Features
Cuba and the End of an Era: A Response
On 29 March 2026, The Island reproduced an article by founder of the Pathfinder Foundation, Milinda Moragoda, titled, ‘Cuba and the end of an era’.
In the article, Moragoda argued that the crisis faced by Cuba signals a broader shift away from ‘ideological defiance’ and towards ‘realism’ and ‘pragmatism’. He asserted that India now has an opportunity to ‘guide this transition toward a Global South that is pragmatic’.
There are a few gaps, omissions, and obfuscations in this argument that warrant a response.
First, Moragoda begins his analysis by attributing the crisis in Cuba to ‘structural weaknesses and the cumulative weight of external constraints’. The demotion of ‘external constraints’ to a subordinate clause is a sleight of hand that obscures the true hierarchy of challenges faced by Cuba.
What are the external constraints? The United States first placed an embargo on Cuba in 1960, prohibiting US exports of food and medicine to Cuba. In 1962, Proclamation 3447 expanded this embargo to block Cuban exports. In 1996, the Helms-Burton Act set a precedent due to its extraterritorial application, essentially punishing third parties for trading with Cuba. Since 29 January 2026, the Trump administration has instituted a naval blockade on oil shipments to Cuba.
These acts are in violation of the United Nations Charter. For 32 consecutive years, the United Nations General Assembly has condemned the embargo against Cuba. Cuba’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has estimated that US sanctions have led to losses of over $252 trillion over the last 18 years.
The scale of the embargo makes the external constraints imposed on Cuba far more fundamental than its internal structural issues. An analysis that treats the external constraint as backdrop rather than primary cause of ongoing crisis is an interpretive choice.
The Counterfactual Problem
Second, Moragoda suggests that Cuba (and Venezuela) ‘might have achieved more sustained development’ had they pursued US engagement, ‘as many in the region did’. No counterfactuals were presented, but I shall present some here.
There is Honduras, where a US-backed coup in 2009 helped produce one of the hemisphere’s highest murder rates and a subsequent migration crisis.
There is Guatemala, where the CIA removed Jacobo Árbenz in 1954, which remains among the most unequal and malnourished countries in the hemisphere seven decades later.
There is Colombia, a long-standing US strategic partner, which continues to record among the highest rates of trade unionist assassination in the world.
Perhaps, the most telling counterfactual is Puerto Rico. As a US territory for over a century – fully integrated into the US economic and legal order – it represents the closest available test of what sustained US engagement might have delivered to Cuba.
Puerto Rico’s poverty rate consistently exceeds 40%, being higher than any US state. A federally imposed fiscal oversight board holds effective budgetary authority and overrides the island’s elected government. Even without Cuba’s crippling embargo, hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans emigrate every year in search of economic opportunities.
These counterfactuals represent a pattern that a large body of development scholarship has documented: US engagement in Latin America has frequently served the interests of foreign and domestic elites while deepening inequality for the majority.
Cuba’s model has limitations, but it has delivered basic human dignity, under severe external constraint, that no other regional counterpart has accomplished.
Vietnam-US Relations as Counterpoint
Third, Moragoda presents the case of Vietnam-US relations as a ‘counterpoint’ to Cuba-US relations. It is an intriguing comparison that only works when one strips away all historical and contextual specificities between the two.
Vietnam, like Cuba, has a Marxist-Leninist ruling party; the mode of governance in both countries is what mainstream literature calls a ‘party-state’. Vietnam has not compromised an inch on its governance model and remains committed to it. It was able to achieve détente with the US as a strategic counterweight to China – yet even here, Vietnam’s ruling party maintains close, and growing, fraternal ties with its Chinese counterpart.
Meanwhile, the Cuban government has repeatedly expressed a willingness to reform their economic model. It is unclear whether these reforms would be as extensive as China’s Reform of Opening Up and Vietnam’s Đổi Mới – the point is that it is false to paint a picture of a Cuba that refuses to reforms.
Since 2021, over 11,000 private micro, small, and medium enterprises have been established in Cuba. The 2024 legislative calendar included reforms to wholesale and retail trade, taxation, labour conditions, and environmental regulation. Reform is happening.
