Opinion

Connecting beyond Boundaries and Imaging sans Structures: Reflections of My Fulbright Experiences

Published

3 years ago

2022/11/17

A speech made
by Prof. Gamini Keerawella

I deem it indeed a great honour to be invited me to deliver the keynote address, on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the global Fulbright programme. For that, first of all, I do thank the US–Sri Lanka Fulbright Commission and its Executive Director, Ms. Sandharsee Gunawardena for giving me this opportunity.

I thought I should make use of this occasion to reflect on my Fulbright experience, unpacking the true value of the Fulbright programme in the changed context from the perspective of an academic, coming from the global South who benefitted from the Fulbright scholar exchanges.

The Fulbright programme is considered the US flagship international exchange programme, founded in August 1946, just 11 month after the end of Second World War, initiated by Senator William Fulbright, with the support of President Harry Truman and the Secretary of State Dean Acheson. Still, the dust created by WW-II was not settled. At the end of the WWII, the United States emerged as the Superpower with a new global role and reach. It was in this context that Senator William Fulbright presented the Fulbright Bill to amend the Surplus Property act of 1944 to use the revenue from the sales of US war properties in other countries to fund the educational exchanges between the US and participating countries. This birth trait of the Fulbright programme gave rise to its unique feature: the bilateralism. It is reflected in many National Fulbright Commissions such as the US-Sri Lanka Fulbright commission. As a political visionary from the standpoint of US strategic interests, Senator William Fulbright believed that education and diplomacy would be invaluable tools of US foreign policy in the changed international context after the II World War.

Before long, the international politics in the Post-War world was determined by the global-scale, multi-faceted strategic completion between the United States and the Soviet Union, identified as the Cold War. The world politics was polarised into two poles, the Soviet and the Western. The de-colonisation process gave birth to another category in global politics termed as the Global South. The both superpowers were competing in the Global South each other for influence. In this context, the Fulbright programme became a key foreign policy tool of the United States. That is the origin of the Fulbright exchange programme.

During the last 75 years, the Fulbright programme expanded rapidly, changing its purpose and character. It has generated consequences and dividends, unexpected by its founders. The first country to sign Fulbright agreement was China in 1947; it was followed by Burma. Today, each year bout 800 scholars and ,000 US students receive Fulbright awards and go abroad while 4,000 foreign students and 900 scholars receive awards to come to US. In the past 75 years, over 310,000 Fulbright students, scholars and teachers benefitted by the exchange programme.

Before I reflect on my Fulbright experience, please permit me to reveal my background briefly to place it in a proper political and historical context.

I think I belonged to the first post-colonial generation in Sri Lanka, born after independence. I also represent the Post-1956 generation, a commonly used cliché to denote this generation 0The Children of 56. My parents were ardent supporters of the 1956 political change. To cut a long story short, we manifested the strengths and the weaknesses of the so-called Children of 56.

I come from a rural/village background and not really from urban. Educated from, K/Uduwa School, Galagedara up to the 5th grade, where my parents were teachers. From 6th grade, I moved to the Gampola Central College. My entire school education was in Sinhala medium. I gained admission to the University of Peradeniya in 1968.

We witnessed the evolution of post-colonial social and political environment in the country. We saw how the collapse of Bamumu Kulaya (Brown Sahibs) which coincided with the emergence and dominance of a new political class. During our teens, the youth political culture of the country was highly influenced by New Left political ideologies. The Cuban Revolution inspired our generation and Che Guevara was our hero.

Our worldview was shaped by the Anti-Vietnam War Movement and U.S. intervention in South-East Asia. The military coup in Chile against Elected President Salvador Allende and its CIA involvements further reinforced our anti-American sentiment. America is nothing but the US state, its corporate interests and the inner state. We did not see anything beyond ‘Ugly America’.

We were avowedly anti-American and uncritically anti-American. We had only straitjacket, stereotype image on America: The Yankee imperialism: threat to the world. The world was very simple: we were progressive and we wore red hats. The others were reactionary; they wore black hats.

I gained admission to the Peradeniya University in 1968. It was the heyday of the University of Peradeniya. The Sri Lankan universities at the time were centres of radical left politics.

