability of these agencies to perform their mandates effectively. “The truth must not become more difficult to find,” Kahl asserted, emphasizing the necessity for operational latitude in an increasingly hostile environment. Rosenberg echoed this sentiment, calling for a comprehensive evaluation of legal frameworks to ensure that intelligence operations remain responsive to emerging threats. “Effective counter-espionage is more important than ever,” she insisted, signaling a collective recognition that the stakes have never been higher.

Palestine: A Wound That Propaganda Can’t Hide

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:29:00 +0530

I refuse to play the condemnation game. Let me make myself clear. I do not tell oppressed people how to resist their oppression or who their allies should be.'

by Arundhati Roy

Writer and activist Arundhati Roy has been awarded the PEN Pinter Prize 2024. This is an annual award set up by English PEN in the memory of playwright Harold Pinter. Shortly after having been named for the prize, Roy announced that her share of the prize money will be donated to the Palestinian Children’s Relief Fund. She named Alaa Abd el-Fattah, British-Egyptian writer and activist, a ‘Writer of Courage’ who she would share her award with. The following is her acceptance speech for the prize, delivered on the evening of October 10, 2024, at the British Library.

Children use candles for lighting in the southern Gaza Strip city of Khan Younis, on Oct. 20, 2023. (Photo by Rizek Abdeljawad/Xinhua)

I thank you, members of English PEN and members of the jury, for honouring me with the PEN Pinter Prize. I would like to begin by announcing the name of this year’s Writer of Courage who I have chosen to share this award with.

My greetings to you, Alaa Abd El-Fattah, writer of courage and my fellow awardee. We hoped and prayed that you would be released in September, but the Egyptian government decided that you were too beautiful a writer and too dangerous a thinker to be freed yet. But you are here in this room with us. You are the most important person here. From prison you wrote, “[M]y words lost any power and yet they continued to pour out of me. I still had a voice, even if only a handful would listen.” We are listening, Alaa. Closely.

Greetings to you, too, my beloved Naomi Klein, friend to both Alaa and me. Thank you for being here tonight. It means the world to me.

Greetings to all of you gathered here, as well to as those who are invisible perhaps to this wonderful audience but as visible to me as anybody else in this room. I am speaking of my friends and comrades in prison in India – lawyers, academics, students, journalists – Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Khalid Saifi, Sharjeel Imam, Rona Wilson, Surendra Gadling, Mahesh Raut. I speak to you, my friend Khurram Parvaiz, one of the most remarkable people I know, you’ve been in prison for three years, and to you too Irfan Mehraj and to the thousands incarcerated in Kashmir and across the country whose lives have been devastated.

When Ruth Borthwick, Chair of English PEN and of the Pinter panel first wrote to me about this honour, she said the Pinter Prize is awarded to a writer who has sought to define ‘the real truth of our lives and our societies’ through ‘unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination’. That is a quote from Harold Pinter’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

The word ‘unflinching’ made me pause for a moment, because I think of myself as someone who is almost permanently flinching.

I would like to dwell a little on the theme of ‘flinching’ and ‘unflinching’. Which may be best illustrated by Harold Pinter himself:

“I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s.

“The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: ‘Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.’

“Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. ‘Father,’ he said, ‘let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.’ There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch.”

Remember that President Reagan called the Contras “the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.” A turn of phrase that he was clearly fond of. He also used it to describe the CIA-backed Afghan Mujahideen, who then morphed into the Taliban. And it is the Taliban who rule Afghanistan today after waging a twenty-year-long war against the US invasion and occupation. Before the Contras and the Mujahideen, there was the war in Vietnam and the unflinching US military doctrine that ordered its soldiers to ‘Kill Anything That Moves’. If you read the Pentagon Papers and other documents on US war aims in Vietnam, you can enjoy some lively unflinching discussions about how to commit genocide – is it better to kill people outright or to starve them slowly? Which would look better? The problem that the compassionate mandarins in the Pentagon faced was that, unlike Americans, who, according to them, want ‘life, happiness, wealth, power’, Asians ‘stoically accept…the destruction of wealth and the loss of lives’ – and force America to carry their ‘strategic logic to its conclusion, which is genocide.’ A terrible burden to be borne unflinchingly.