What Moragoda’s analysis ultimately misses is that US opposition to Cuba has never really been about Cuba’s economic model or its domestic resources (Cuba is not really rich in natural resources). The issue is no longer even about Cuban nationalisation of US assets.
The cost to Cuba due to sanctions by now far outweighs the cost of the US assets seized during nationalisation. Moreover, there is far more money that US firms can make doing business with Cuba today, particularly in sectors like agriculture and pharmaceuticals.
The United States retains an ideological opposition to the existence of Cuba as a sovereign entity. It is the United States, and not Cuba, that refuses pragmatic engagement that could be mutually beneficial.
The Question of Indian Credibility
Fourth, Moragoda asserts that India has ‘both the credibility and the opportunity’ to guide the Global South in a new direction. It would be a fine and welcome thing for India to complete its modernisation and take its rightful place in international affairs – befitting the weight of its civilisation and the moral clarity of the Indian freedom struggle.
Yet recent developments pose significant questions about India’s credibility. India, which has presented itself as a net security provider and ‘shield’ of the Indian Ocean, did not utter a word when the US torpedoed unarmed Iranian frigate IRIS Dena in its ‘backyard’.
Nor did India raise objection when US warplanes bombed facilities near Chabahar Port in Iran, an area with significant Indian investment and strategic value due to it providing India a route to the Central Asian heartland.
As the current chair of BRICS, India has shown remarkably little initiative to diplomatically intervene or mediate between the BRICS members who are currently at war: Iran on one-side and UAE on the other.
End of an Era for Whom?
It is welcome that Moragoda acknowledges in his article that ‘realism does not eliminate the need for dignity’. Indeed, this is precisely why Cuba has been a lodestar for the Global South for so long – as a consistent voice of dignity in the face of a ‘pragmatism’ that in practice often meant capitulation.
Dismissing this as ‘ideological defiance’ is rhetorically rich but doesn’t address the facts.
Let us return to the US: the reality is that the US has not really been able to achieve any of its political objectives in Venezuela and Iran. Leaders were kidnapped or killed but the basic social and governance structures remain. The case of Cuba is unlikely to be any different. US troops could try going in, but they will never get out.
The US resort to decapitation strikes is itself an admission of diminished military-industrial-diplomatic capacity. It cannot fight a ground war, it cannot supply an army, and it cannot build governments and institutions to replace regimes it does not like.
The US could ‘realistically’ and ‘pragmatically’ accept a changing world order, but it chooses instead to lash out and destabilise peace and development.
An era is indeed ending. The question is for whom? It is neither realistic nor pragmatic to go down with the declining hegemon. The credible leadership we need in our part of the world is precisely that which could restore a dignity which has been rode roughshod over. Can the present administration in India deliver that?
(Shiran Illanperuma is a researcher at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research and a co-editor of the international edition of Wenhua Zongheng: A Journal of Contemporary Chinese Thought. He is a Visiting Lecturer at the Bandaranaike for International Studies.)
By Shiran Illanperuma
Features
Buddhist Approach to Human Challenges
Life, by its very nature, invariably presents a myriad of challenges that are fundamental to the human experience. The various social ills that afflict humanity cannot be understood without recognizing the profound human dynamics at play. Navigating these challenges according to Buddhism involves shifting from attempting to control external circumstances to mastering one’s internal responses. Central to these challenges are certain detrimental drives stemming from pernicious distortions in the functioning of the human mind.
According to Buddhism, human suffering—both on a personal and societal level—arises from three unwholesome roots: greed, hatred, and ignorance or delusion. These roots manifest primarily as the unbridled proliferation of these negative states, serving as the foundation for our conduct. The Buddhist perspective offers profound insights for confronting these difficulties by emphasizing the nature of suffering, known as dukkha. Buddhism teaches that suffering (dukkha) is an inevitable part of life and is fueled by greed, hatred, and ignorance or delusion. This approach promotes mental transformation through mindfulness, ethical living, and the cultivation of wisdom, empowering individuals to confront their struggles with clarity and resilience.
