Connect with us

Opinion

Ukraine: Phantom invasion

Published

on

Russian troops near the Ukrainian border

By SANJA DE SILVA JAYATILLEKA

In the 21st century international political theatre, unnerving in the extreme, we were treated recently to how things are likely to be played out in the world when Great Powers flex their muscles in a context of a fluidity when the balance of forces is less than obvious. In this context, the recent Chinese-Russian convergence on many matters, including the future of the world order, increasingly looks like the emergence of a necessary corrective.

|As the US, Germany, France, Britain, Poland, Italy and other heads of state and/or foreign ministers of the NATO alliance rushed to Moscow for consultations at the highest levels, it looked like Europe was on the verge of war. The Western governments did their best to convince everyone that Ukraine was about to be invaded by Russia.

At a White House press conference, the press thought that after the Iraq experience, they needed a bit more evidence to accept the claim that an invasion of Ukraine was imminent. Jake Sullivan replied that in Iraq, they were trying to start a war, but this time they were trying to prevent one. Somehow, he succeeded in looking like they were trying to provoke one.

The Russians had been engaged in intense diplomacy with the US and European governments in an effort to ensure their existential concerns regarding NATO expansion right up to their borders were addressed. The US requested that their written response to Russian documents, containing their proposals, not be disclosed. It turns out that the US had rejected Russia’s proposals. Russia was deploying troops along their border with Ukraine and conducting military exercises on land and sea in a show of strength. It was clear that a show of strength was what it was.

Panic was being spread in the west by their governments. Announcements were made of travel advisories and requests for US citizens to leave before Russian bombs fell on civilian lives. Those who stayed would be on their own, they said, for their government would be unable to save them. Ukraine itself was asking people to calm down. They didn’t want their people leaving. Russia was assuring that they weren’t about to invade since their interest was in NATO powers taking their long-discussed security concerns into consideration and diplomacy was still on.

And yet, the world was being told that Russia would invade Ukraine before the Winter Olympic Games were over. “We are very clear…” the US said, that it is very likely that Ukraine would be invaded anytime. Only a couple of days ago, the British Ministry of Defence even published a military map with red arrows curving towards Ukraine, calling it “President Putin’s possible Axis of Invasion”.

It was “Deja Vu, all over again”.

What’s The Buzz?

What would India feel if Sri Lanka were to formally express the desire and aim to enter into a military alliance with the China? Should anyone consider how India feels? Aren’t we a sovereign country, and shouldn’t we be able to decide on our own security arrangements and with whom we ally militarily?

We have some indication of how that would go down with our closest neighbour. It’s not that long ago that a Chinese submarine was docked at one of our ports, followed by a flurry of diplomatic activity to reassure India that such a thing will not happen again. Sri Lankan leaders take pains to assure India that no activity will be allowed on either land or sea which threatens India’s security concerns.

NATO is a military alliance. Ukraine used to be part of the Soviet Union. Now it’s an independent country. Russia would like to keep it that way. They refer to agreements which promised that NATO would not come too close to its borders. Ukraine insisted that it wants to exercise its sovereign right to join the EU and NATO. As Russia objected in no uncertain terms, suddenly everyone involved started throwing their military toys out of their prams.

I don’t think the rest of the world panicked. They were thinking, where’s the adult in the room?

Long Table De-Escalation

Diplomacy was still on. European heads of state were visiting Moscow.

Anyone who knows anything about the Russian Federation knows that the Russians are serious people with serious weapons who are hardly likely to start a war without serious thought. They have a considerable number of well-developed strategic studies think-tanks with well recognised scholars, academics and intellectuals, and some regularly brief the Kremlin. Their impressive international defence conferences are a reflection of the depth and breadth of their thinking on all strategic matters. Their recent convergence on a number of areas with China, even though it didn’t stretch to any kind of strategic alliance, also ensures that any surprise unilateral military adventure is most improbable.

It was a matter of time before Russia, having drawn their lines in dark red, would let their well-practiced diplomacy take over, and de-escalate. This happened on the 14th of February when Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, well known around the world for his skilled diplomacy (also known to us Sri Lankans for his ability to speak Sinhala), sat at one end of a very long table with President Putin at the other, and informed his boss that not all diplomatic options had been exhausted and there was still room for negotiations. Very considerable social distancing didn’t take away from the seriousness of the event which the Western media described as choreographed, which it probably was. It made good theatre.