And here we are, all these years later, more than a year into yet another genocide. The US and Israel’s unflinching and ongoing televised genocide in Gaza and now Lebanon in defence of a colonial occupation and an Apartheid state. The death toll so far, is officially 42,000, a majority of them women and children. This does not include those who died screaming under the rubble of buildings, neighbourhoods, whole cities, and those whose bodies have not yet been recovered. A recent study by Oxfam says that more children have been killed by Israel in Gaza than in the equivalent period of any other war in the last twenty years.

To assuage their collective guilt for their early years of indifference towards one genocide – the Nazi extermination of millions of European Jews – the United States and Europe have prepared the grounds for another.

Like every state that has carried out ethnic cleansing and genocide in history, Zionists in Israel – who believe themselves to be “the chosen people” – began by dehumanising Palestinians before driving them off their land and murdering them.

Prime Minister Menachem Begin called Palestinians ‘two-legged beasts’, Yitzhak Rabin called them ‘grasshoppers’ who ‘could be crushed’ and Golda Meir said ‘There was no such thing as Palestinians’. Winston Churchill, that famous warrior against fascism, said, ‘I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time’ and then went on to declare that a ‘higher race’ had the final right to the manger. Once those two-legged beasts, grasshoppers, dogs and non-existent people were murdered, ethnically cleansed, and ghettoised, a new country was born. It was celebrated as a ‘land without people for people without a land’. The nuclear-armed state of Israel was to serve as a military outpost and gateway to the natural wealth and resources of the Middle East for US and Europe. A lovely coincidence of aims and objectives.

The new state was supported unhesitatingly and unflinchingly, armed and bankrolled, coddled and applauded, no matter what crimes it committed. It grew up like a protected child in a wealthy home whose parents smile proudly as it commits atrocity upon atrocity. No wonder today it feels free to boast openly about committing genocide. (At least The Pentagon Papers were secret. They had to be stolen. And leaked.) No wonder Israeli soldiers seem to have lost all sense of decency. No wonder they flood the social media with depraved videos of themselves wearing the lingerie of women they have killed or displaced, videos of themselves mimicking dying Palestinians and wounded children or raped and tortured prisoners, images of themselves blowing up buildings while they smoke cigarettes or jive to music on their headphones. Who are these people?

What can possibly justify what Israel is doing?

The answer, according to Israel and its allies, as well as the Western media, is the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7th last year. The killing of Israeli civilians and the taking of Israeli hostages. According to them, history only began a year ago.

So, this is the part in my speech where I am expected to equivocate to protect myself, my ‘neutrality’, my intellectual standing. This is the part where I am meant to lapse into moral equivalence and condemn Hamas, the other militant groups in Gaza and their ally Hezbollah, in Lebanon, for killing civilians and taking people hostage. And to condemn the people of Gaza who celebrated the Hamas attack. Once that’s done it all becomes easy, doesn’t it? Ah well. Everybody is terrible, what can one do? Let’s go shopping instead…

I refuse to play the condemnation game. Let me make myself clear. I do not tell oppressed people how to resist their oppression or who their allies should be.

When US President Joe Biden met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli war cabinet during a visit to Israel in October 2023, he said, ‘I don’t believe you have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, and I am a Zionist.’

Unlike President Joe Biden, who calls himself a non-Jewish Zionist and unflinchingly bankrolls and arms Israel while it commits its war crimes, I am not going to declare myself or define myself in any way that is narrower than my writing. I am what I write.

I am acutely aware that being the writer that I am, the non-Muslim that I am and the woman that I am, it would be very difficult, perhaps impossible for me to survive very long under the rule of Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Iranian regime. But that is not the point here. The point is to educate ourselves about the history and the circumstances under which they came to exist. The point is that right now they are fighting against an ongoing genocide. The point is to ask ourselves whether a liberal, secular fighting force can go up against a genocidal war machine. Because, when all the powers of the world are against them, who do they have to turn to but God? I am aware that Hezbollah and the Iranian regime have vocal detractors in their own countries, some who also languish in jails or have faced far worse outcomes. I am aware that some of their actions – the killing of civilians and the taking of hostages on October 7th by Hamas – constitute war crimes. However, there cannot be an equivalence between this and what Israel and the United States are doing in Gaza, in the West Bank and now in Lebanon. The root of all the violence, including the violence of October 7th, is Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land and its subjugation of the Palestinian people. History did not begin on 7 October 2023.

I ask you, which of us sitting in this hall would willingly submit to the indignity that Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank have been subjected to for decades? What peaceful means have the Palestinian people not tried? What compromise have they not accepted—other than the one that requires them to crawl on their knees and eat dirt?