Furthermore, accepting that suffering and difficulty are inherent parts of the human experience—while expecting life to be free of challenges—is, in itself, a cause of suffering. It is also important to recognize that all situations, whether good or bad, are temporary. This understanding helps reduce anxiety when facing difficult times, as these will eventually pass, and it prevents possessiveness during happy moments. Cultivating mindfulness (sati) and living in the present moment without dwelling on the past or worrying about the future is essential.
Understanding that all things—emotions, situations, relationships, and physical bodies—are constantly changing and in a state of flux helps reduce the fear of loss and provides comfort during difficult times, ensuring that we know pain will pass. Moreover, recognizing that the self, or ego, is not a fixed entity minimizes selfish grasping, arrogance, and the tendency to perceive challenges as personal attacks.
At the core of many human challenges lie the three unwholesome mental qualities identified by Buddhism: greed (raga), hatred (dovesa), and ignorance or delusion (avijja or moha). These states of mind serve as obstacles to spiritual progress and underlie a spectrum of harmful thoughts and actions. The Buddha employed powerful metaphors to illustrate these forces, referring to them as the three poisons or fires that ignite suffering and trap beings in the cycle of samsara.
Greed leads to insatiable desires that obscure our awareness of others’ needs, creating a cycle of frustration. Greed encompasses all forms of appetite, such as desire, lust, craving, and longing, manifesting in both physical and mental forms. It embodies the concept of grasping, leading to clinging and an inability to let go. As an unwholesome mental state, greed can become insatiable and inexhaustible. People are often drawn to pleasant things, and no amount of forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, or mental objects can satisfy their desires. In their intense thirst for possession or gratification of desire, individuals may become trapped in the wheel of samsara, overlooking the needs of marginalized groups based on religion and ethnicity (as noted by Piyadassi Thera). Those who overcome greed realize that all mundane pleasures are fleeting and transient. In a society driven by consumerism, people may find themselves endlessly chasing after things of little value, becoming enslaved by them.
Hatred is another unwholesome mental state that fosters division and conflict, distancing us from genuine relationships. It encompasses unwholesome mental states such as ill will, enmity, hostility, and prejudice. Hatred can be subtle, lying dormant in a person’s mind until it finds expression in unexpected moments. This destructive emotion can degenerate into mass-scale violence and bloodshed within society. Today, hatred and hostility against minorities based on religion and ethnicity are prevalent in many countries. People are often targeted by bigotry and hate, leading to a rise in antagonistic and derogatory behavior toward certain religious and ethnic groups. Hatred, enmity, and retaliation do not foster spiritual well-being; rather, they vitiate our own minds. Buddhists are encouraged to cultivate metta (loving-kindness). Greed and hatred, coupled with ignorance, are the chief causes of the evils that pervade this deluded world. As noted by Narada, “The enemy of the whole world is lust (greed), through which all evils come to living beings. This lust, when obstructed by some cause, transforms into wrath.”
The most profound of these afflictions, ignorance (avijja) or delusion (moha), clouds our judgment and obscures our capacity for understanding, causing us to harm ourselves and others through misguided actions. Addressing bhikkhus, the Buddha declared, ” I do not perceive any single hindrance other than the hindrance of ignorance by which mankind is obstructed, and for so long as in samsara, it is indeed through the hindrance of ignorance that humankind is obstructed and for a long time runs on, wanders in samsara. No other single thing exists like the hindrance of ignorance or delusion, which obstructs humankind and make wander forever. This unwholesome mindset generates negative speech, actions, and thoughts, perpetuating our own suffering. As stated in the Dhammapada, “All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; if one speaks or acts with an evil mind, suffering follows.”
Buddhism urges us to go beyond merely addressing the symptoms of our problems. Instead, it invites us to explore the roots of our suffering and examine how greed, hatred, and ignorance manifest in our lives. By uncovering these sources of distress, we can cultivate essential qualities such as compassion, loving-kindness (metta), and acceptance. These virtues are crucial for ethical engagement with significant societal issues, including environmental challenges and social inequality.
In a world marked by material prosperity and emotional chaos, many individuals may feel lost or overwhelmed. The teachings of the Buddha remain relevant today, reminding us that the origins of our struggles often reside within our own minds. By practising ethical self-discipline and steering clear of destructive emotions like jealousy, anger, and arrogance, we can transform our experiences and relationships.