In the academic sphere, we had a well-qualified academic staff. We followed the conventional British academic traditions. Disciplinary boundaries were very high; no inter-disciplinary dialogue at all. Academic hierarchy was also maintained rigidly.

In the sophomore year at the University of Peradeniya, I got involved in the youth front of the JVP. As a result, after the 1971 youth uprising I was arrested and detained in the Bogambara Prison. At the end of 1973, I was released from Bogambara. I resumed my undergraduate studies at the University of Peradeniya in 1974 and sat my final Examination in 1975. As I showed good promise in my BA (Hons.) examination, I was recruited to the academic staff of my alma mater in 1976. It was the turning point in my life.

I proceeded to Canada for my post-graduate studies in 1980. In 1982, I obtained my Maters from the University of Windsor, Canada, by presenting a thesis on the origins of the New Left in Sri Lanka and the 1971 uprising. I compared Sri Lankan New Left with the South American New Left. It helped me to examine critically my new-left influence.

For my doctoral studies, I enrolled myself to the University of British Columbia, Canada. I decided to combine Strategic Studies with History. I worked on the growth of Superpower Naval rivalry in the Indian Ocean and Sri Lankan Response. It was a unique experience and I went through real disciplinary metamorphosis there. I was in the Department of History. My supervisor was from the Department of Asian Studies; I took causes in International Relations from the Department of political science. My external supervisor was Prof Howard Wriggins, Professor of Political Science of University of Columbia, New York, from another country.

During my doctoral studies at UBC, I was introduced to the on-going academic discourse on ‘National Security’. By then, the theoretical parameters marked by the Realist School dominated the field of Security Studies were predominant. It was mainly state–centered and the security of the state in an anarchic international environment was the focal concern of the national security.

In the main stream of thinking, national security was defined as the protection of territorial integrity of the state vis-à-vis the threats originated from the external sources. The internal security of the state was taken for granted and, if there was any concern, it was dealt under the rubric of internal law and order problematic. In this strand of analysis, the national, security was nothing but the politico-military security of the state; the ‘hard’ military strategic security took precedent over the ‘soft’ economic dimension of security. In the Cold War context, the preoccupation of the discipline was mainly to analyse the central military strategic balance of the superpowers and their defense strategies. The concerns relating to the prevention of a nuclear war between the superpowers constituted the core of the international security studies. UBC is a great seat of learning and research. From University of British Columbia, I received the license to the world of academia, Ph.D.

In 1993, I won the Fulbright Post-doctoral Fellowshi to join the University of California, Berkeley. Berkeley is, no doubt, a unique university. It was the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement and the Flower Power Movement of the 1960S. The impact of the Free Speech Movement and the Flower Generation was still visible at Berkeley. The research that I conducted during my Fellowship at Berkeley was ‘The Security of Small States in the Indian Ocean in the Post-Cold War context’.

In a vibrant academic environment at Berkeley, I was able to rethink the concept of national security. I myself deconstructed the Concept of National Security. What does ‘national’ in national security mean? What is security? What is national security? Can we equate National Security with State Security? What is really meant by security of the state? The real issue here is how to define the security of the state, going beyond narrow territorial confines. On the one hand, the state is a legal abstraction. On the other, it has a territorial basis and institutional framework of its own. The ideological basis of the state is the most important aspect of the state because it binds the territorial base with the human and institutional base with state. In addition, institutional set up of the state and human base of the state should also be taken into account.

The narrow definition of protection of territorial integrity from external threats is found to be inadequate in the face of new threat scenarios. In many third world states, the territorial integrity is challenged not externally but internally.

The territory is only one element of the state. The other elements of state including people and their security must also be taken into account in the security configuration.

As soon as people are taken as a referent object of national security, the analysis of threat and threat perceptions has to be invariably changed. The security building process involves the ability to meet and dispel threats and the reduction of vulnerabilities.

With the recognition of people as a reference of security, in its own rights, a variety of threats and vulnerabilities enter into the forefront of security analysis with different types of agents and sources of threat.

This line of thinking took me to the dual role of the state. One the one hand, State is the security provider; on the other hand it was a source of threat. Human rights, Rule of law, constitutionality and good governance become national security issues.