Israel is not fighting a war of self-defence. It is fighting a war of aggression. A war to occupy more territory, to strengthen its Apartheid apparatus and tighten its control on Palestinian people and the region.

‘Polls show that a majority of the citizens in the countries whose governments enable the Israeli genocide have made it clear that they do not agree with this.’ Photo: Ahmed Abu Hameeda/Wikimedia commons

Since October 7th 2023, apart from the tens of thousands of people it has killed, Israel has displaced the majority of Gaza’s population, many times over. It has bombed hospitals. It has deliberately targeted and killed doctors, aid workers and journalists. A whole population is being starved – their history is sought to be erased. All this is supported both morally and materially by the wealthiest, most powerful governments in the world. And their media. (Here I include my country, India, which supplies Israel with weapons, as well as thousands of workers.) There is no daylight between these countries and Israel. In the last year alone, the US has spent 17.9 billion dollars in military aid to Israel. So, let us once and for all dispense with the lie about the US being a mediator, a restraining influence, or as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (considered to be on the extreme Left of mainstream US politics) put it, ‘working tirelessly for a ceasefire’. A party to the genocide cannot be a mediator.

Not all the power and money, not all the weapons and propaganda on earth can any longer hide the wound that is Palestine. The wound through which the whole world, including Israel, bleeds.

Polls show that a majority of the citizens in the countries whose governments enable the Israeli genocide have made it clear that they do not agree with this. We have watched those marches of hundreds of thousands of people – including a young generation of Jews who are tired of being used, tired of being lied to. Who would have imagined that we would live to see the day when German police would arrest Jewish citizens for protesting against Israel and Zionism and accuse them of anti-Semitism? Who would have thought the US government would, in the service of the Israeli state, undermine its cardinal principle of Free Speech by banning pro-Palestine slogans? The so-called moral architecture of western democracies – with a few honourable exceptions – has become a grim laughingstock in the rest of the world.

When Benjamin Netanyahu holds up a map of the Middle East in which Palestine has been erased and Israel stretches from the river to the sea, he is applauded as a visionary who is working to realize the dream of a Jewish homeland.

But when Palestinians and their supporters chant ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’, they are accused of explicitly calling for the genocide of Jews.

Are they really? Or is that a sick imagination projecting its own darkness onto others? An imagination that cannot countenance diversity, cannot countenance the idea of living in a country alongside other people, equally, with equal rights. Like everybody else in the world does. An imagination that cannot afford to acknowledge that Palestinians want to be free, like South Africa is, like India is, like all countries that have thrown off the yoke of colonialism are. Countries that are diverse, deeply, maybe even fatally, flawed, but free. When South Africans were chanting their popular rallying cry, Amandla! Power to the people, were they calling for the genocide of white people? They were not. They were calling for the dismantling of the Apartheid state. Just as the Palestinians are.

‘Neither the ballot boxes not the palaces or the ministries or the prisons or even the graves are big enough for our dreams’. Photo: Shome Basu in Dhaka.

The war that has now begun will be terrible. But it will eventually dismantle Israeli Apartheid. The whole world will be far safer for everyone – including for Jewish people – and far more just. It will be like pulling an arrow from our wounded heart.

If the US government withdrew its support of Israel, the war could stop today. Hostilities could end right this minute. Israeli hostages could be freed, Palestinian prisoners could be released. The negotiations with Hamas and the other Palestinian stakeholders that must inevitably follow the war could instead take place now and prevent the suffering of millions of people. How sad that most people would consider this a naïve, laughable proposition.

As I conclude, let me turn to your words, Alaa Abd El-Fatah, from your book of prison writing, You Have Not Yet Been Defeated. I have rarely read such beautiful words about the meaning of victory and defeat – and the political necessity of honestly looking despair in the eye. I have rarely seen writing in which a citizen separates himself from the state, from the generals and even from the slogans of the Square with such bell-like clarity.

“The centre is treason because there’s room in it only for the General…The centre is treason and I have never been a traitor. They think they’ve pushed us back into the margins. They don’t realize that we never left it, we just got lost for a brief while. Neither the ballot boxes not the palaces or the ministries or the prisons or even the graves are big enough for our dreams. We never sought the centre because it has no room except for those who abandon the dream. Even the square was not big enough for us, so most of the battles of the revolution happened outside it, and most of the heroes remained outside the frame.”