Foreign Minister Lavrov informed the President that he was not satisfied with the responses he received from his counterparts. “…They basically said the right of a state to choose unions and join or replace them overrides everything else and is not a subject for discussion, as it were. We are reminding the Americans and our other Western colleagues that this right, formalised in OSCE top-level decisions at the 1999 and 2010 summits, the Russia-NATO 2002 Rome Declaration, and the Lisbon Declaration of the 2010 Russia-NATO summit, is not unconditional. This right is directly conditioned by other points that were supported, let me repeat, as a package by consensus. The second part of the package basically says that each state’s right to choose alliances is limited by its own commitments not to enhance its security at the expense of any other state.”

It’s easy to spot the hypocrisy if one imagines Cuba, entering into a military alliance with Russia or China. The collective Western howl would certainly be heard in Colombo. Colombo would in any case not agree with that position. Our stated position is that we don’t presume to use the sovereignty argument without considering India’s perceptions of the impact on its security.

However, in the second part of his conversation, Minister Lavrov informs President Putin that the responses were constructive: “The second part is more constructive to a certain extent. It envisages rather specific measures to address the problems of land-based short and intermediate-range missiles after the Americans discarded the corresponding treaty, the INF. It also contains specific proposals on a range of measures to reduce military risks, confidence-building measures and military transparency.”

President’s question whether there was “still .. a chance of coming to terms with our partners” Minister Lavrov said “…as the head of the Foreign Ministry, I must say that there is always a chance.”

Minister of Defence Shoigu was next at the long table on the 14th of February. Defence Minister Shoigu is from the Buryat region of Russia which contains a Buddhist population. He heads a very well-trained army with impressive hardware coveted by many countries around the world, with our neighbour India being a valued customer.

He described the recent military exercises: “…the exercises involved drills against various types of hypothetical enemy attacks in all areas, including those of surface ships, submarines and of blue-water navies.”

Then comes a submarine story of their own, a bit different to ours. Minister Shoigu informs President Putin of a rogue submarine seen in their waters:

“During the Pacific Fleet’s operations, as part of an exercise near the Kuril Island of Urup, we detected a submarine, presumably that of the United States. Following almost three-hour operations, the submarine was expelled from the territory of the Russian Federation. Actually, it had ventured over four kilometers into Russian territorial waters, a large distance, by local standards. We conducted special operations three times and forced the submarine to leave Russia’s territorial waters.”

Oh dear. That wasn’t nice. I mean it wasn’t very nice into sneak into somebody else’s territorial waters. A bit like an invasion, which everyone panics about.

Minister Shoigu was understandably offended. “Such activity in the east is absolutely incomprehensible and unjustified. But I want to repeat once again that the exercises will proceed: some of them are over, others are nearing completion…”

And thus, the de-escalation began and soon may it be completed.

World Order

We have got an unexpected glimpse into ‘world order games’. When the dust settles, the players will have learnt the limits of their strengths and the imperative of compromise. The shape of this new understanding will spill over into all international relations, including into our region, whichever way one decides to describe it, the Indo-Pacific or Asia-Pacific.

Some players came off looking better than others. The British will want to forget the meeting of the Foreign Ministers in Moscow and their Foreign Secretary’s faux pas with it. Not to be outdone, the British press provided the ammunition for the Russians to take the mickey, reporting that the “invasion” would take place at “3.00 am local time on Wednesday (0100 GMT)”! They cited “anonymous US intelligence officials as sources for the claim”. This being too tempting a target to overlook, the irascible Dimitri Peskov, President Putin’s Press Secretary, suggested that the Ukrainians set their alarms so as not to miss it!

But the critical importance of well-considered diplomacy intelligently conducted by competent persons was made clear to the world, and all efforts at ensuring the possession of such skills and persons able to conduct it without embarrassing themselves and their countries, may be the only way to avoid wars.