Berkeley experience under Fulbright Fellowship helped me to going beyond borders. It is not simply building connectivity crossing territorial boundaries. Indeed, crossing territorial boundaries are important. The territorial boundaries does not mean the physical territories. In our thinking, we are highly circumscribed by a small Island mentality. The besieged mentality in a small island is often presented ad patriotism. It is not patriotism. In order to get out of this besieged mentality you need to cross boundaries.

Crossing the pedagogic boundaries is equally important. Other two types of crossing boundaries are also equally important: First, Building connectivity, crossing theoretical borders within the discipline; Second, Building connectivity crossing disciplinary borders. It convinced me that symbiosis of approaches provides a new Synergy to view things from fresh perspective.

Further more, my Fulbright experience helped me to visualise the United States sans structures. In our undergraduate days we entertained a simple and monolithic view. In the world is of two categories: good and bad – Whit Hats and Black Hats mentality. Our earlier image of US was linked only to the set structure- The US State. It is true that State and society are inseparable entities. But I was convinced by my Fulbright experience to view ‘other America’ too. While admitting domination of corporate sector and the dominance of ‘inner state’, we need to pay attention to other social and political dynamics to understand complexity of US polity. It is not one colour Images. US is a country of many governments, many images, divers colors- just like proverbial bride’s gown; something green, something blue, something yellow and something green.

The most virulent critics of the US system can be found with the US. The vibrancy of US higher education institutions is remarkable. The most innovative

and radical thinking can be found in the US academic institutions. The Chicago school and writings of Jurgen Habermas is not an isolated example. The discourse on Gramsci, Foucault and Subaltern studies inspire Social Sciences in many key US academic institutions.

US system is complex and multifaceted. Internal dynamics of the system and checks and balances constituted an integral element of US system. This contributed to change the my lop-sided earlier view on America

US is not only the US State and its cooperate interests. The other-side of America is different. Fulbright experience helped me to separate US state and US society, to view the US people sans set structures. The US state, its apparatus and the US inner state constitute one dimension of America. There is other side of America, consisting great people US contribution to modern art and culture is great and we need view them delinking them with US state structures.

Contribution of US Musicians such as Garth Brooks, Elvis Presley, Eagles, and Michael Jackson reminds us the existence of other America. The great American poets such T. S. Eliot, Edgar Allan Poe, E.E. Cummings, Robert Frost reminds us the beauty of American culture alone with American Novelists such as F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway. Mark Twain, Toni Morrison. John Steinbeck. While criticizing US state, its corporate interests and inner state, we enjoy US contribution to the culture of our age. Out attitude towards US state does not prevent us from enjoying US films such as Citizen Kane, The Godfather, A Space Odyssey, Gone with the wind, Lawrence of Arabia, The King and I and The Sound of Music.

In the new millennium, the significance of public diplomacy, such as the Fulbright scholar exchange program, must be viewed from a fresh perspective. The eclipse of utility of hard power and the increasing impotence of gunboat diplomacy highlights the soft power. In this context, not only the developments in the Wall Street but also developments in the main street are also come forward to determine the agenda of global politics. Referring to our backyard, the Indian Ocean, Robert D, Kaplan observed “for the first time since the Portuguese onslaught in the region in the early 16th century, West’s power there is in decline, however subtly and relatively. The Indians and the Chinese will enter into a dynamic great-power rivalry in these waters, with their shared economic interests as major trading partners locking them in an uncomfortable embrace. The United States, meanwhile, will serve as a stabilizing power in this newly complex area. Indispensability, rather than dominance, must be its goal”. Mobilizing US soft power potential is the best way to achieve ‘indispensability’.

The Fulbright exchanges highlighted the power of citizen diplomacy. Further, it gave the wider world an access to the positive contribution of the centers of leaning and knowledge, art and literature of the United States. Above all, it helped imaging US cans structures and building connectivity crossing many forms of boundaries. To conclude, I wish to quote Senator William Fulbright. He said on the occasion of 40th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in 1986, “Perhaps the greatest power of such intellectual exchanges is to convert nations into peoples and to translate ideologies into human aspirations. To continue to build more weapons, especially mote exotic and unpredictable machines of war, will not build trust and confidence”.

All News Advertisement

Opinion

Jamming and re-setting the world: What is the role of Donald Trump?