As the horror we are witnessing in Gaza, and now Lebanon, quickly escalates into a regional war, its real heroes remain outside the frame. But they fight on because they know that one day—

From the river to the sea

Palestine will be Free.

It will.

Keep your eye on your calendar. Not on your clock.

That’s how the people – not the generals – the people fighting for their liberation measure time.

Arundhati Roy is an author, with novels including “The Ministry of Utmost Happiness.” Her most recent work is the essay collection “Azadi: Freedom. Fascism. Fiction.”

The Propaganda Circus: Why Sri Lankans Prefer Illusion Over Reality?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:26:00 +0530

In the wake of political upheaval, it is tempting to blame the puppets on the stage while ignoring the marionettes pulling the strings.

by Laxman Aravind

In the aftermath of political turmoil, Sri Lanka finds itself caught in a vicious cycle of deception, with the National People’s Power (NPP) party presenting a leadership characterised by superficial rhetoric and a profound lack of substance. This is not merely an examination of party politics; it is a damning indictment of the collective ignorance that seems to grip the electorate. The rise of the NPP’s presidential candidate, now the ninth president of Sri Lanka, is emblematic of a deeper malaise—an unsettling phenomenon wherein a population remains enraptured by empty promises, sacrificing their capacity for critical thought on the altar of charismatic oratory.

Nilanthi Kottahachchi, a master of monologue in the NPP’s propaganda machinery, whose recent proclamations illustrate the absurdity of the current political discourse. [Image Courtesy: NPP Media]

The NPP’s ascendance is predicated on two insidious factors: a relentless propaganda machine and the pervasive egocentrism that suffocates meaningful political discourse. Their campaign has been an exercise in manipulation, utilising every conceivable medium—from glossy posters to viral social media posts—to sway public sentiment. It is an alarming reminder of Pascal’s assertion that “the greatest minds are capable of the greatest vices as well as of the greatest virtues.” In a climate where political narratives eclipse reason, the ability to deceive becomes a sought-after skill, elevating charlatans while leaving the populace in a state of stupor.

This leads to a disconcerting truth: the Sri Lankan electorate appears to be willingly complicit in its own deception. As the country teetered on the brink of bankruptcy, the very politicians who steered it towards disaster were unceremoniously cast aside in favour of new leaders who, despite their lack of experience or competence, wield the allure of fresh promises. The irony is as rich as it is tragic; like Churchill post-war, those who navigate crises often find themselves discarded, replaced by figures who, devoid of true vision, merely offer a different brand of empty rhetoric.

Consider Nilanthi Kottahachchi, a master of monologue in the NPP’s propaganda machinery, whose recent proclamations illustrate the absurdity of the current political discourse. Her plans for an asset restoration institution sound commendable but are ultimately vapid in the face of pressing national crises. When she speaks of recovering funds allegedly stored in Uganda by former Rajapaksa regimes, one cannot help but question the audacity of such claims. Does she genuinely believe that a government, which has repeatedly failed to confront systemic issues, could effortlessly reclaim hidden assets abroad? Not really. Two weeks after the new president assumed duty, she is now eyeing a parliamentary seat, confessing that she knows nothing but the whole truth about this Ugandan saga, yet deceived the public by lying to them. An attorney by profession, does she have no shame? Or is it the people who lack it? Do you think these so-called reformists will serve the country, or will they lead it to the brink of an abyss while the majority remain in deep slumber? It is a spectacle of delusion, reminiscent of Chekhov’s assertion that “man will only be better when you make him see what he is, and not what he should be.” The disconnect between political promises and reality is staggering.

In her attempts to justify the NPP’s actions, Kottahachchi mirrors the very absurdities she seeks to condemn. The superficiality of her rhetoric, filled with grandiose claims, belies a deeper truth: she, like many others, is doing exactly what most traditional politicians do, albeit in different forms and with different tricks—entraping the public and ensnaring them in a relentless cycle of self-deception in critical political decisions and theatrical posturing. This manipulation leads to a distortion of reality, resulting in politically stupid decisions that serve only the interests of those in power. In other words, this group of deceivers is nothing but the other side of the same coin, where most clowns believe that the place will turn into a kingdom when the clowns are enthroned. It is shocking to consider how easily the electorate has fallen prey to such manipulations. Lincoln’s assertion that “you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time” resonates painfully in this context. For the people of Sri Lanka, however, it appears that the vast majority remain content to be fooled, willingly surrendering their critical faculties in the face of convenient narratives.