While the “invasion song” is still number 1 on the charts on NATO radio, the rest of the world, that is to say, most of the world, may have tuned-out. It sounds too similar to several previous chart-toppers.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

U.S. foreign policy double standards and Iran’s Iron theocracy

Published

on

The world’s most theatrical stage

Welcome to the Grand Circus

If global geopolitics were a TV show, it would be cancelled after the first season for being too unbelievable. Consider the plot: the world’s largest arms exporter lectures others about peace; a government that executed over 500 people in a single year tells its citizens it governs by divine law; and international bodies created to enforce rules seem to apply those rules with remarkable … flexibility. Welcome to the real world of international relations, where the rules are made up and the principles don’t matter.

This analysis examines two of the most consequential actors shaping global instability today: the United States of America, a democracy that can’t quite decide whether it believes in democracy, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, a theocracy that has perfected the art of punishing its own people for simply existing.

Episode I: The United States, ‘Do as I Say, Not as I Do’

The Democracy Export Business

The United States has, for decades, positioned itself as the global guardian of democracy, freedom, and human rights. It is a noble brand. The marketing budget alone, in the form of military expenditure at $886 billion in 2023, is staggering. And yet, the product being sold and the product being delivered have often been … different things.

The CIA-backed coup of 1953, codenamed Operation Ajax, removed Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and reinstated the autocratic Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, primarily to protect Anglo-American oil interests.

Nuclear Exceptionalism: The World’s Worst-Kept Secret

The United States currently holds approximately 5,044–5,177 nuclear warheads (depending on the source and year), while Russia being the largest with a stockpile estimated at approximately 5,580 warheads. yet it leads international campaigns demanding that other nations not develop nuclear weapons. This is a bit like the world’s most heavily armed person standing at the door of a gun shop, telling customers they cannot purchase firearms.

Furthermore, Israel is widely believed to possess 80–90 nuclear warheads. The United States has never imposed sanctions on Israel for this. India and Pakistan, both outside the NPT, were rewarded with nuclear cooperation deals after the tested nuclear weapons.

The Saudi Arabia Paradox

Perhaps, no relationship illustrates U.S. foreign policy hypocrisy more vividly than Washington’s alliance with Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom is an absolute monarchy with no elections, no free press, where women were legally barred from driving until 2018, and where the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, carried out, according to U.S. intelligence, on orders from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, resulted in … arms sales continuing and diplomatic ties intact.

The United States sold Saudi Arabia over $37 billion in arms between 2015 and 2020, weapons used in a Yemen war that the United Nations described as one of the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophes. Yet the U.S. simultaneously held press conferences about human rights. The cognitive dissonance is not a bug. It is the feature.

Iraq: The Weapons of Mass Distraction

In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq on the basis of alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that did not exist. The invasion resulted in an estimated 150,000–1,000,000 Iraqi civilian deaths depending on methodology, the displacement of millions, the destabilization of an entire region, and the rise of the Islamic State, none of which appeared in the original brochure. The officials responsible for this foreign policy catastrophe faced no international tribunal. No sanctions were imposed on the United States. Several architects of the war are today respected media commentators.

Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court (ICC), an institution the United States has never ratified, is expected to hold others to account for far lesser offenses. As of 2024, the U.S. has actively sanctioned ICC officials who attempted to investigate American personnel for potential war crimes in Afghanistan.

Episode II: Iran, The People’s Nightmare

Iran’s political system is built on the concept of Velayat-e Faqih, the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, a political-theological doctrine holding that a senior Islamic cleric should govern society. In practice, this means that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, unelected by the general public, holds veto power over all branches of government, controls the military, the judiciary, state media, and the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The elected president, whether ‘moderate’ or ‘hardliner’, operates within a system where real power resides with the Supreme Leader and an unelected Guardian Council that vets all candidates and can disqualify anyone it deems insufficiently Islamic. In the 2021 presidential election, the Guardian Council disqualified over 590 candidates out of 592 who applied. The word ‘election’ is being used loosely here.

Women’s Rights: A Systematic Dismantling

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iranian women have endured one of the most comprehensive rollbacks of rights in modern history. Within weeks of the revolution, mandatory hijab laws were imposed, women were barred from serving as judges, and the minimum marriage age for girls was reduced to 9 years (later revised to 13 in 1982). This was not incidental policy; it was ideological architecture.

Today, Iranian women face legal discrimination across virtually every domain. Under the Iranian Civil Code, a woman’s testimony in court counts as half that of a man’s. Women cannot travel abroad without the written permission of their husband or male guardian. Married women cannot work without spousal consent in many circumstances. The diyeh (blood money) for a woman’s life is legally valued at half that of a man.