Published

3 days ago

2026/02/27

Thilina Walpola

Abducted President Maduro and his wife being escorted to a US prison. (File photo)

Political commentators have long been divided over the role of U.S. President Donald Trump, particularly following what critics describe as the first-ever sudden military aggression against a sovereign state by a legitimate military force involving direct attacks on security and civilian targets and the kidnapping a country’s legitimate ruler. This act stands in sharp contrast to conventional invasions that were previously justified through various false pretenses. Accordingly, there is little debate that the invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro represents a fundamentally different situation—a new beginning—when compared with the conventional invasion of Iraq and the capture of President Saddam Hussein, or the invasion of Libya and the killing of President Muammar Gaddafi.

It is also evident that this incident marks a clear departure from the long-standing strategies employed against Cuba for more than sixty years and against Venezuela for over a decade, which relied on sanctions, covert operations, and political pressure to subjugate governments and societies or engineer regime change. Although this new model constitutes a serious violation of the United Nations Charter, the UN has failed to take any meaningful action, thereby severely undermining its role and credibility. In the past, when sanctions were imposed on Cuba, leaders from a majority of countries mobilised to submit resolutions to the UN General Assembly and exert pressure on the United States. Under the present circumstances, however, there has been no significant intervention by member states to demand that the UN condemn the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and secure his immediate release.

Such silence, particularly at a time when global public opinion increasingly portrays Donald Trump as operating like a leader of a underworld network, sets a deeply troubling precedent. Consequently, the public has begun to question whether Trump’s new approach has succeeded in imposing psychological barriers on other world leaders who openly challenge American imperialism. Beyond violating the UN Charter by acting as the head of what critics describe as a “terrorist state,” Trump has also imposed psychological pressure on the UN’s own bureaucratic structure by deliberately weakening its institutional foundations.

This strategy is further confirmed by Trump’s announcement that the United States would withdraw from thirty-one United Nations bodies and thirty-five other international conventions and organisations, while also terminating financial contributions. These decisions effectively signal that U.S. solidarity with the international community on climate change, world peace, and democratic governance is no longer a priority.

Earlier funding cuts to the World Health Organization have already forced it to rely heavily on corporate financing. Given the WHO’s significant authority over global food and pharmaceutical markets—and its power to shape the world economy during pandemics—this dependency has created conditions in which global health governance can be heavily influenced by the commercial interests of multinational corporations and billionaires. Research presented by Dr. David Bell indicates that global health regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the closure of approximately 200,000 small businesses worldwide while simultaneously creating 40 new billionaires. There is little doubt that the United Nations will face a similar fate under sustained financial pressure.

This trajectory suggests that the United Nations, too, may be compelled to operate increasingly in accordance with the interests of global billionaires. The Public–Private Partnership Agreement signed between the UN and the World Economic Forum in 2019 further reinforces this concern. Following this agreement, the World Economic Forum, meeting in Davos in 2020, advanced the concept of the “Great Reset,” arguing that the world must be re-established through global multilateral institutional systems.

Implicit in this vision is the notion that before the world can be “reset,” it must first be disrupted, Jammed or effectively dismantled.

The World Economic Forum has also promoted the idea of establishing a new form of global governance system through such disruption. Critics argue that the ultimate objective of this strategy is the creation of a “Global Government” controlled by the world’s billionaires. This structure is widely viewed as an extension of the existing global level decision-making system often referred to as the “Deep State,” which operates above sovereign governments. This so-called parastate is understood to consist of entrenched senior officials, intelligence agencies, military leadership, and some corporate actors functioning beyond the authority of democratically elected leaders.

As such a strong global perception has emerged that this parastate is dominated by a small group of roughly one hundred billionaires and reinforced by a network of global media institutions under their influence. At times, President Trump has strategically accused certain U.S. officials of representing this parastate in an effort to distance himself from similar accusations. However, the electoral process that brought him to power, along with the major policy decisions he implemented thereafter, have revealed a close alignment between his administration and the interests of this new global power structure. Increasingly, independent critics argue that Trump himself has functioned as the shadow executive of this global parastate. His rise to power is seen as a critical precondition for advancing the final phase of a broader global roadmap aimed at dismantling and reconstructing the world order. In this interpretation, Trump’s role was to elevate the operational capacity of this system—previously managed more discreetly by other U.S. presidents—to an unprecedented level of intensity.