As this new form of shamelessness takes root in Sri Lanka, the alarming reality is that the electorate is seemingly immune to the lessons of history. The superficial gestures, like the recent announcement of providing 50 million rupees to those affected by floods, only serve to highlight the immaturity of a reactive political environment. Is this what the people of Sri Lanka have come to accept? According to the Disaster Management Center, 152,424 people belonging to 39,123 families in 12 districts and 80 divisional secretariats have been affected by the bad weather. So far, three people have died due to the disaster, and one total house loss along with 318 partial house losses has been reported. Additionally, 7,918 people are staying in 69 shelters, with 1,927 families affected by the disaster. The Gampaha district has been the most affected, with 20,553 families and 82,839 people impacted. Meanwhile, the Disaster Management Center reports that flood disaster relief teams have been deployed for relief work in the flooded areas. To calculate how much each affected person could receive from the 50 million rupees, we find that with 152,424 affected individuals, each person would receive approximately 328.26 rupees (about 1.12 dollars), emphasizing the inadequacy of such relief efforts and highlighting the immaturity of the leadership. Yet, these are earlier symptoms of what is to come.

A governance model that is reactionary rather than proactive, addressing symptoms rather than the underlying malaise? The spectacle of politicians engaging in petty squabbles while national issues languish unaddressed raises an urgent question: how much longer can this charade continue before the very fabric of society unravels? The forthcoming parliamentary elections will serve as a litmus test for the populace’s capacity to discern truth from fiction. The political landscape is replete with empty promises and hollow aspirations, yet the electorate seems paralyzed by an enduring allegiance to illusion over reality. Nietzsche’s observation that “sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed” rings painfully true in this context.

It is evident that these propagandists have mastered the art of deception, skillfully diverting attention away from the pressing structural issues plaguing society. Instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue about reform and collective responsibility, they inundate the public with a cacophony of noise, effectively drowning out any critical discourse.

The reality is stark and unforgiving: the current political climate is a reflection of a populace that has willingly embraced ignorance, allowing itself to be lulled into complacency by a parade of empty rhetoric. The resurrection of the old guard is not just a failure of leadership; it is a profound indictment of a society that appears all too ready to accept mediocrity in place of merit. The imperative for the citizens of Sri Lanka is to awaken from this stupor, to rise up against the political theatre that serves only to distract and deceive. The question remains: will the people of Sri Lanka finally demand something more substantial than the perfumed promises of politicians who seem more concerned with their narratives than the realities of governance? The answer to this question will shape the nation’s future.

Nobel Peace Prize to Nihon Hidankyo: Long Overdue, Militarism Looms

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:25:00 +0530

The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to organisations like Nihon Hidankyo must not only recognise the voices of war's victims but also serve as a clarion call for deeper introspection and action.

Editorial

Do you still remember how Harry Truman, in his twilight years as President of the United States, brazenly bragged in front of TV cameras about the latest innovations in killing—specifically, the atomic bombs dropped on defenceless civilians in Japan? This spectacle of pride stands as a grotesque testament to the moral bankruptcy that underpins U.S. foreign policy. As we confront the dire state of global affairs, we must acknowledge a grim reality: the United States, alongside its Western allies, has systematically dismantled the very foundations of world peace while profiting from the chaos it creates.

People walk past the Hiroshima Red Cross Hospital after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945, in this handout photo taken by the U.S. Army in November, 1945, and distributed by the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. Mandatory credit REUTERS/U.S. Army/Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum

Take, for instance, the recent awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize on 11 October 2024 to Nihon Hidankyo, the Japanese Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organisations. This recognition of atomic bomb survivors and their struggle for disarmament is a much-needed acknowledgment of their suffering. However, it starkly contrasts with the violent legacy left in the wake of American militarism. As historian Howard Zinn aptly noted, “There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.” This hypocrisy is a bitter pill to swallow.

From the moment the atomic bombs were unleashed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. charted a course of violence disguised as liberation. The justifications offered for these appalling acts—claims of saving lives and hastening the end of the war—fall flat against the backdrop of the unimaginable horror inflicted upon over 200,000 civilians who perished instantly, along with countless others condemned to a lifetime of suffering due to radiation. This was not merely a tactical manoeuvre but a calculated show of force, a warning shot that set the tone for future military interventions.