Buddhism teaches that cultivating wholesome mental qualities is essential for spiritual advancement. The positive counterparts to the three unwholesome states are non-greed (alobha), non-hatred (adosa), and non-delusion (amoha). These virtues represent not merely the absence of negativity but also the active presence of beneficial qualities such as generosity (dana), loving kindness (metta), and wisdom (panna). Each of these six mental states serves as a foundation for both personal growth and societal harmony.
Human beings are often tempted by moral transgressions rooted in unwholesome qualities. Actions driven by greed, hatred and ignorance require wisdom and mindful awareness to overcome them, allowing us to see the interconnectedness of all beings and act accordingly.
As we strive to abandon these unwholesome states of mind and cultivate awareness, we contribute positively to our lives and the broader world. By embracing Buddhist teachings, we learn that transforming our minds can significantly impact our experiences and the lives of those around us. Through this mindful practice, we can aspire to create a more compassionate, harmonious existence, transcending the limitations of unwholesome mental states and fostering a deeper connection with ourselves and others.
by Dr. Chandradasa Nanayakkara
Features
How does the Buddha differ?
Buddhism, perhaps, is not a religion if the definition of religion is strictly applied. However, by an extension of that definition, as well as by consensus, Buddhism is considered a religion and is the fourth largest religion with about half a billion followers worldwide. Of the four great religions in the world, Christianity is still way ahead with 2.6 billion adherents, followed by Islam with 1.9 billion and Hinduism with 1.2 billion followers. In most Western Christian countries church attendances are on the decline whilst the numbers following Islam are increasing with Islamic youth displaying signs of increasing religious ardour. There are recent reports that Buddhism has also joined the ranks of shrinking religions. Is this cause for concern? Is this happening by the very nature of Buddhism?
Hinduism, the world’s oldest living religion rooted in the Indus Valley Civilization and dating back at least four millennia, is considered to have evolved from ancient cultural and religious practices than being founded by a single individual, unlike the other three religions. The Buddha differs from Jesus Christ and Prophet Mohammed in many ways, the most important being that there is no higher power involved in what the Buddha discovered.
Jesus Christ is considered the ‘Son of God’ and Christianity is built on the life, resurrection and teachings of Christ with emphasis on the belief in one God expressed through the Trinity: God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, there is no room for questioning the words of the Almighty passed through the Son.
Islam, with its Five Pillars of faith, frequent daily prayers, charity, fasting during Ramadan and pilgrimage to Mecca, is founded on revelations made by Almighty God, Allah, to Mohammed, the last of his Prophets, which are recorded in verse in the Holy Book, Quran. Muslims consider the Quran to be verbatim words of God and the unaltered, final revelation. This leaves even less room for questioning.
In contrast, the Buddha achieved everything by himself with no help from any higher source. Rebelling against some of the practices in the religion to which he was born and seeking a solution to the ever-pervading sense of dissatisfaction, Prince Siddhartha embarked on a journey of discovery that culminated in Enlightenment, under the Bodhi tree on the full moon day of the month of Vesak.
Hinduism, or Sanatana Dharma as traditionally referred to by followers, encompasses the concepts of Karma, Samsara, Moksha and Dharma with a creator Brahma, preserver Vishnu and destroyer Shiva. In addition, there are multitudes of gods serving various functions and there are ritual practices of Puja (worship), Bhakti (devotion), Yajna (sacrificial rites) in addition to meditation and Yoga. The one thing that has blighted Hinduism, on top of sacrifices, is the caste system. The uncompromising attitude of Brahmins led to the formation Sikhism as well, long after the establishment of Buddhism.
Prince Siddhartha studied under eminent teachers of the day, of which there were many, but realised the limitations of their knowledge. Having already given up the extreme of luxury, he went to the other extreme of self-deprivation which after a search for six years, he realised also was not the solution to the problem. Exploring through his mind he realised the truth and came up with the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. He shunned extremes and proposed the Middle Path which seems to hold sway in many spheres of life, even today.