This transformation of American imperialism was vividly reflected in Trump’s military actions against Venezuela. Initially, familiar tactics were deployed, including economic sanctions, drug-trafficking accusations, naval provocations and arrest of vessels by Coast Guard and unilateral legal actions against President Maduro under the pretext of internal security. Such measures are consistent with long-standing U.S. practices toward states perceived as geopolitical or economic challengers.

However, in the cases of Venezuela and Cuba, political defiance, and close relations with China and Russia have also played decisive roles. The anti-imperialist political identity of leaders in these countries has inspired resistance movements worldwide, which is also explaining the deep hostility directed toward them by U.S. policymakers. Through the kidnapping of President Maduro, Trump sent a stark warning to other anti-imperialist leaders—an unmistakable act of psychological warfare carried out with unprecedented openness.

However, for the parastate to dismantle and rebuild the world as envisioned, a crucial condition must be met which is the restoration of a unipolar world order similar to that which emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992. This requires weakening or geopolitically constraining the economic and military power of China and Russia. To achieve this, pro-Chinese and pro-Russian states—particularly those rich in natural resources or located in strategic regions—must be destabilised, subjected to crises, and subjected to regime change. The culmination of this process would involve widespread military tension and a severe global economic crisis, making destruction a prerequisite for reconstruction.

When viewed within this broader framework, Trump’s global strategy becomes more coherent. Russia has been drawn into a prolonged conflict in Ukraine, while China faces escalating military pressure around Taiwan and the South China Sea created through U.S. alliances with Japan and the Philippines.

Simultaneously, renewed efforts are underway to reassert U.S. dominance over Latin America and the Caribbean by disrupting their economic and military relations with China, Russia, and even the European Union—reviving a modernised version of the Monroe Doctrine. At present in those counties US is having highest foreign investment, but China is the largest trading Partners. However, Trump’s use of tariffs as political weapons, often in violation of World Trade Organization principles, further exaggerates this situation.

Trumps interest in acquiring Greenland must also be understood within this strategic context. Greenland’s geographic position between the U.S. and Russia, its growing importance in Arctic shipping routes, and its vast natural resources make it a key geopolitical asset. The expansion of Russian military infrastructure in the Arctic and increased Chinese economic engagement have further heightened strategic value of Greenland. Under the 1951 U.S.–Greenland defense agreement, American military installations and missile- monitoring systems already operate on the island. Beyond military considerations, Greenland’s estimated US$4 trillion worth of oil, gas, and rare-earth resources are critical in light of China’s restrictions on rare- earth exports when have intensified U.S. interest, particularly following the escalation of the trade war in May 2025.

Meanwhile, Trump’s proposal to financially incentivise Greenland’s population to sever ties with Denmark to be annexed to US underscores how sovereign states may be divided and annexed under future strategies driven by global economic elites. Such actions also threaten the stability of NATO, an alliance in which the U.S. bears approximately 70% of defence costs, placing Europe at significant risk of severe conflicts between member countries. Ultimately, these developments highlight the growing role of parastate actors in dismantling existing political, economic, and security systems in to the world to facilitate a billionaire- controlled global order. In that process through funding cuts, public–private partnerships, political manipulation, intelligence operations, and engineered crises, sovereign states are weakened and destabilised. Examples from geopolitically sensitive regions, including Sri Lanka, illustrate how economic collapse and political fragmentation can be externally induced.

The invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of its legitimate leader signal a dangerous escalation in this process. Ongoing destabilisation efforts in Iran, coupled with rising tensions in the Middle East and volatility in global energy markets, further increase the risk of worldwide economic and military catastrophe which could be the ultimate precondition for the so called Great-Reset of the world. In this context, sovereign states and the global community must align in the Pretext of Preventing a third world war and recognising the urgent need for an alternative, genuinely independent multilateral institutional system to undermine the ultimate grand strategy of the deep state. In that process the bottom line must be to reverse the unprecedented approach of the President Donald Trump by condemning military aggression in Venezuela and demanding the release of the President Nicolas Maduro immediately.

by Dr. K. M. Wasantha Bandara
Secretary
Patriotic National Movement

Opinion

A beloved principal has departed!