Fast forward to 2003: the catastrophic invasion of Iraq, propelled by lies about weapons of mass destruction, resulted in the toppling of a sovereign government and unleashed chaos that claimed hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. As former President Jimmy Carter lamented, “We have been a nation at war for most of my life… we cannot be a great nation unless we find a way to make peace.” Yet, under the guise of peace and democracy, the West perpetuates a cycle of violence, destabilising entire regions while masquerading as a force for good. This raises serious questions about war crimes and the concept of victor’s justice, which allows aggressors to evade accountability while innocent victims are left to bear the brunt of their actions.

The hypocrisy does not stop here. While it is commendable to award the Nobel Peace Prize to organisations like Nihon Hidankyo, it also highlights a glaring contradiction: how can we celebrate peace in a world where military intervention and aggression are the status quo? The Nobel Peace Prize has often been wielded as a political tool, awarded to figures who have aligned with Western interests rather than genuinely promoting peace. A prime example is Barack Obama, who received the prize in 2009 yet continued military operations in countries like Libya, where his administration’s actions led to significant loss of life and ongoing chaos. This bitter irony exemplifies how the prize can mask war crimes under the guise of “victor’s justice.” Similarly, other laureates have been selected based on their roles in furthering Western agendas, raising serious doubts about the integrity and intent behind such awards.

As former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated, “The use of force is an act of last resort. War is the ultimate failure of humanity.” Yet here we are, with the U.S. maintaining over 900 military bases worldwide, spending more on defence than the next ten countries combined, and continuing to pursue a foreign policy rooted in militarism rather than diplomacy.

With the recent election of Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba in Japan, who took office on 1 October 2024, we are witnessing an alarming resurgence of militarism, Asian NATO, in Asia. Ishiba’s administration appears eager to forge military alliances that echo a dark history many believed had been left behind. Rather than nurturing collaboration and peace, these initiatives threaten to reignite old animosities and escalate tensions with neighbouring countries. In light of these disturbing realities, it is imperative to confront the uncomfortable truths regarding the role of the United States and its allies in fostering conflict instead of peace. The time has come for a critical evaluation of policies that have perpetuated suffering and instability on a global scale.

This year Nobel Peace Prize awarded must not only recognise the voices of war’s victims but also serve as a clarion call for deeper introspection and action. The global community must demand genuine peace-building efforts that prioritise diplomacy over militarism, humanitarian needs over strategic interests, and an end to the cycle of hypocrisy that allows powerful nations to act with impunity while the innocent continue to suffer.

The Persistent Grip of Dynastic Rule in Asia

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:23:00 +0530

The psychological dynamics of dependency on political families, coupled with the dangers of corruption and authoritarianism, present significant challenges to the establishment of genuine democratic governance.

by Luxman Aravind

Dynastic politics in Asia extend beyond mere familial legacies; they constitute a profound issue that shapes the socio-political realities of numerous nations. Prominent families such as the Bandaranaikes, the Rajapaksas, the Senanayakes, the Gunawardenas, the Jayawardenes, all in Sri Lanka, the Marcoses in the Philippines, the Nehrus and Gandhis in India, the Kims in North Korea, and the Hasinas and Zias in Bangladesh have significantly influenced their countries’ political trajectories. While these families have maintained their hold on power through various means, they have also experienced significant declines, often precipitated by economic mismanagement, public discontent, and civil unrest. This decline does not negate the potential for resurgence; rather, it highlights the cyclical nature of dynastic politics that can easily re-emerge if societies do not actively work to prevent it.

The philosophical discourse surrounding governance provides valuable insights into this phenomenon. Plato, in The Republic, argued that the ideal state should be governed by philosopher-kings, individuals best equipped to lead due to their wisdom and virtue. This perspective raises important questions about the consequences of dynastic rule, which often prioritises family lineage over merit. As Plato stated, “The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” This highlights the danger of complacency in the face of corruption, particularly in societies that accept dynastic authority as a norm.

The psychological dynamics underpinning the acceptance of dynastic rule are complex and deeply rooted. Citizens frequently develop a cognitive bias that equates well-known family names with stability and national identity. In India, the Nehru-Gandhi family’s historical significance and its connection to independence leader Jawaharlal Nehru have enabled them to present themselves as embodiments of continuity amid political turmoil. Similarly, in Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League party leverage the legacy of her father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, portraying themselves as custodians of his vision for the country. As Aristotle pointed out in Politics, when governance becomes synonymous with family loyalty, it often results in tyranny: “What is a tyrant? He is one who, disregarding the common good, acts solely in the interests of his own family.” This psychological dependency creates an environment in which voters are often hesitant to question the capabilities or integrity of these dynasties, leading to unchallenged authority.