In September 2022, 22-year-old Mahsa (Zhina) Amini died in the custody of Iran’s Morality Police, after being arrested for allegedly wearing her hijab improperly. Her death triggered the Woman, Life, Freedom uprising, one of the largest protest movements in Iranian history. The government’s response was to kill over 500 protesters, arrest more than 19,000, and execute at least four people in connection with the protests by early 2023.

The IRGC and State-Sponsored Repression

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a military-economic-political entity unlike any other in the region. It controls an estimated 20–40% of Iran’s economy through businesses, construction contracts, and import monopolies. It commands proxy militias across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. And it suppresses domestic dissent with a ruthlessness that has drawn consistent condemnation from United Nations human rights bodies.

Amnesty International’s 2022-2023 annual report documented the IRGC and security forces using live ammunition, birdshot, and metal pellets against protesters, deliberately targeting eyes, resulting in hundreds being blinded. The UN Special Rapporteur on Iran documented ‘serious, widespread and systematic human rights violations’ constituting potential crimes against humanity.

Episode III: Where the Two Hypocrisies Meet

The relationship between the United States and Iran is, in many ways, a story of two entities who deserve each other in the sense that the behavUior of each government has fed the domestic narrative of the other for decades.

Washington uses Iran as justification for its military presence in the Gulf, its arms sales to autocratic Gulf states, and its general posture as indispensable regional hegemon. Tehran uses American hostility and sanctions as justification for economic failure, political repression, and nuclear advancement. Both governments’ hard-liners need each other to remain in power.

The Iranian people, 85 million of them, majority under 35, highly educated, and overwhelmingly wanting engagement with the world, are trapped between a government that treats them as subjects and an international sanctions regime that punishes them for their government’s choices. The American people, meanwhile, continue paying for a foreign policy architecture that serves arms manufacturers, defense contractors, and geopolitical abstractions more than it serves democratic values or human security.

Some Uncomfortable Truths

The United States is not the villain of every story, nor is Iran irredeemably authoritarian in the hearts of its people. What is consistent, and what this analysis has documented, is that both governments operate by standards they refuse to apply to themselves.

Tehran’s theocratic governance has failed its population economically, politically, and most visibly in its treatment of women and dissidents. The Woman, Life, Freedom movement showed the world what Iranian society wants. The government’s violent response showed the world what the Islamic Republic fears.

The lesson, uncomfortable as it is, is that powerful states, whether wielding aircraft carriers or theology, tend to exempt themselves from the rules they want others to follow. The only antidote is an informed public that refuses to accept these double standards as the natural order of things. Read critically. Follow the money. And remember: when a government tells you it acts in the name of God or democracy.

(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT, Malabe. The views and opinions expressed in this article are personal.)

Continue Reading

Opinion

SLC Grants to clubs and associations under scrutiny

Published

on

The scale and manner of grant distributions underscore the urgent need to rectify the weaknesses identified by the Auditor General. Remarkably, the accounts for the years 2024 and 2025 are still not published and only the 2023 accounts are available for public scrutiny.

Grants to clubs and associations increased from LKR 1.30 billion in the prior year to LKR 2.46 billion in 2023, representing an escalation of over LKR 1.15 billion year-on-year. These grants were distributed among 36 recipient clubs and associations, with individual allocations ranging from approximately LKR 1.5 million to almost LKR 300 million. Such wide variation and substantial growth warrant clear public disclosure of the allocation framework, the approval processes, and the beneficiary criteria.

While it is understandable that higher profitability enables greater financial support to clubs, the absence of a transparent, rule-based grant policy gives rise to governance concerns, and unless properly explained, leaves room for malicious or unfounded allegations that grant allocations may be used to influence voting behaviour or entrench existing officials. Robust disclosure and effective oversight are therefore essential to safeguard institutional credibility. The precise immediate need for high funding and their monitoring processes need to be divulged.

A case in point is Colombo Cricket Club (CCC), which received LKR 279,531,827 in 2023, making it the highest individual club recipient. As disclosed under the related-party notes to the financial statements, the President of Sri Lanka Cricket is also the President of Colombo Cricket Club, resulting in this transaction being classified as a related-party transaction.