Published

4 days ago

2026/02/26

Sahan Weerasooriya

Fr. Stephen Abraham

“When the principal sneezes, the whole school catches a cold. This is neither good nor bad; it is just the truth. The principal’s impact is significant; his focus becomes the school’s focus.” These are Whitaker’s words and they illustrate the predominant role that a principal has to execute in a school. The Wallace Foundation has identified the following as the five key responsibilities of a school principal.

Establishing a school wide vision of commitment to high standards and success of all students.
Ensuring that learning is at the centre of all activities.
Cultivating leadership in others
Improving achievement by focusing on the quality of instruction.
Managing people and resources at hand.

Rev. Fr. Stephen Abraham is one such principal who fulfilled these commitments at the highest level possible at St. Anthony’s College, Katugastota, for a period of 15 years from 1979 to 1994. He was born on the 15^th of February 1933 and ordained a Priest in the Benedictine Order of the Catholic Church on 17 December 1964. His demise was on 21^st February 2026, on the fourth day of the period of lent in the catholic calendar. As such he has been in the service of God as a priest for 62 years of his life of 93 years. This article contains extracts from a piece that I wrote when he celebrated the Golden Jubilee of his priesthood in December 2014.

St. Anthony’s College went through a burdensome period after the handing over of the school to the government as the teachers, support staff and parents were baffled about the direction of the school. It is at this stage that Fr. Stephen was appointed as the Principal. In his own inimitable manner he took control with authority and raised the confidence of the staff and the community. This was needed as the confidence was at its lowest ebb and he had the vision to realise that boosting the level of confidence had to be the priority. As the famous quote says “A good leader inspires others with confidence in him; a great leader inspires them with confidence in themselves”. He could not have done this without self-confidence which he had in abundance. Alongside, he laid his emphasis on maintaining a strict code of discipline as it had degraded due to the unfortunate incidents paving way for the handing over of the school.

A quality that any good principal should possess is to be a great communicator. Fr. Stephen had a natural ability to be dexterous with people. He made connections with each person showing them that he cares about their own situations. Through these connections he set high expectations for each individual letting them know that they cannot get away with mediocrity. The articulation and eloquence of his expression convinced people of his opinions and decisions. He is blessed with a sound sense of humour and it helped to ease tensions and resolve conflicting situations. More importantly, he was passionate about his responsibilities as the head of the school and he spent all his time and energy with the sole objective of creating a proper environment for the students to be responsible learners striving for personal excellence. Fr. Stephen was everywhere in the school and knew everything that was happening within the premises and he made himself visible at all times. He fits well with the description of a leader in Harold Seymour’s quotation “Leaders are the ones who keep faith with the past, keep step with the present, and keep the promise to posterity”. No wonder therefore, that he is considered as an outstanding principal.

In 1979 when the school celebrated its 125^th anniversary, Fr. Stephen invited His Excellency the President J. R. Jayewardene as the chief guest of the Prize Giving ceremony. His emphasis on discipline is highlighted through this excerpt from his speech at this function. “The progress of any society depends mainly on discipline and discipline is not come by so easily unless the members of the society work towards it. No nation can be great unless its students aspire to greatness. But all this calls for training which is impossible without quality in teaching. Teachers should command the greatest respect in the land. Teaching is not a mere avocation, it is indeed a vocation and a very noble one at that.”

When it comes to educating the youth, Fr. Stephen believed in developing the whole person. This is reflected in the emphasis that he laid not only in the academic arena but also the field of extra-curricular activities. He believed that inculcating, promoting and enhancing values such as compassion, integrity, courage, appreciation, determination, gratitude, loyalty and patience are crucial for the proper upbringing of the younger generation. In 1980, he invited the Prime Minister Hon. R. Premadasa for that year’s prize giving ceremony and in the principal’s address he said “When our young charges leave this emotionally safe and secure world of school with all its disciplines, they must be able to adjust to the wider world in which they must live and work. It is our responsibility to see that they leave the College mentally, spiritually and physically whole, so that they in turn may assume the roles they will be called upon to fulfill in the future”, demonstrating his belief in the advocacy of values.