The hold of dynastic families can result in significant corruption and abuse of power. For instance, the Marcos regime in the Philippines was notorious for its corrupt practices and human rights violations, serving as a critical example of how dynastic politics can devolve into authoritarianism. Despite the Marcos family’s notorious past, Bongbong Marcos’s rise to the presidency in 2022 exemplifies the challenges societies face in dismantling the influence of entrenched political families. The use of historical revisionism to craft a narrative of a “golden era” during the Marcos regime is a strategic move that exploits collective memory and nostalgia, complicating efforts to hold dynasties accountable.

Sheikh Hasina’s tenure in Bangladesh is similarly illustrative. While she has managed to consolidate power, her administration has been marred by allegations of authoritarianism and violence against political opponents. Notably, she was compelled to resign in this year amid one of the bloodiest political crises in the country’s history. The violent clashes between opposition parties and law enforcement were a stark reminder of the potential for upheaval when governance becomes synonymous with repression and familial loyalty. Confucius taught that “The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones,” reminding us that meaningful change requires persistent effort. Despite Hasina’s loss of power, the legacy of violence and political turmoil remains a significant factor influencing public perception. As economic challenges persist, the potential for renewed civil unrest looms, with extremism on the rise. External parties, such as the U.S., have greater manipulations than ever before, suggesting that the political environment remains volatile and deeply divided.

The risks associated with the resurgence of dynastic politics are significant. Political families possess not only substantial resources but also the capacity to manipulate public sentiment, further entrenching their influence. Nietzsche remarked, “He who has a why to live can bear almost any how,” emphasising the necessity of purpose and agency in overcoming oppression. The psychological conditioning of the populace can lead to a form of learned helplessness, where citizens perceive political change as unattainable. This mindset is often reinforced by controlled media narratives that glorify dynastic leaders while vilifying their opponents, thus stifling dissent and normalising the notion that governance is a familial enterprise rather than a civic duty.

To prevent the re-emergence of dynastic rule, societies must actively dismantle the frameworks that support such power structures. A crucial initial step is to eliminate the perception of public governance as a profitable business. Robust reforms should be implemented to ensure transparency and accountability in political financing. Establishing stringent regulations around campaign financing and lobbying can significantly diminish the influence of wealth in politics, fostering an environment where political power is not viewed as a commodity. As Machiavelli cautioned in The Prince, appearances can be deceptive, and leaders must maintain the facade of virtue while being prepared to act immorally if necessary.

Encouraging grassroots movements and civic engagement is equally vital. Citizens should be motivated to participate actively in the political process—not merely as voters but as informed advocates for change. Initiatives focusing on civic education can empower individuals to understand their rights and responsibilities, fostering a more politically engaged populace. In India, for instance, various non-governmental organisations work to educate citizens about the importance of accountability in governance, highlighting the impact of corruption and the necessity for demanding more from political leaders.

Moreover, a culture of non-violent resistance is essential for challenging entrenched power. Historical precedents, such as the people power movements that challenged dictatorships in the Philippines, serve as powerful reminders of the efficacy of collective action. Non-violent movements can galvanise public support without resorting to chaos, enabling citizens to confront dynastic rule effectively and advocate for more equitable governance. The teachings of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita resonate here, as he emphasises the moral obligation to fight against injustice. As he asserts, “When righteousness declines and unrighteousness rises, I manifest myself,” suggesting that change can occur when citizens act to restore justice.

Strengthening the independence of the judiciary and law enforcement is another crucial strategy for preventing the resurgence of dynastic politics. An impartial judicial system is essential for holding political elites accountable, ensuring that laws apply equally to all citizens, including those from powerful families. Countries with strong institutions, such as Singapore, provide compelling examples of how integrity in governance can contribute to political stability.

It is crucial to recognise that eradicating corruption is not only vital for dismantling the foundations of dynastic politics, but that psychological dependency and feelings of insecurity towards ‘newly-formed’ or immature political entities often leave the public vulnerable to deceptive, short-sighted propaganda. These factors are instrumental in sustaining and even revitalising dynastic politics in a new guise. When governance is viewed merely as a vehicle for personal gain, the integrity of the political system is profoundly undermined.