Buddha’s greatest achievement was the analysis of the mind and scientists are only now establishing the accuracy of the concepts the Buddha elucidated, not with the help of supernatural powers or sophisticated machinery at the disposal of modern-day scientists but by the exploration of the mind by turning the searchlight inwards.
Having discovered the cause of universal dissatisfaction and the path to overcome it, the Buddha walked across vast swathes of India, most likely barefoot, preaching to many, in terms they could understand, as evidenced by the different suttas illustrating the same fact in different ways; to the intelligent it was a short explanation but for others it was a more detailed discussion.
In sharp contrast to all other religious leaders, the Buddha encouraged discussion and challenge before acceptance. What the Buddha stated in the Kalama Sutta, acceptance only after conviction, laid the foundation for scientific thinking.
The Buddha, being a human not supernatural, never claimed infallibility as evidenced by his agreement with his father King Suddhodana that ordaining his son Rahula without permission was a mistake and took steps to ensure that this did not happen again. In fact, the entire Vinaya Pitaka is not an arbitrary rule book laid down by the Buddha, but are the rules the Buddha laid down for the Sangha, based on errant actions by Bhikkhus. Long before the legal concept of retroactive justice was established, the Buddha implemented it in the Vinaya Pitaka.
In an interesting video on YouTube titled “Nature of Buddhism”, Bhante Dhammika of Australia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY8WfGJq2FI) discusses some unique aspects of Buddhism. Some religions are ‘high demand’ religions where the followers are required to strictly adhere to certain rules which is not the case in Buddhism and he opines that this has led to the gentleness of Buddhists, at times leading to even being lackadaisical! Interestingly, as a widely travelled person, he describes his personal experience of the change of people’s attitudes on going from places with Buddhist influence to others. Speaking of Sri Lanka, where he spent many years, he commends the traditional hospitality as well as lack of cruelty to animals. He refers to “Law based religions” where some things are compulsory whereas in Buddhism there is no compulsion. Buddha was not a lawgiver but recommended good behaviour, giving reasons why and encouraged thinking. Some religions are exclusivist, claiming that there is nothing in other religions. Buddhism is not and Bhante Dhammika refers to an incident where the Buddha encouraged a disciple who converted from Jainism to continue to give alms to his former Jain colleagues.
Have all these strengths of Buddhism become its weakness and the reason for the shrinking number of followers? Had Buddhism demanded more from followers would it have flourished better? Is the numbers game that important? These are interesting questions to ponder over and I am sure, in time, researchers would write theses on these.
Whilst total numbers may diminish in traditional Buddhist areas, more people in the West are recognising the value of the philosophy of Buddhism. Mindfulness, a concept the Buddha introduced is gaining wide acceptance and is increasingly applied in many spheres of modern life. Perhaps, what is important is not the numbers that practise Buddhism as a religion but the lasting influence of the Buddha’s concepts and foundations he laid for modern scientific thinking and analysis of the mind!
By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana
Features
Political violence stalking Trump administration
It would not be particularly revelatory to say that the US is plagued by ‘gun violence’. It is a deeply entrenched and widespread malaise that has come in tandem with the relative ease with which firearms could be acquired and owned by sections of the US public, besides other causes.
However, a third apparent attempt on the life of US President Donald Trump in around two and a half years is both thought-provoking and unsettling for the defenders of democracy. After all, whatever its short comings the US remains the world’s most vibrant democracy and in fact the ‘mightiest’ one. And the US must remain a foremost democracy for the purpose of balancing and offsetting the growing power of authoritarian states in the global power system, who are no friends of genuine representational governance.
Therefore, the recent breaching of the security cordon surrounding the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington at which President Trump and his inner Cabinet were present, by an apparently ‘Lone Wolf’ gunman, besides raising issues relating to the reliability of the security measures deployed for the President, indicates a notable spike in anti-VVIP political violence in particular in the US. It is a pointer to a strong and widespread emergence of anti-democratic forces which seem to be gaining in virulence and destructiveness.