He identified sports activities as a healthy medium to instill discipline and an acceptable value system and did his utmost in promoting, encouraging and popularising all types of sports in the school. With his foresight and guidance, the school gained new heights in almost all spheres of sports activity. Just to name three great sportsmen who had their grounding in that era are Muttiah Muralidharan – record breaking cricket bowler, Priyantha Ekanayake – a respected past rugby captain of Sri Lanka and president of SLRFU and Udaya Weerakoon – a former national and world inter airline badminton champion.

He did not neglect the expansion of the infra-structure in the school in keeping with the needs of the time. Some of the projects completed during his time were the building of a two-story block of classrooms with the assistance of funds released by the Prime Minister, completion of the indoor sports complex and later a pavilion named after the famous Antonian cricketer Jack Anderson, with the help of the old boys association.

The inspiration that Fr. Stephen Abraham had as Principal within the school community of St. Anthony’s College can be aptly described by John Quincy Adam’s quotation ” May God grant him the eternal reward!

R.N.A. de Silva

The author had his secondary education at St. Anthony’s College, Katugastota, and later served as a member of its staff

rnades@gmail.com

Opinion

Future must be won

Published

5 days ago

2026/02/25

Sahan Weerasooriya

DEW

Excerpts from the speech of the Chairman of the Communist Party of Sri Lanka, D.E.W. Gunasekera, at the 23rd Convention of the Party

This is not merely a routine gathering. Our annual congress has always been a decisive moment in Sri Lanka’s political history. For 83 years, since the formation of our Party in 1943, we have held 22 conventions. Each one reflected the political turning points of our time. Today, as we assemble for the 23rd Congress, we do so at another historic crossroads – amidst a deepening economic crisis at home and profound transformations in the global order.

Our Historical Trajectory: From Anti-imperialism to the Present

The 4th Party Convention in 1950 was a decisive milestone. It marked Sri Lanka’s conscious turn toward anti-imperialism and clarified that the socialist objective and revolution would be a long-term struggle. By the 1950s, the Left movement in Sri Lanka had already socialized the concept of socialist transformation among the masses. But the Communist Party had to dedicate nearly two decades to building the ideological momentum required for an anti-imperialist revolution.

As a result of that consistent struggle, we were able to influence and contribute to the anti-imperialist objectives achieved between 1956 and 1976. From the founding of the Left movement in 1935 until 1975, our principal struggle was against imperialism – and later against neo-imperialism in its modernised forms,

The 5th Convention in 1955 in Akuressa, Matara, adopted the Idirimaga (“The Way Forward”) preliminary programme — a reform agenda intended to be socialised among the people, raising public consciousness and organising progressive forces.

At the 1975 Convention, we presented the programme Satan Maga (“The Path of Battle”).

The 1978 Convention focused on confronting the emerging neoliberal order that followed the open economy reforms.

The 1991 Convention, following the fall of the Soviet Union, grappled with international developments and the emerging global order. We understand the new balance of forces.

The 20th Convention in 2014, in Ratnapura, addressed the shifting global balance of power and the implications for the Global South, including the emergence of a multipolar world. At that time, contradictions were developing between the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA), government led by Mahinda Rajapaksa, and the people, and we warned of these contradictions and flagged the dangers inherent in the trajectory of governance.

Each convention responded to its historical moment. Today, the 23rd must responded to ours.

Sri Lanka in the Global Anti-imperialist Tradition

Sri Lanka was a founding participant in the Bandung Conference of 1955, a milestone in the anti-colonial solidarity of Asia and Africa. In 1976, Sri Lanka hosted the 5th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Colombo, under Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike.

At that time, Fidel Castro emerged as a leading voice within NAM. At the 6th Summit in Havana in 1979, chaired by Castro, a powerful critique was articulated regarding the international economic and social crises confronting newly sovereign nations.

Three central obstacles were identified:

1. The unjust global economic order.

2. The unequal global balance of power,

3. The exploitative global financial architecture.

After 1979, the Non-Aligned Movement gradually weakened in influence. Yet nearly five decades later, those structural realities remain. In fact, they have intensified.

The Changing Global Order: Facts and Realities

Today we are witnessing structural Changes in the world system.

1. The Shift in Economic Gravity

The global economic centre of gravity has shifted toward Asia after centuries of Western dominance. Developing countries collectively represent approximately 85% of the world’s population and roughly 40-45% of global GDP depending on measurement methods.