In contrast to several grant recipient entities reporting profits, Sri Lanka Cricket recorded a deficit of approximately Rs. 2 billion in its Statement of Financial Performance for 2023.

It is also noteworthy from the cash flow statement that cash and fund balances declined sharply, from approximately LKR 10.8 billion in the previous year to around LKR 5.6 billion in 2023, representing a significant depletion of liquid resources within a single financial year.

A more meaningful and complete evaluation of these developments—particularly the position of funds available as at 31 December 2024 and 31 December 2025—will only be possible once the financial statements for 2024 and 2025 are released and subjected to public scrutiny.

A cricket enthusiast – Moratuwa

Continue Reading

Opinion

Microfinance and Credit Regulatory Authority Act 2026 fails all affacted communities

Published

on

A protest against exploitation by microfinance companies

The Microfinance and Credit Regulatory Authority Bill was passed into law by the Parliament of Sri Lanka on 4 March. According to Deputy Minister of Finance and Planning Dr. Anil Jayantha, the main object of the Act is to establish an Authority to “license and supervise the under-regulated microfinance and moneylending sector, aiming to protect borrowers from exploitation and ensure financial stability”.

However, the Yukthi Collective is saddened and disappointed that a government which pledged to take “measures to alleviate the burden of predatory microfinance loans with high interest rates on women” (NPP Manifesto, 2024: Page no. 44), will now add to their unbearable weight.

The new Act, as virtually all legislation enacted by Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s government, is a legacy of the anti-working class Ranil Wickremesinghe regime. It evades the root causes of the microfinance trap, and ignores debt justice for women borrowers.

It fails in understanding the connections between household debt and public debt. The vicious cycle of national debt is sustained by lack of growth in economic activity because of poor access to affordable credit.

It fails to make equal representation of women mandatory in the new Authority. If representatives of women borrowers and their self-run organisations are not present in the regulatory body, how will its members know of their lived experiences and make decisions that value women’s unpaid and paid contributions to sustaining life?

System Change

Millions of indebted households voted for the NPP with hope and expectation of ‘system change’. But instead of honouring its manifesto promise to them, the government has let them down in the law-making process; as well as the focus and substance of the new Act.

It is appalling that NPP parliamentarians, including some of its women members, appear not to have read and understood the bill they enacted into law, nor spoke to the rural credit community providers in their electorates for their views.

Predatory lending exists in the formal and informal sectors. Within this ecosystem, the Act fails to understand, identify, and prohibit predatory lending and recovery practices. It is a cover for the Central Bank’s failure to properly regulate ‘Licensed Finance Companies’ in the interests of citizens.

The biggest offenders are the big finance companies, in which some parliamentarians are deposit-holders. Therefore, some lawmakers benefit from excess profitmaking through exploitative practices, at the expense of poor mostly rural women.

Where law reform should discipline the bullies and thugs in credit delivery, it will instead wipe out, through over-regulation, community-based and managed lenders such as death donation societies, farmer associations, and urban and rural women’s collectives, which have been a lifeline for vulnerable working-class women and a defence from harmful recovery practices.

Structural Adjustment Programmes

The motivation for this new law are the market- and capital- friendly structural reforms insisted by International Financial Institutions; not the concerns and needs of those at the mercy of predatory lenders.

From the Microfinance Act 2016, to the 2023 version of the Ranil Wickremesinghe regime, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) through its loans has been a promoter of these regressive reforms.

The 2026 Act, with some changes suggested by the Supreme Court in 2024 and hardly any of the changes demanded by affected communities, has been moved forward by the NPP government in line with ADB loan conditionalities.

The path of de-regulation for banking, finance, trade, and investment; and over-regulation of poor people’s savings and credit institutions, smacks of the bias to big capital, which the NPP in opposition once criticised.

Reforms needed

The financial and banking reforms we want to see are to make credit from state banks and public funds accessible and affordable to women producers in agriculture and micro and small business operators; with decent wages and social protection for workers; that improve household opportunity for a dignified livelihood and decent lives.

Yukthi is a forum supporting working people’s movements and people’s struggles for democracy and justice in Sri Lanka.

by Yukthi Collective

Continue Reading

Trending