The issues raised by the attack are in the main for the US’ political Right and its supporters. They have smugly and complacently stood by while the extremists in their midst have taken centre stage and begun to dictate the course of Right wing politics. It is the political culture bred by them that leads to ‘Lone Wolf’ gunmen, for instance, who see themselves as being repressed or victimized, taking the law into their own hands, so to speak, and perpetrating ‘revenge attacks’ on the state and society.
A disproportionate degree of attention has been paid particularly internationally to Donald Trump’s personality and his eccentricities but such political persons cannot be divorced from the political culture in which they originate and have their being. That is, “structural” questions matter. Put simply, Donald Trump is a ‘true son’ of the Far Right, his principal support base. The issues raised are therefore for the President as well as his supporters of the Right.
We are obliged to respect the choices of the voting public but in the case of Trump’s election to the highest public position in the US, this columnist is inclined to see in those sections that voted for Trump blind followers of the latter who cared not for their candidate’s suitability, in every relevant respect, and therefore acted irrationally. It would seem that the Right in the US wanted their candidate to win by ‘hook or by crook’ and exercise power on their behalf.
By making the above observations this columnist does not intend to imply that voting publics everywhere in the world of democracy cast their vote sensibly. In the case of Sri Lanka, for example, the question could be raised whether the voters of the country used their vote sensibly when voting into office the majority of Executive Presidents and other persons holding high public office. The obvious answer is ‘no’ and this should lead to a wider public discussion on the dire need for thoroughgoing voter education. The issue is a ‘huge’ one that needs to be addressed in the appropriate forums and is beyond the scope of this column.
Looking back it could be said that the actions of Trump and his die-hard support base led to the Rule of Law in the US being undermined as perhaps never before in modern times. A shaming moment in this connection was the protest march, virtually motivated by Trump, of his supporters to the US Capitol on January 6th, 2021, with the aim of scuttling the presidential poll result of that year. Much violence and unruly behaviour, as known, was let loose. This amounted to denigrating the democratic process and encouraging the violent take over of the state.
In a public address, prior to the unruly conduct of his supporters, Trump is on record as blaring forth the following: ‘We won this election and we won by a landslide’, ‘We will stop the steal’, ‘We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen’, ‘If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.’
It is plain to see that such inflammatory utterances could lead impressionable minds in particular to revolt violently. Besides, they should have led the more rationally inclined to wonder whether their candidate was the most suitable person to hold the office of President.
Unfortunately, the latter process was not to be and the question could be raised whether the US is in the ‘safest pair of hands’. Needless to say, as events have revealed, Donald Trump is proving to be one of the most erratic heads of state the US has ever had.
However, the latest attempt on the life of President Trump suggests that considerable damage has been done to the democratic integrity of the US and none other than the President himself has to take on himself a considerable proportion of the blame for such degeneration, besides the US’ Far Right. They could be said to be ‘reaping the whirlwind.’
It is a time for soul-searching by the US Right. The political Right has the right to exist, so the speak, in a functional democracy but it needs to take cognizance of how its political culture is affecting the democratic integrity or health of the US. Ironically, the repressive and chauvinistic politics advocated by it is having the effect of activating counter-violence of the most murderous kind, as was witnessed at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Continued repressive politics could only produce more such incidents that could be self-defeating for the US.
Some past US Presidents were assassinated but the present political violence in the country brings into focus as perhaps never before the role that an anti-democratic political culture could play in unraveling the gains that the US has made over the decades. A duty is cast on pro-democracy forces to work collectively towards protecting the democratic integrity and strength of the US.
-
News2 days agoTreasury chief’s citizenship details sought from Australia
-
News4 days agoBIA drug bust: 25 monks including three masterminds arrested
-
Business5 days agoNestlé Lanka Announces Change in Leadership
-
News5 days agoHackers steal $3.2 Mn from Finance Ministry
-
News4 days agoBanks alert customers to phishing attacks
-
News3 days agoGovt. assures UN of readiness to introduce ‘vetting process’ for troops on overseas missions
-
News1 day agoRooftop Solar at Crossroads as Sri Lanka Shifts to Distributed Energy Future
-
Business3 days agoADB-backed grid upgrade tender signals next phase of Sri Lanka’s energy transition