2. ASEAN and Regional Integration

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), now comprising 10 member states (with Timor-Leste in the accession process), has deepened economic integration. In addition, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) – which includes ASEAN plus China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand – is widely recognised as the largest free trade agreement in the world by participating economies.

3. BRICS Expansion

BRICS – originally Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – has expanded. As of 2025, full members include Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Ethiopia and Iran. Additional partner countries are associated through BRICS mechanisms.

Depending on measurement methodology (particularly Purchasing Power Parity), BRICS members together account for approximately 45-46% of global GDP (PPP terms) and roughly 45% of the world’s population. If broader partners are included, demographics coverage increases further. lt is undeniably a major emerging bloc.

4. Regional Blocs Across the Global South

Latin America, Africa, Eurasia and Asia have all consolidated regional trade and political groupings. The Global South is no longer politically fragmented in the way it once was.

5. Alternative Development Banks

Two important institutions have emerged as alternatives to the Bretton Woods system:

• The New Development Bank (NDB) was established by BRICS in 2014.

• The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), operational since 2016, now with over 100 approved members.

These institutions do not yet replace the IMF or World Bank but they represent movement toward diversification.

6. Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)

The SCO has evolved into a major Eurasian security and political bloc, including China, Russia, India. Pakistan and several Central Asian states.

7. Do-dollarization and Reserve Trends

The US dollar remains dominant foreign exchange reserves at approximately 58%, according to IMF data. This share has declined gradually over two decades. Diversification into other currencies and increased gold holdings indicate slow structural shifts.

8. Global North and Global South

The Global North – broadly the United States, Canada European Union and Japan – accounts for roughly 15% of the world’s population and about 35-40% of global GDP.

The Global South – Latin America, Africa, Asia and parts of Eurasia – contains approximately 85% of humanity and an expanding share of global production.

These shifts create objective conditions for the restructuring of the global financial architecture – but they do not automatically guarantee justice.

Sri Lanka’s Triple Crisis

Sri Lanka’s crisis culminated on 12 April 2022, when the government declared suspension of external debt payments – effectively announcing sovereign default.

Since then, political leadership has changed. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa resigned. President Ranil Wickremesinghe governed during the IMF stabilization period. In September 2024, Anura Kumara Dissanayake of the National People’s Power (NPP) was elected President.

We have had three presidents since the crisis began.

Yet four years later, the structural crisis remains unresolved,

‘The crisis had three dimensions:

1. Fiscal crisis – the Treasury ran out of rupees.

2. Foreign exchange crisis – the Central Bank ran out of dollars.

3. Solvency crisis – excessive domestic and external borrowing rendered repayment impossible.

Despite debt suspension, Sri Lanka’s total debt stock – both domestic and external – remains extremely high relative to GDP, External Debt restructuring provides temporary could reappear around 2027-2028 when grace periods taper.

In the Context of global geopolitical competition in the Indian Ocean region, Sri Lanka’s economic vulnerability becomes even more dangerous,

The Central Task: Economic Sovereignty

Therefore, the 23rd Congress must clearly declare that the struggle for economic sovereignty is the principal task before our nation.

Economic sovereignty means:

• Production economy towards industrialization and manufacturing.

• Food and energy security.

• Democratic control of development policy.

• Fair taxation.

• A foreign policy based on non-alignment and national dignity.

Only a centre-left government, rooted in anti-imperialist and nationalist forces, can lead this struggle.

But unity is required and self-criticism.

All progressive movements must engage in honest reflection. Without such reflection, we risk irrelevance. If we fail to build a broad coalition, if we continue Political fragmentation, the vacuum may be filled by extreme right forces. These forces are already growing globally.

Even governments elected on left-leaning mandates can drift rightward under systemic pressure. Therefore, vigilance and organised mass politics are essential.

Comrades,

History does not move automatically toward justice. It moves through organised struggle.

The 23rd Congress of the Communist Party of Sri Lanka must reaffirm.

• Our commitment to socialism.

• Our dedication to anti-imperialism.

• Our strategic clarity in navigating a multipolar world.

• Our resolve to secure economic sovereignty for Sri Lanka.

Let this Congress become a turning point – not merely in rhetoric, but in organisation and action.

The future will not be given to us.

It must be won.